In a recent legal filing, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) signaled potential changes regarding the political activities of churches, suggesting that church leaders may now endorse political candidates from the pulpit.
This development has raised questions among nonprofits and religious leaders about the implications for the sector and where the IRS may eventually draw the line regarding political endorsement.
The IRS has stated that it does not plan to enforce the nearly 70-year-old tax code that prohibits nonprofits from endorsing candidates if such endorsements occur through typical communication methods “through the lens of faith.” This position arose as part of a proposed settlement in a federal lawsuit filed in Texas by two churches, a Christian advocacy organization, and the National Religious Broadcasters, who argue that the government’s restrictions on churches’ speech violate the First Amendment.
Traditionally, the Johnson Amendment has prohibited nonprofits from intervening in political campaigns, requiring them to maintain nonpartisan neutrality in their political activities.
Although the judge has yet to make a decision on the settlement agreement, experts believe that it indicates the IRS will likely be less aggressive in enforcing these political activity prohibitions against churches.
Most churches automatically qualify for tax-exempt status under section 501(c)(3), without needing to apply officially to the IRS. This allows donors to claim tax deductions for their contributions without the church having to file the annual Form 990 required of most other charities.
As a result, a great deal less financial information about churches is available to the IRS compared to other 501(c)(3) organizations, which must report their operations and finances. Furthermore, churches typically enjoy special protections from audits.
To maintain these tax benefits, churches have historically adhered to political activity restrictions similar to other nonprofits, in place for nearly seven decades.
Awaken Church, based in San Diego, has been previously noted for its political engagement, endorsing former candidate Donald Trump and supporting other conservative figures.
Despite these endorsements, legal experts have pointed out that such activities seem to infringe upon IRS rules prohibiting political interventions by 501(c)(3) organizations.
However, the IRS’s proposed settlement indicates that those actions may no longer be considered illegal.
In San Diego County, residents identify with a diverse range of religious beliefs. According to a Pew Research Center survey, approximately 53% identify as Christian, while 40% are unaffiliated. The Catholic Church is the largest Christian denomination in the area, followed by Evangelical and mainline Protestant churches, with about 6% of the population adhering to other faiths such as Judaism and Hinduism.
Officials from several San Diego churches, including Awaken Church, were contacted for comments regarding this issue, though most did not respond before publication.
Kevin Eckery, communications director for the San Diego Catholic Diocese, expressed that the IRS ruling will have little impact on the local Catholic Church and emphasized that the church aims to focus on broader moral issues rather than political affiliations.
Eckery stated, “There is nothing in Catholic teaching that is distinctly Democratic or Republican. For the most part, churches don’t want to reduce themselves to politics. They are supposed to have their eye on bigger issues than that.”
Opposition to the relaxation of restrictions has been voiced by various religious groups.
The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, which has multiple locations in San Diego, released a statement asserting that endorsing candidates is inconsistent with church-state separation principles.
Similarly, the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism condemned the IRS’s proposed changes, arguing that they undermine both democratic integrity and religious institutions.
The Interfaith Alliance, a nonprofit advocating for religious freedom, warned that the IRS’s interpretation could allow some religious organizations to function as partisan entities, compromising the essence of nonpartisan faith-based advocacy.
Broader concerns have arisen within the nonprofit sector as well. A coalition of 1,500 nonprofits has signed a letter to President Trump, emphasizing worries that allowing churches to endorse candidates could lead to similar allowances for all nonprofits, ultimately undermining the integrity of the sector.
They caution that permitting endorsements could place substantial pressure on nonprofits to take political stances, thus introducing potential avenues for dark money in political donations. National Council of Nonprofits CEO, Rick Cohen, explained that some advocates of this change might intend to create loopholes, allowing financial contributions through nonprofits that receive tax deductions, which would not be the case for direct campaign contributions.
Cohen emphasized the importance of maintaining protections that prevent nonprofits from being drawn into partisan politics, highlighting the difference between choosing not to endorse versus being prohibited from doing so by law.
Pushback against the proposed settlement has emerged from several legal organizations, urging the judge to reject it.
They argue that allowing houses of worship to engage in candidate endorsements during sermons and online communications poses risks to election integrity and transparency.
Opponents of the settlement contend that the manner in which this change is being pursued is inappropriate and claim it would enable parties to gain authority that is not permissible outside of court.
Legal experts warn that while the IRS’s settlement proposal does not permit churches to engage in campaign funding or expenditures, it creates ambiguity surrounding the extent of permissible political activity by churches.
For example, if a church newsletter includes an endorsement alongside other news, it raises difficult questions about compliance.
Experts also caution that churches might interpret these new guidelines as an encouragement to push beyond previous limits.
“As the saying goes, if the speed limit is 65, most people tend to drive a little faster,” noted Brad Onishi, a scholar specializing in Christian Nationalism and Evangelical history.
Awaken Church is part of a rising trend among evangelical congregations embracing Dominionism and Christian Nationalism, ideologies advocating for Christians to exert control over political and cultural institutions in alignment with biblical values.
This movement has emerged as a crucial voting bloc for President Donald Trump, with church leaders actively persuading congregants to support his candidacy.
Since his inauguration, President Trump has taken several actions that have been celebrated by the religious right, including issuing an executive order promoting recognition of only two genders, rolling back protections for LGBTQ+ individuals, and signing executive directives to address perceived anti-Christian discrimination within the federal government.
Additionally, the administration has provided guidance for federal employees encouraging open expression of religious beliefs in the workplace.
Hegseth led a Christian prayer service at the Pentagon during work hours, showcasing a blend of faith with governmental endorsement.
Onishi, who previously identified with Evangelical Christian Nationalism but has since criticized it as a threat to democracy, remarked, “It’s a significant moment for them to consider what additional benefits they might receive moving forward.”
He added, “You may think this change won’t have substantial effects, but there are already churches operating in this manner. Furthermore, we can anticipate politicians seeking endorsements from churches, which could carry considerable influence.
If a prominent megachurch in a smaller community endorses a candidate, it could significantly sway local elections.”
image source from：inewsource
