In summer 2025, the Internal Revenue Service quietly reshaped the American political and religious landscape. In a court filing that surprised both legal scholars and faith leaders, the IRS announced that houses of worship may now endorse political candidates during worship services without jeopardizing their tax-exempt status.

This move represents a dramatic reinterpretation of the Johnson Amendment, the 1954 law introduced by then–Senator Lyndon B. Johnson. For more than seventy years, the amendment has drawn a bright line: nonprofits—including churches, mosques, synagogues, and charities—could not endorse or oppose political candidates if they wished to retain the benefits of tax exemption. The goal was simple: to prevent taxpayer-subsidized institutions from becoming partisan campaign tools.

The recent IRS shift came in response to a lawsuit brought by the National Religious Broadcasters and two Texas churches. They argued that the Johnson Amendment violated their First Amendment rights by silencing pastors in the pulpit. In settling the case, the IRS conceded that statements made within religious services or customary church communications should be viewed as “good faith” expressions of belief rather than political intervention.

Supporters vs. Critics

Unsurprisingly, the announcement has split opinion along ideological lines. Supporters, including many evangelical leaders, have hailed the decision as a long-overdue restoration of free speech. They argue that churches have always been central to moral guidance in America and that religious leaders should not have to censor themselves when speaking about candidates who embody—or betray—those values. For them, the IRS has finally acknowledged that the pulpit is not just a spiritual platform but also a civic one.

Critics, however, see the move as deeply dangerous. By allowing tax-exempt churches to engage in overt political endorsements, the government risks creating a system of taxpayer-subsidized political organizing. Wealthy donors could funnel money through religious institutions, shielded from disclosure requirements, effectively creating dark-money channels immune to campaign finance laws. Critics also argue that the decision undermines the very integrity of faith communities, turning houses of worship into extensions of political parties rather than sanctuaries for spiritual renewal.

The National Council of Nonprofits called the shift a “radical alteration” of campaign finance law. Editorial boards warned that America is moving closer to a system where elections are waged not just in campaign rallies and town halls, but also from pulpits, altars, and choir lofts.

A Historic Warning

The tension between religion and politics is not new. American democracy has always wrestled with how to balance the free exercise of faith with the need to keep government institutions nonpartisan and accountable. Nearly two centuries ago, the writer and reformer Ellen G. White issued a caution that speaks directly to today’s dilemma:

“The union of the church with the state, be the degree never so slight, while it may appear to bring the world nearer to the church, does in reality but bring the church nearer to the world.” (The Great Controversy, p. 297)

White’s words remind us that even small compromises—“never so slight”—carry profound consequences. When the church aligns too closely with the state, it risks losing its spiritual voice. Instead of speaking truth to power, it becomes entangled in the ambitions of power itself. This is not just a theological concern. It is a civic one. A church that is indistinguishable from a political party cannot serve as a moral compass for a diverse nation.

What This Means for Churches

In practical terms, the IRS decision applies only to internal religious communications—sermons, bulletins, or other materials distributed to members. Nonreligious nonprofits are still bound by the Johnson Amendment, and houses of worship remain restricted from endorsing candidates through advertising or commercial media. Yet, as critics note, in the age of livestreaming and social media, the line between internal and external communication is increasingly blurry. A sermon given on Sunday can be broadcast worldwide in seconds, effectively serving as a political ad.

For some congregations, the decision may make little difference. Many pastors, priests, rabbis, and imams are reluctant to wade into electoral politics, fearing it will divide their communities. For others, however, this opens the door to a new era of religiously charged campaigns, where endorsements from the pulpit carry as much weight as endorsements from governors or CEOs.

What This Means for Democracy

The broader implications for democracy are sobering. By blessing political endorsements from the pulpit, the IRS has effectively reshaped the boundaries of campaign finance. The decision invites the risk of partisan churches, where spiritual belonging doubles as political affiliation. Instead of binding communities together across differences, religion could become yet another dividing line in an already polarized nation.

Moreover, because donations to churches are tax-deductible, political spending disguised as tithes could undermine transparency in elections. Campaign finance laws were designed to limit corruption and ensure voters know who funds which candidates. Allowing political activity in tax-exempt churches chips away at those safeguards.

The IRS ruling is not final; it still requires approval from a federal court in Texas. But the precedent has already been set. Even if future administrations attempt to roll back the interpretation, the wall separating church and state has been weakened.

At this crossroads, Ellen White’s warning rings with urgency. What appears as a small allowance, a sermon mentioning a candidate, may soon transform the entire landscape of American elections. If pulpits become political platforms, both church and democracy stand to lose. The church risks its credibility as a spiritual authority, and the nation risks deepening its divisions through the very institutions meant to heal them.

Conclusion

The IRS’s decision to allow churches to endorse political candidates is more than a bureaucratic adjustment; it is a cultural turning point. Whether it leads to a healthier democracy rooted in moral conviction or a fractured polity dominated by partisan pulpits will depend on how faith leaders and communities respond.

The question for churches is simple yet profound: will they embrace their newfound freedom to publicly wield political power, or will they heed Ellen White’s counsel to resist even the slightest union of church and state?

America’s future may hinge on how seriously they take that warning.

---

Julian Vasquez Heilig is a nationally recognized policy scholar, public intellectual, and civil rights advocate. A trusted voice in public policy, he has testified for state legislatures, the U.S. Congress, the United Nations, and the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, while also advising presidential and gubernatorial campaigns. His work has been cited by major outlets including The New York Times, The Washington Post, and Los Angeles Times, and he has appeared on networks from MSNBC and PBS to NPR and DemocracyNow!. He is a recipient of more than 30 honors, including the 2025 NAACP Keeper of the Flame Award, Vasquez Heilig brings both scholarly rigor and grassroots commitment to the fight for equity and justice.