The Johnson Amendment, added to the U.S. tax code in 1964, prohibits certain nonprofit organizations from endorsing or opposing political candidates.
This amendment remained in place for over 60 years until August 2024, when a group of religious nonprofits, including two churches, filed a lawsuit that claimed the Johnson Amendment violated their free speech and free exercise rights under the First Amendment.
While the Biden administration upheld the Johnson Amendment, Trump has opposed the amendment since his first presidential campaign. On July 7, 2025, the Internal Revenue Service offered a settlement deal to the two churches that allows them to endorse or oppose political candidates in the course of their ordinary communications that are connected with their house of worship.
According to Alexandra Zaretsky, a litigation consultant for Americans United for Separation of Church and State, the amendment has historically been uncontroversial and not widely enforced by the IRS. Americans United is a nonprofit organization that works to protect freedom of religion and maintain church-state separation in courts, Congress, state legislatures and communities.
“This amendment protects the separation of church and state by making sure that houses of worship aren't corrupted by politics,” Zaretsky said. “That was also a part of what the founders meant when they wanted separation of church and state – they thought that both the state and religion flourish better when they're in their separate spheres and they're not overly influencing each other.”
Eric McDaniel, author of “Politics in the Pews: The Political Mobilization of Black Churches” and professor of government at the University of Texas in Austin said this settlement will make partisanship of churches more identifiable.
“Most people know where their pastors fall; it's not too difficult,” McDaniel said. “However, there is a concern or fear among many pastors that this might be a set-up or a trap, and that also in doing this they may lose members. While we do know people are already sorting in their churches along partisan lines, this will make it even more overt.”
McDaniel specifically studied Black churches and political mobilization after growing up in the Black church and developing an interest in the role of religion in shaping the way Black people think about the world. With the new settlement allowing churches to endorse political candidates and remain tax exempt, McDaniel expressed concern of deeper motives.
“What we’re seeing right now is Black churches are in this weird situation where they don’t fully trust the government and they think they might be set up,” McDaniel said. “This is really something for conservatives to feel free to say whatever they want to say, but they’ve already been free to say it.”
Rev. C.J. Brinson, a pastor at Umoja Church in Greensboro, North Carolina, and a statewide faith-based constituency organizer at the North Carolina Black Alliance, also noted a rise in conservatism. But, he sees possible changes to the U.S. tax code as an opportunity for Black churches.
“We’re in a unique period in America where religious nationalism, or a false interpretation of religion, particularly within the Christian tradition, is being used to undermine and oppress marginalized communities through policy,” Brinson said. “I believe that for progressive churches, particularly Black churches who have had a tradition in being prophetic and speaking truth to power, this may be an opportune time to be able to redefine what the politics are from the Black pulpit once again.”
But, Zaretsky warns that the settlement technically only applies to the two churches in the initial lawsuit and amendments cannot be reversed by court cases, only by Congress. She also explained that while many places of worship do engage in political conversations without repercussion, some political behavior is legally permitted.
“One other thing to remember is it's not that churches can't talk about politics,” Zaretsky said. “Churches can talk about issues that are related to them – they can talk about issues of the day and church leaders can endorse candidates on their own time, as long as they're not doing it on behalf of the church. What they can't do is get up on the pulpit and say ‘Vote for candidate X.’”
The fate of the Johnson Amendment is still uncertain, but religious leaders and nonprofit organizations continue to grapple with what this means for the relationship between religion and politics in America.
“For so long religious spaces have been seen as apolitical, but that has not been the case,” Brinson said. “We do politics, whether we are vocal about it or not.”