The Internal Revenue Service’s decision to stop penalizing churches and pastors for endorsing political candidates has reignited a national debate over free speech, religious liberty, and the role of faith in public life.

As part of a joint legal motion filed in federal court, the IRS acknowledged last week that pastors may speak to their congregations about political candidates without jeopardizing their church’s tax-exempt status. 

The motion was part of a case involving two Texas churches—Sand Springs Church and First Baptist Church Waskom— and the National Religious Broadcasters.

“Bona fide communications internal to a house of worship, between the house of worship and its congregation, in connection with religious services, do neither of those things [participating or intervening in a political campaign], any more than does a family discussion concerning candidates,” the motion reads.

The decision effectively reinterprets the Johnson Amendment, a 1954 measure named after then-Sen. Lyndon B. Johnson, which prohibited 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organizations—including churches—from endorsing or opposing political candidates. 

Though enforcement has historically been rare, the law has long cast a shadow over sermons and statements from the pulpit.

In Houston, the Johnson Amendment has, at times, been cited as justification for monitoring and discouraging political commentary from the pulpit. Pastors at prominent churches such as Second Baptist Church have faced scrutiny and internal pressure to steer clear of political endorsements during sermons, with concerns that violating the amendment could jeopardize their tax-exempt status. 

The issue gained further national attention when Houston Democrat Congresswoman Lizzie Fletcher and several other House Democrats called on the IRS to review the tax-exempt status of the Family Research Council and “other churches,” accusing them of engaging in partisan political activity. 

“To ‘participate’ in a political campaign is ‘to take part’ in the political campaign, and to ‘intervene’ in a political campaign is ‘to interfere with the outcome or course’ of the political campaign,” the IRS clarified. 

“When a house of worship in good faith speaks to its congregation, through its customary channels of communication on matters of faith in connection with religious services, concerning electoral politics viewed through the lens of religious faith, it neither ‘participate[s]’ nor ‘intervene[s]’ in a ‘political campaign,’ within the ordinary meaning of those words.”

The move drew applause from religious liberty advocates across the political spectrum who believe the Johnson Amendment has long chilled religious speech and blurred the lines between constitutional rights and government oversight.

Supporters of the change say it “unshackles” pulpits from what they view as unconstitutional restrictions on religious expression. For decades, some pastors refrained from even mentioning public policy or legislation for fear of crossing a legal line and risking the financial viability of their ministries.

“This is a long-overdue step to restore the rights of religious leaders,” said one pastor involved in the suit. “Preaching the gospel shouldn’t mean surrendering your voice on moral and political issues.”

Critics, however, warn that the decision opens the door for new streams of unregulated, tax-sheltered money to flow into electoral politics. By allowing churches to endorse candidates without penalty, watchdog groups argue, wealthy donors may exploit religious institutions as pass-throughs for political giving—contributions that would otherwise not be tax-deductible.

A major concern, said constitutional law scholars, is the rise of “dark money”—campaign contributions with little transparency or accountability. Others warn that the erosion of the Johnson Amendment could lead to houses of worship becoming overly entangled in partisan campaigns, threatening both religious integrity and democratic norms.

Legal scholars have noted for years that the Johnson Amendment raises serious constitutional questions. Some argue it imposes an “unconstitutional condition” on tax-exempt churches, forcing them to choose between free speech and government benefits. Others say it constitutes viewpoint discrimination, singling out religious entities while allowing similar nonprofits, such as newspaper-affiliated charities, to speak freely without similar restrictions.

Those defending the original law point to U.S. Supreme Court precedents such as Cammarano v. United States and Regan v. Taxation with Representation of Washington, arguing that tax exemptions are privileges—not rights—and that the government is not obligated to subsidize political activity.

Still, the IRS filing aligns more closely with the reasoning in Citizens United v. FEC, which affirmed political speech as a core constitutional value and may ultimately prove influential in future litigation surrounding nonprofit speech.

The new guidance comes after years of challenges and shifting enforcement. President Donald Trump pledged during his first campaign to repeal the Johnson Amendment, later signing an executive order discouraging the IRS from targeting churches for political speech. But the agency did not formally clarify its position until now.

Though some call it uncommon, enforcement of the amendment has occurred. In 1992, the Church at Pierce Creek in New York lost its tax-exempt status after publishing an ad opposing then-presidential candidate Bill Clinton. Courts upheld the decision. In another case, the IRS revoked the exemption of Billy James Hargis’s Christian Crusade in the 1960s due to its political activity, severely hampering the group’s operations.

Despite these examples, enforcement of the Johnson Amendment has remained sporadic, in part due to concerns about government intrusion into sermons and religious spaces. Excessive scrutiny, critics say, could undermine the very church-state separation the amendment was meant to protect.

Ultimately, this latest IRS clarification may signal a shift in how the government balances religious liberty and campaign finance law. It also reaffirms a deeper principle embedded in the First Amendment: that faith leaders—like all Americans—have a right to speak freely, even about politics.

Americans are exposed to a variety of viewpoints in churches, schools, homes, and through media. No single institution determines how someone votes. That responsibility lies with the individual.

The role of the church, as many pastors see it, is to guide their congregations according to their faith traditions—not to dictate political outcomes. Likewise, the role of the government is not to silence speech, but to preserve a free marketplace of ideas.

As one legal filing put it, “communications from a house of worship to its congregation in connection with religious services through its usual channels of communication on matters of faith do not run afoul of the Johnson Amendment as properly interpreted.”

In that spirit, the debate over the Johnson Amendment may be less about politics and more about who gets to speak—and who decides when they’ve said too much.