Maryland churches could openly endorse candidates from the pulpit, under IRS proposal
The Rev. L.K. Floyd believes church leaders should have the liberty to speak to their congregations and support certain political candidates, especially when it comes to improving their communities.
Floyd, pastor at Heart Changers Baptist Church in Silver Spring, said Friday some people may believe that allowing that only helps evangelical Christians, pointing to white evangelicals like the late Rev. Jerry Falwell Sr. who established the Moral Majority in 1979 as a political organization pushing a 'pro-family' agenda.
'Not allowing the Black church, in particular, to be able to speak from the pulpit their political views, and also to be able to endorse their candidates and focus and support their agendas, I believe would be dangerous and problematic,' Floyd said. 'When there is something that is unjust … we must speak truth to power.'
Now, the Internal Revenue Service agrees.
In a proposed settlement filed last week, the IRS agreed with the National Religious Broadcasters that churches and other houses of worship should be allowed to formally endorse political candidate without endangering their nonprofit status under the tax code.
A U.S. District Court judge in Texas still has to approve the agreement, which would settle a lawsuit by two Texas churches, the Intercessors for America and the National Religious Broadcasters that challenged the 'Johnson Amendment' to the Internal Revenue Code. That 1954 amendment was introduced by then-Texas Sen. Lyndon B. Johnson, and said that nonprofit organizations can maintain tax exempt status if they refrain from political campaigning.
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
There's no specific deadline for the judge to make a decision. A lawyer with the IRS didn't respond to an email for comment. A lawyer for the plaintiffs declined to comment Thursday.
The seven-page court filing states the amendment violates the plaintiffs' First and Fifth Amendment rights to freedom of speech and free exercise of religion, as well as their rights to equal protection under the law. It said merely speaking from the pulpit does not violate the Johnson Amendment rule against participating in or intervening in a political campaign.
'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, any more than does a family discussion concerning candidates,' the proposed settlement says.
'Thus, 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,' it says.
The settlement also acknowledged the IRS 'has not enforced the Johnson Amendment against houses of worship for speech concerning electoral politics in the context of worship services.'
University of Notre Dame law Professor Lloyd Hitoshi Mayer said in an interview Thursday that the IRS hasn't been enforcing the so-called Johnson amendment for at least the past 20 years.
'Many religious leaders have become bolder and bolder in inviting candidates to come speak at their church, calling them up to get praised, or saying other things that clearly indicate support of a candidate and not have the IRS open up an audit or threaten their types of status as a result,' said Hitoshi Mayer, whose areas of research include election and tax law and political activity by churches and other religious organizations.
'It gives churches that perhaps were hesitant to engage in this activity because they were worried about the IRS a green light to do so,' he said.
Even if the judge decides not to approve the settlement, and asks both parties to go back and try again, Hitoshi Mayer said the IRS acknowledges 'we are not going to enforce the Johnson amendment' against churches and other houses of worship. At least it wouldn't happen during the Trump administration, he said, because President Donald Trump (R) said during his first term in office he wanted to repeal the amendment.
Under shadow of deportation, Latinos find light at Hyattsville church
On Wednesday during a lunch with African leaders, Trump said, 'I love the fact that churches can endorse a political candidate. If somebody of faith wants to endorse, I think it's something that I'd like to hear. Those people were not allowed to speak up. Now they're allowed to speak up. I think it's terrific.'
Jeff Trimbath, president of the nonprofit Maryland Family Institute, called the IRS court filing 'a watershed moment.'
'For too long, many pastors have operated under the chilling belief that the law prevented them from equipping their congregations on how to think biblically about civic engagement, candidates, and public policy,' Trimbath said in a statement Tuesday. 'The IRS made it clear: there is no such prohibition. Let's pray this leads to pulpits that are once again unafraid to preach the whole counsel of God — including His truth for the public square.'
Not all religious groups are on board. Ashley Hildebrand, senior adviser with Catholics for Choice based in Washington, D.C., hopes the judge rejects the settlement, especially given what it could mean for the separation of church and state.
'If the church can endorse a political candidate, it is just one more way that priests could preach from the pulpit and further alienate people in the pews,' Hildebrand said Thursday.
'If we allow the pulpit to be weaponized or put into service of a political agenda more so than it already is, we are essentially allowing a very well-organized religious force to mobilize its base in pursuit of a partisan agenda,' she said. 'That is inherently dangerous.'
No matter what the judge decides, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops said it plans to maintain its stance of not endorsing or opposing political candidates.
'The IRS was addressing a specific case, and it doesn't change how the Catholic Church engages in public debate,' the conference's spokesperson Chieko Noguchi said in a statement Tuesday. 'The Church seeks to help Catholics form their conscience in the Gospel so they might discern which candidates and policies would advance the common good.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
an hour ago
- Boston Globe
Can Trump defeat ‘woke AI?'
'Woke' is right-wing shorthand for a variety of liberal projects aimed at achieving racial and gender fairness, often using means that conservative voters reject, such as racial preferences in hiring and college admissions. The Trump administration believes that these values have been embedded in the large language models (LLMs) that power many popular AI products, such as ChatGPT, leading them to produce information outputs that are slanted with liberal biases. Advertisement There's considerable evidence that this is true. Multiple studies by scholars at US and foreign universities have found that when asked political questions, the leading AI systems often favor more liberal perspectives on issues like abortion, climate change, or immigration. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up In addition, there are high-profile examples of AIs generating false information in an apparent effort to reflect racial and ethnic diversity. Last year, a Google AI image generator depicted Black people when asked for images of Vikings and showed Black men and Asian women as World War II German soldiers. Of course, there's also evidence that AI is sometimes biased against minorities, women, and gay people. But this isn't a high priority for the Trump administration. Advertisement Instead, it's mainly worried about AIs that are trained to promote diversity, equity, and inclusion, or DEI. Hence, its new executive order seeks to purge DEI from all artificial intelligence systems used by the federal government. 'President Trump is protecting Americans from biased AI outputs driven by ideologies like diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) at the cost of accuracy,' said a statement issued by the administration. But Samir Jain, vice president of policy at the Center for Democracy and Technology, a tech-oriented political advocacy group, said the effort gets off to a bad start by mandating a ban on AI systems trained in DEI principles. 'The order itself is inherently contradictory,' said Jain, because eliminating DEI content from the training data will simply create a different form of bias. For example, he said, suppose the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which enforces civil rights laws, relies on an AI chatbot for researching racial or gender discrimination cases. If the chatbot is purged of DEI-related content, it might miss relevant court cases or academic research. 'Then that tool is no longer as useful,' Jain said. Massachusetts Democratic Senator Ed Markey went further, arguing that the Trump AI plan is unconstitutional. In a letter, Markey urged the heads of leading AI companies to resist the proposal. 'Republicans are using state power to pressure private companies to adopt certain political viewpoints, in this case by pressuring the Big Tech companies to ensure that responses from AI chatbots meet some unspecified, vague definition of ideological neutrality,' Markey said. Andrew Hall, professor of political economy at Advertisement For instance, the order states that government workers using AI should be able to request ideologically-slanted information if they see fit. Thus, an AI would be barred from automatically flagging evidence of racism in government contracting. But a federal worker would still be free to ask the AI to seek out such evidence. Still, purging all political bias from AI chatbots is probably impossible. 'Any model inherently reflects the priority viewpoints of the model builders,' said Jain. 'There's a real question whether there's anything you could call objective AI.' Hall agrees that political biases can never be completely purged from AI chatbots. But he notes that not all biases are bad. A chatbot ought to be biased against Nazi ideology, or lynchings, for example. The big challenge comes when dealing with less extreme controversies, where people of good will harbor major disagreements. How can an AI be trained to present a balanced point of view? Hall offers a possible solution. In a recent research paper, he concludes that people are good at spotting left-wing bias in AI-generated information, regardless of their own political views. 'Americans view the bulk of LLM output on hot-button political issues to be left-slanted,' said Hall. 'Even Democrats say this, on net.' His research also found that when people perceive an AI's output as unbiased, they are more inclined to trust it. Hall says that this discovery opens the door to 'a thoughtful approach that puts the American public in charge.' The leading AI bots could have their output regularly reviewed by panels of ordinary people, who'd grade the content for biases. Bot makers could tweak their output accordingly. Advertisement Whatever method might be used by AI vendors to comply with the executive order could be equally applied to commercial and consumer versions of their products. That could mean that in a few years all of us will be using AI systems that don't lean quite so far to the left. Hiawatha Bray can be reached at
Miami Herald
17 hours ago
- Miami Herald
A clash over a promotion puts Hegseth at odds with his generals
WASHINGTON - In the spring, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth decided not to promote a senior Army officer who had led troops over five tours in Afghanistan and Iraq because Hegseth suspected, without evidence, that the officer had leaked sensitive information to the news media, according to three people with knowledge of the matter. When Lt. Gen. Douglas A. Sims II was cleared of the allegations, Hegseth briefly agreed to promote him, only to change course again early this month, the officials said. This time, Hegseth maintained that the senior officer was too close to Gen. Mark Milley, a former chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff whom President Donald Trump has accused of disloyalty. Hegseth's sudden reversal prompted a rare intervention from Gen. Dan Caine, the current chair of the Joint Chiefs. He urged Hegseth to reconsider, said the officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations. Hegseth met with Sims one final time but refused to budge. Sims is expected to retire in the coming months after 34 years in the military, officials said. Through a spokesperson, Sims and Caine declined to comment. A Pentagon spokesperson declined to comment on Hegseth's role. The standoff over his promotion reflects an ongoing clash between Hegseth's highly partisan worldview, in which he has written that the Democratic Party 'really does hate America,' and the long-standing tradition of an apolitical military that pledges an oath to the Constitution. Hegseth's actions could shape the military's top ranks for years to come. His insistence on absolute loyalty, backed with repeated threats of polygraphs, also creates uncertainty and mistrust that threaten to undermine the readiness and effectiveness of the force, officials said. The tension between top military officers and their civilian leaders has been persistent since the earliest days of Trump's second term, when senior administration officials ordered the removal of Milley's portrait from a Pentagon hallway. Caine, who pressed Hegseth on Sims' behalf, got the job of Joint Chiefs chair after Hegseth and Trump fired Gen. Charles Q. Brown Jr., his predecessor. Hegseth accused Brown, who is Black, of prioritizing diversity over the combat effectiveness of the force. Also removed during the first months of the new administration were the first woman to command the Navy, Adm. Lisa Franchetti; the first woman to command the Coast Guard, Adm. Linda Fagan; Hegseth's senior military assistant, Lt. Gen. Jennifer Short; and the U.S. military representative to the NATO military committee, Vice Adm. Shoshana Chatfield. All were dismissed as part of a campaign to root out diversity, equity and inclusion from the military and restore what Hegseth has described as a 'warrior ethos.' Hegseth also recently withdrew the nomination of Rear Adm. Michael 'Buzz' Donnelly to lead the Navy's 7th Fleet in Japan -- its largest overseas force -- amid reports in conservative media that seven years earlier the admiral had allowed a drag performance to take place on the aircraft carrier Ronald Reagan. The decision not to promote Sims, who is white, seems unrelated to any issues of race or gender. Rather, the general's career seems to have become tangled up in broader suspicions about leaks and a mistrust of senior military officers that have defined much of Hegseth's first six months on the job. Hegseth, a former Fox News host and an Iraq War veteran, came to the Pentagon with little managerial experience. Since his arrival, a series of firings and resignations in his inner circle have left him with only a skeleton staff of civilian aides to run his office. He has been without a permanent chief of staff since late April. Ricky Buria, a recently retired Marine colonel who has forged a close relationship with Hegseth, has been serving in the critical role. But White House officials, who have concerns about Buria's competence and qualifications, have blocked Hegseth from formally appointing him to the job, officials said. Buria, meanwhile, has clashed repeatedly with many of Hegseth's closest aides and some officers in the Pentagon. This spring, Eric Geressy, a retired sergeant major who served with Hegseth in Iraq and now advises him in the Pentagon, threatened to quit after an argument with Buria, according to people with knowledge of the situation. Around the same time, the White House directed Hegseth to cease using polygraph tests on his team, after one of his senior aides complained, a former Pentagon official said. The rift and the decision to stop the polygraph testing were reported earlier by The Washington Post. Geressy briefly went to his home in Florida before Hegseth persuaded him to return, officials said. Hegseth is also still contending with a review by the Pentagon's inspector general related to his disclosure on the Signal messaging app of the precise timing of U.S. fighter jets' airstrikes against the Iranian-backed Houthi militia in Yemen in March. The office has received evidence that the information that Hegseth put in the commercial chat app came from a classified Central Command document, according to two U.S. officials with knowledge of the review. The classified origins of the information were reported earlier by the Post. The infighting, investigations and personnel churn have strained Hegseth's ability to manage critical operations in the Pentagon. Hegseth found himself in the crosshairs this month after Democrats and Republicans in Congress blamed him for pausing critical shipments of interceptors and other arms to Ukraine without sufficiently consulting with the White House or the State Department. The suspension was particularly jarring because just days earlier Trump had said he was open to selling more weapons to Ukraine after meeting with President Volodymyr Zelenskyy on the sidelines of a NATO meeting in The Hague. It also left the impression that Hegseth and his top aides had failed to keep the president and senior White House officials in the loop. As aides to Hegseth traded blame, and then tried to play down the impact of the pause, Trump dramatically overruled the Pentagon, saying he was unhappy with President Vladimir Putin of Russia. In a further twist, Trump endorsed a plan for NATO countries to send Patriot antimissile systems to Ukraine and replace them by purchasing new arms from the United States. It was an approach conceived by NATO countries. Hegseth has delegated responsibility for working out details of the arms transfers to senior U.S. military officers in Europe. The frustration with Hegseth is seeping out. Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., who cast the deciding vote to confirm Hegseth, this month called him ill-suited to lead the Pentagon. 'With the passing of time, I think it's clear he's out of his depth as a manager of a large, complex organization,' Tillis told CNN. For now, Hegseth's missteps do not seem to have hurt his standing with the person who matters most: Trump. Like Trump, Hegseth had a career in television before joining the administration and relishes the performative aspects of his job. As defense secretary, he regularly posts videos that show him exercising with troops. The photo ops -- known inside the Pentagon as 'troop touches' -- are a central part of almost all his public appearances, current and former aides said. Several officials have complained that the photos and videos -- including one that he posted from Omaha Beach in Normandy in which he joins Army Rangers carrying a soldier on a stretcher as part of D-Day remembrances -- are distractions that serve primarily to bolster his image. Anna Kelly, a White House spokesperson, said that Hegseth retained Trump's 'full confidence' and cited the 'critical role' he played 'in ensuring the flawless execution' of the strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities in June. Current and former military officials said that Trump largely bypassed Hegseth in the days leading up to the strikes and instead relied on Caine and Gen. Michael Erik Kurilla, the head of Central Command, for counsel. But officials with knowledge of the president's thinking said Trump especially admired his defense secretary's combative response at a news conference to reports questioning the effectiveness of the attack. Today Hegseth is managing the Pentagon with a smaller immediate staff than when he started in January. Several top aides were forced out or quit. In late April, three top aides were fired and escorted from the building. Hegseth has repeatedly accused them, without offering evidence, of leaking classified information to the media. The fired aides, who have not been charged with any wrongdoing, were recently told that an investigation into the allegations against them was in its final stages and would soon be shared with the Pentagon's senior leaders, officials said. In the wake of their dismissal and a series of negative stories about Hegseth's performance in the job, Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary, offered a window into how Hegseth views the department he now runs. 'This is what happens when the entire Pentagon is working against you and working against the monumental change you are trying to implement,' she said. That same spirit seems to animate the Pentagon today. Only a few months ago, Sims' promotion to four stars seemed to be a given. Of the last 21 officers to hold his current position, 19 were promoted to four-star rank. 'He's the type of person you would want your kids serving under -- extremely dedicated, selfless and loyal,' said Brynt Parmeter, who stepped down in June as the Pentagon's chief talent management officer and has known Sims for more than three decades. The Pentagon gave a more muted assessment. In a statement, Sean Parnell, the Pentagon's chief spokesperson, thanked Sims for his 'decades of service.' 'We wish him well in his future endeavors,' Parnell wrote. This article originally appeared in The New York Times. Copyright 2025
New York Post
18 hours ago
- New York Post
How the Hunter Biden cover-up continues to this day
In the same week that Hunter Biden burst back onto the public stage to play the victim and lash out at Democrats, we also heard from his one time protector turned reluctant nemesis, Special Counsel David Weiss, with similarly self serving and disingenuous testimony to Congress. Weiss, the former US Attorney in the Bidens' home state of Delaware who presided over the troubled five year investigation into the former First Son, told the House Judiciary Committee that there just wasn't enough evidence to justify charging Hunter under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA). His investigators 'couldn't put together a sufficient case,' he said in June testimony released last week. Advertisement That's pretty rich, considering that those very IRS investigators complained bitterly about the obstruction and slow walking they faced on Weiss' watch every time they pursued an investigative trail that led to Joe Biden and the lucrative foreign lobbying Hunter did in his father's name. That's why IRS Supervisory Special Agent Gary Shapley and Special Agent Joseph Ziegler blew up their successful careers and became whistleblowers. Hunter's business model during his father's vice presidency and beyond revolved around foreign lobbying — including for the corrupt Ukrainian energy company Burisma that was paying him a million dollars a year, Chinese government-linked firms BHR and CEFC, and an oligarch client in Romania. Advertisement In fact, the very first email this newspaper published from Hunter's infamous laptop was from a Burisma executive, thanking him for arranging a meeting with his father the previous night. It wasn't just any old meeting, either. Hunter had invited VP Biden to a private dinner at Georgetown restaurant Cafe Milano in April 2015 to meet his partners from Ukraine, Russia and Kazakhstan, as his former 'best friend in business' Devon Archer told Congress. In their upcoming tell-all book, 'The Whistleblowers v the Big Guy,' Shapley and Ziegler point out that, along with that Burisma bombshell, emails and communications they recovered from the laptop showed that Hunter's relationship with DC lobbying shop Blue Star Strategies was tied to his position on the Burisma board and that the firm had been hired 'to influence U.S. government officials on Burisma's behalf.' Advertisement 'These connections raised red flags about potential violations of the Foreign Agents Registration Act FARA and any comprehensive warrant would naturally include references to individuals who may have been involved, even tangentially.' And so, when their team drafted a search warrant related to potential FARA violation, Weiss' top U.S. Attorney Lesley Wolf ordered them to remove all references to 'Political Figure 1,' the DOJ pseudonym for Joe Biden. 'Please focus on FARA evidence only. There should be nothing about Political Figure 1 in here,' Wolf wrote in an August 2020 email, according to their whistleblower testimony to Congress. Advertisement Every morning, the NY POSTcast offers a deep dive into the headlines with the Post's signature mix of politics, business, pop culture, true crime and everything in between. Subscribe here! Whenever their investigations might lead to Joe Biden they found subpoenas were denied, interviews were canceled or not allowed, and Hunter's lawyers were tipped off before search warrants could be executed. Prosecutors cited bad 'optics' or questioned whether the 'juice was worth the squeeze' For instance, Shapley testified that Wolf refused to approve a search warrant for a guest house Hunter had been staying in on Joe's palatial Delaware estate as part of FARA-related evidence collection. When they discovered incriminating WhatsApp messages Hunter wrote to a business partner at Chinese energy company CEFC on July 30, 2017, citing his father, the investigators were blocked from using phone location data to confirm that Joe really was in the room. 'I am sitting here with my father and we would like to understand why the commitment made has not been fulfilled,' Hunter wrote, demanding $10 million. 'I am very concerned that the Chairman has either changed his mind and broken our deal without telling me or that he is unaware of the promises and assurances that have been made have not been kept.' Advertisement Hunter also threatened that his father would retaliate if the Chinese did not do as he commanded: 'I will make certain that between the man sitting next to me and every person he knows and my ability to forever hold a grudge that you will regret not following my direction.' Here was Hunter explicitly claiming his father was involved in his business negotiations. Apart from the fact that Joe claimed that he knew nothing about his son's overseas business dealings, Shapley and Ziegler decided there were serious tax implications to the conversation, but they were blocked from pursuing them. They weren't even allowed to find out if Hunter had sent the message from Joe's house. 'The message was clear,' Shapley and Ziegler write in 'The Whistleblowers v. the Big Guy.' 'Although we were investigating Joe Biden's son — who, it seemed, had often involved his father in his shady overseas business dealings — none of our materials were supposed to mention Joe Biden. Advertisement 'Even when we needed material that might be in one of Joe Biden's homes or storage units, we couldn't mention him. The document might leak to the press, and that would make the Biden campaign look bad. 'And in the summer of 2020, there was nothing that the leadership of the FBI wanted less than to make Joe Biden look bad. Doing so might help elect Donald Trump for a second time.' How different was the way the FBI handled Donald Trump compared to Joe Biden. Whether it was the fake Steele Dossier the FBI treated as if it were legitimate evidence, or the raid on Mar a Lago, there was no concern about the 'optics' of investigating a sitting president or presidential candidate when it was Trump. Advertisement As for FARA, the once little-used law against lobbying the US on behalf of foreign interests has been selectively used to target Trump allies and Democrat enemies. For example, Paul Manafort, former chairman of Trump's 2016 campaign, was charged with FARA. So, too, was Gal Luft, the original Hunter Biden whistleblower, who told FBI and DOJ officials in a March 2019 secret meeting in Brussels that Hunter and his uncle Jim Biden were on the payroll of the Chinese. His accurate information was buried and then, one week before Republicans took back the House in 2022, Luft was charged with FARA and other violations. He is currently languishing in jail in Cyprus while Hunter escaped scot free. Advertisement In the last days of his presidency, Joe issued a uniquely tailored pardon for his son, stretching back 11 years and covering Hunter's conviction on gun charges and guilty plea on felony tax evasion charges that Weiss was forced to press after the sweetheart plea deal he'd stitched together with Hunter's lawyers fell apart in the wake of Shapley and Ziegler's revelations. In the end, Weiss forced the IRS to remove Shapley and Ziegler from the investigation as soon as he suspected Shapley had blown the whistle. The Office of Special Counsel last year determined that the IRS had illegally retaliated against the pair by removing them from the investigation after they made protected disclosures to Congress about DOJ interference in the probe. All the obstruction and interference and slow walking past statutes of limitation happened under the benign leadership of David Weiss. So spare us his mealy mouthed justifications for squibbing what should have been the most consequential political corruption investigation in history.
