logo
IRS says churches can now endorse political candidates. Miami faith leaders weigh in

IRS says churches can now endorse political candidates. Miami faith leaders weigh in

Miami Herald20-07-2025
The Internal Revenue Services is reversing a long-standing policy and will now allow religious institutions to endorse political candidates without jeopardizing their tax-exempt status — a move that has divided faith leaders and advocacy groups.
Earlier this month, the IRS sided with the National Religious Broadcasters, an evangelical media group, and two Texas churches in a court filing intended to settle a lawsuit that challenged a ban on most nonprofits from endorsing political candidates in elections.
While most Americans, according to multiple public opinion polls, want to keep politics out of the pulpit, many conservative Christian groups, including the ones named in the lawsuit, have been pushing for more freedom for faith leaders to voice opinions — a view repeatedly advocated by President Donald Trump throughout his time in office.
Many advocates and faith leaders in South Florida who spoke with the Miami Herald remain strongly opposed to the decision, fearing raising such issues threaten to create rifts within individual congregations. But while conservative Christian groups have been most outspoken in support of the move, it also could work both ways, allowing more freedom for progressive churches and leaders to advocate for issues that straddle the line of religion and politics.
The lawsuit argues that the Johnson Amendment, a 1954 measure named after its author, former President Lyndon B. Johnson, restricts churches from exercising freedom of speech and freedom of religion. It also contends that the amendment is not enforced fairly — allowing some nonprofits, such as newspapers, to endorse candidates while others are banned.
During President Donald Trump's first term in 2017, he vowed to 'get rid of and totally destroy the Johnson Amendment and allow our representatives of faith to speak freely and without fear of retribution.'
While, the IRS didn't go that far, it did suggest that when a house of worship 'in good faith' speaks to its congregation through 'customary channels of communication on matters of faith in connection with religious services concerning electoral politics,' it did not constitute participation or intervention in politics, as the Johnson Amendment prohibits.
In a proposed consent judgment between the tax agency and religious groups, the IRS said those types of communications are akin to 'a family discussion,' and 'do not run afoul of the Johnson Amendment as properly interpreted,' according to the proposed settlement filed in U.S. District Court in Texas.
The IRS, in its court filing, also admitted that the Johnson amendment has not been consistently enforced since it was enacted, despite the fact that churches throughout the country violate it on a regular basis, according to a 2022 investigation from the Texas Tribune and ProPublica.
The proposed settlement could have broad implications for political rhetoric in places of worship. WhiIe it applies specifically to plaintiffs in the lawsuit, advocacy groups and faith leaders who spoke with the Miami Herald are concerned it sets a precedent that will embolden other houses of worship to engage in partisan endorsements.
'It's a slippery slope and I feel like this is crossing the line. This is definitely crossing the line,'said Rabbi Gayle Pomerantz, senior rabbi at Temple Beth Sholom, a Reform synagogue in Miami Beach.
'Endorsing a candidate outright from the pulpit can lead to divisiveness and alienation within our congregations,' said Rev. Keny Felix, the senior pastor of Bethel Evangelical Baptist Church in Miami Gardens.
'Weaponizes religious freedom'
Interfaith Alliance, a nonprofit that advocates for religious freedom and against Christian Nationalism, said the lawsuit 'weaponizes religious freedom.'
'They talk about free speech and religious freedom, when in reality what keeps our houses of worship free for religious communities is the separation of church and state,' said Guthrie Graves-Fitzsimmons, vice president of programs and strategy at Interfaith Alliance.
'Imagine if every church in Florida was just an outpost of the GOP or the DNC, that would be a complete denial of religious freedom. It would destroy institutions that are sacred to so many Floridians.'
Graves-Fitzsimmons, who is also an ordained Baptist deacon, pointed out that current law already allows houses of worship to engage with politics in many ways.
For example, faith leaders can invite candidates to speak with their congregations as long as they provide equal opportunity to all parties. Many houses of worship host events encouraging members to vote — Souls to the Polls is an important event in many Black churches, for example — and some churches are polling places themselves.
Nonprofits and churches are even allowed, under current law, to donate to campaigns on certain issues or ballot questions that align with their mission, as long as it is not a partisan race. The Catholic Church donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to anti-abortion efforts to defeat a recent ballot question in Florida, for example.
Local faith leaders weigh in
'I am absolutely taken back by that ruling,' said Rev. Laurie Hafner, lead pastor at Coral Gables Congregational United Church of Christ.
Hafner's church has been on the front lines of advocating for issues some might see as political. In 2023, the church partnered with local bookstore, Books & Books, to organize a protest march against Florida's recent efforts to ban certain books in public schools. In recent years, she made national news for suing the state of Florida over its abortion ban on the grounds of religious rights.
Hafner said after a close call with the IRS at her past church in Cleveland, she's been careful about how she speaks about political candidates from the pulpit. Still, she said, most of her congregants know where she stands politically, due to her strong stances on issues.
'I have never from the pulpit endorsed a particular candidate, although I think I make it very clear what side I'm on,' Hafner told the Miami Herald. 'And that's the side of the oppressed, the hungry, the homeless, the folks who are in prison, the immigrant … and certain candidates are a reflection of those values.'
'I don't know if this is going to change my position about endorsing the candidate from the pulpit, but it does give me a little more freedom, I think, to express myself if need be,' she said.
Others expressed their disapproval over the IRS statements.
'I am strongly opposed to abolishing the Johnson Amendment,' said Rabbi Pomerantz, who was also the first female president of the Rabbinic Association of Greater Miami.
'I think it's helped to preserve the separation of church and state, and we at Temple Beth Sholom have always been very careful about promoting our Jewish values in non-partisan ways,' she said, referring to the Johnson Amendment.
Pomerantz said her synagogue does not endorse candidates or advocate for issues in the name of Democrats or Republicans. She said, however, Temple Beth Sholom may take a position on an issue — like reproductive rights for example — informed by Jewish tradition and Jewish texts.
'We'll always have members of the congregation who don't agree with the position the synagogue has taken. But we feel it is our right and our duty to take positions on meaningful issues, in a non partisan way.'
Concerns about endorsement
Miami Gardens pastor Felix said he agrees with encouraging members to participate in the political system but draws the line at candidate endorsements.
'We have to be careful to not conflate God's kingdom with any one political party or candidate. If we do, our efforts will eventually prove to be misguided,' said Felix in an email to the Herald.
Felix said he believes that pastors are responsible for 'providing moral leadership and clarity' on issues impacting the community — which may sometimes include advocating for justice and speaking 'on behalf of the marginalized and the underrepresented.'
'What unifies a diverse congregation is our common faith, not our political affiliation,' said Felix.
Rabbi Jonah Dov Pesner, Director of the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, said one of his main issues with the IRS ruling is that it potentially can 'corrupt' institutions that have always remained non-partisan.
'Part of what makes them spiritually pure is that they stay non-partisan,' Pesner said. 'They're about values, morals, deeply held beliefs … but when money starts flowing into religious institutions to win partisan battles and elect individual candidates, it corrupts those institutions.'
Pesner's concern about the potential for the decision to interfere with campaign finance was also echoed by Americans United for Separation of Church and State.
'Weakening this law would undermine houses of worship and nonprofits by transforming them into political action committees, flooding our elections with even more dark money,' the group wrote in a statement.
Faith leaders 'can move the needle'
One advocacy group, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, took steps last week to reverse the decision in the lawsuit by filing a motion to intervene. The nonprofit, which advocates for the separation of church and state and religious freedom, said the decision 'would grant favor and privilege to religious organizations and treat them differently than secular nonprofits.'
'The Trump administration's radical reinterpretation of the Johnson Amendment is a flagrant, self-serving attack on church-state separation that threatens our democracy by favoring houses of worship over other nonprofits and inserting them into partisan politics,' said AU President and CEO Rachel Laser in a statement.
Laser went on to say that the Johnson Amendment 'protects the integrity' of elections and nonprofit organizations, including houses of worship.
Many who spoke with the Herald pointed to recent polling that shows that most Americans want to leave politics out of the pulpit.
According to a 2022 poll from Pew Research Center, 77 percent of U.S. adults said churches and other congregations should not make political endorsements. Majorities in both the Democratic and Republican parities and every religious group that was polled also said churches should avoid political endorsements.
On the other hand, the National Faith Advisory Board, a faith coalition founded and led by Paula White Cain, senior advisor to President Trump in the newly established White House Faith Office, celebrated the move by the IRS, calling it a 'tax clarification' that was 'born out of faith leaders advocating for their God-given rights.'
'It is a crucial reminder that faith leaders can move the needle when it comes to influencing the law of the land. Our collective voice matters,' the organization wrote in a weekly newsletter.
The newsletter also went on to advise its readers to avoid 'paid ads, public rallies hosted by your church and using church resources to endorse a candidate to the public.'
The faith advisory board was founded during Trump's first presidency by White and says it communicates with over 70,000 faith leaders across the country.
This story was produced with financial support from Trish and Dan Bell and from donors comprising the South Florida Jewish and Muslim Communities, including Khalid and Diana Mirza, in partnership with Journalism Funding Partners. The Miami Herald maintains full editorial control of this work.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

'Big Beautiful Bill' imperils tribe's critical survival project: 'We still have homes that are not electrified'
'Big Beautiful Bill' imperils tribe's critical survival project: 'We still have homes that are not electrified'

Yahoo

time8 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

'Big Beautiful Bill' imperils tribe's critical survival project: 'We still have homes that are not electrified'

'Big Beautiful Bill' imperils tribe's critical survival project: 'We still have homes that are not electrified' The vast majority of Americans can expect their electricity to be available when they need it — even though energy rates have risen significantly over the years, and there are emerging concerns about how new technologies could impact grid reliability. However, the One Big Beautiful Bill could uniquely threaten access to electricity for residents on the Hopi Tribe's reservation in Arizona, according to Tribal Business News, leaving tribal members vulnerable to extreme weather conditions, such as heat waves, and economic hardship as they fight to preserve their lands and cultural values. What's happening? President Donald Trump signed the Big Beautiful Bill, also known as House Resolution 1, into law July 4 after months of debate and amendments to the legislation by Congress. As expected, the final version of the bill is slashing many clean-energy tax incentives that the Hopi Tribe has relied on to expand access to electricity on the reservation, including electric credits for renewable projects that have reduced building costs by up to 30% to 50%. This could also imperil utility-scale solar projects meant to replace jobs and revenue after the 2019 closing of the Navajo Generating Station coal plant. The plant supplied others in the region with power while doing little to improve access to electricity on Hopi lands — while also releasing toxic, heat-trapping pollution into the surrounding area and atmosphere. Why is this important? According to the U.S. Department of Energy, a 2023 investigation into Tribal Electricity Access and Reliability found that lack of access to electricity on the Hopi Reservation and Trust Lands hit nearly 29%, whereas that percentage was just 1.4 for the average U.S. household. In an area where a round trip to the grocery store can take four hours, access to electricity can mean the difference between having food that's fit to eat or going without. Northeastern Arizona, where the Hopi reservation is situated, is also experiencing more frequent and intense heat waves because of a changing climate, making it all the more essential for residents to stay cool and protect themselves from the No. 1 weather-related killer. Hopi Tribal Chairman Timothy Nuvangyaoma told Tribal Business News that the passage of the Big Beautiful Bill has introduced "a lot of uncertainty" to the situation. "We're disappointed in leaders that don't look beyond their nose when it comes to those communities that rely on moving forward with this technology. We're in 2025 right now and we still have homes that are not electrified," Nuvangyaoma said. Do you think our power grid needs to be upgraded? Definitely Only in some states Not really I'm not sure Click your choice to see results and speak your mind. What is being done about this? While provisions in the Big Beautiful Bill do disincentivize many green projects that can improve access to electricity and stabilize rates — and cut the Tribal Energy Loan Guarantee Program — attorney Pilar Thomas told Tribal Business News that there's still a window of opportunity to get projects off the ground before tax incentives end. "The One Big Beautiful Bill Act is a big step backward, but I'm not quite as pessimistic as some, because most tribes are doing smaller projects," the partner at the Quarles and Brady law firm said. "... You've got to move, but I think tribes are doing mostly smaller projects for themselves, and I think those are still viable." The legislation also permanently reauthorized the New Markets Tax Credit, which has supported some tribal projects and makes it attractive for companies to build in underserved areas. For his part, Nuvangyaoma said the Hopi Tribe was "digesting" how the act could impact larger projects in development, including a 40-megawatt utility-scale solar array. Despite potential setbacks, he indicated his tribe still saw solar as a path toward achieving energy sovereignty. "I believe that there's people out there who see the impacts that tribal energy sovereignty can have, and so I am hopeful," he said. "We're always looking at what can be done in the darkest situations. We're used to that. With a little bit of light, we'll still move forward with development — we're acting as though none of our projects will be impacted until we can't do so anymore." Join our free newsletter for good news and useful tips, and don't miss this cool list of easy ways to help yourself while helping the planet. Solve the daily Crossword

How Trump Is Plotting To Disrupt The Next Election
How Trump Is Plotting To Disrupt The Next Election

Yahoo

time10 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

How Trump Is Plotting To Disrupt The Next Election

With a combination of executive orders, legal maneuvers and staffing decisions, President Donald Trump has already put in motion his next effort to subvert upcoming federal elections in 2026 and 2028. Since taking office, Trump has installed loyalists who follow his orders into key positions at the Department of Justice, issued executive orders centralizing decision-making within the White House, attempted to unilaterally change state and local election laws, demanded unprecedented access to voter data, dismantled election security protections, threatened elections officials and workers, law firms and others who have historically stood up to protect elections and defended, hired or pardoned those involved in previous efforts to subvert elections. All of these actions combine into a 'concerted strategy' to undermine federal elections, according to a new report by the Brennan Center for Justice, a left-leaning nonprofit that advocates for voting rights. The report highlights how these actions are being used together to set the stage for future lies about election integrity and attempts by the White House to try to change the outcome of elections altogether. It also details how they are being fought by states, election officials and voting advocates. 'We are seeing this as an unprecedented intrusion by the White House into the way that our elections work in a way that really makes us concerned for our elections moving forward,' said Sean Morales-Doyle, director of the voting rights and elections program at the Brennan Center. Trump has made the subversion of elections central to his political career, which he launched by questioning whether President Barack Obama was eligible to be president. He has claimed every election since 2012 that did not go Republicans' way was rigged with illegal votes and fraud, even claiming that his 2016 win would have been bigger if not for alleged fraud. This false campaign culminated after his 2020 loss when he illegally attempted to remain in power and sparked an insurrection aimed at stopping the certification of President Joe Biden's victory on Jan. 6, 2021. That effort was 'haphazard and desperate,' according to Morales-Doyle, but with four years of planning and an even more supine Republican Congress, Trump returned to office with time to put a similar plan into place. 'What we are witnessing now is that Trump, from day one of this administration, has started putting the wheels in motion to undermine elections and to make sure the people who would be carrying out that plan won't say 'no' this time around,' Morales-Doyle said. The most important change from his first administration is that Trump has shied away from hiring experienced eminences into key posts in the Department of Justice, the FBI and the Department of Defense and instead appointed toadies who follow his orders. After the 2020 election, Trump's attempt to steal the election was hamstrung by his appointees, including Attorney General William Barr, who refused to seize voting machines at Trump's request, and other DOJ officials who fought Trump's efforts to appoint Jeff Clark as acting attorney general in order to issue a letter saying the election was marred by fraud. This second Trump administration is instead staffed with people who helped Trump lie about the 2020 election, including Attorney General Pam Bondi, FBI director Kash Patel, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon and Ed Martin, a right-wing attorney who now leads a Justice Department task force on the 'weaponization' of the federal government. The shift means voting rights advocates are now fighting the federal government itself rather than fringe outside actors. 'Many of the strategies and tactics that we've seen developed by the election denier movement are actually coming from within the federal administration,' Morales-Doyle said, 'and that is like nothing we've ever seen before.' Unlike Barr, these appointees may have no qualms with fulfilling Trump's election fraud fantasies by seeking to seize voting machines, publicly claim election fraud or pressure state or local election officials to take actions to undermine the election results. They have already begun this process by targeting and threatening election officials through the Weaponization Working Group headed by Martin and the election integrity task forces set up in the offices of the U.S. Attorney for New Jersey, previously held by Trump's former lawyer Alina Habba, and the U.S. Attorney for Washington, D.C., led by former Fox News anchor Jeanine Pirro. 'This Department of Justice has acted differently than every other Department of Justice in every previous administration, including the first Trump administration,' said David Becker, executive director of the nonpartisan Center for Election Innovation & Research. 'They're acting more like a political campaign arm of the White House.' Trump's appointees are aided by many of the president's other actions, which aim to cast a cloud of doubt over the integrity of elections. On March 25, Trump issued a sweeping executive order aiming to allow the president to directly set state election law, despite the president having almost no constitutional role or legal power in the administration of elections. The order directed the Election Administration Committee to mandate that states require voters to show proof of citizenship in order to vote, rescind certifications for almost all voting machines and ordered the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Government Efficiency to obtain full voter files from every state, including sensitive data like Social Security numbers. The order also directs the attorney general to target states that count mail-in ballots that arrive after election day for legal action. One judge has already blocked the order's proof of citizenship requirement for voting and another judge blocked most of the order from taking effect. Litigation challenging the decertification of voting machines is still ongoing. DHS has sent letters to election officials in six states seeking their full, unredacted voter files, while DOJ has sued North Carolina and Orange County, California to obtain such access. It is illegal for many states to share sensitive information in these voter files, like Social Security numbers, with the federal government. While the administration has no legal basis to enforce this order, the second Trump administration has not shied away from breaking the law to do what it wants. As the administration has itself targeted election systems, it has also dismantled the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency and its work to protect elections from interference, including hacks targeting election systems. In addition to dismantling CISA, the administration has attacked private actors who work to protect and defend elections while supporting those who seek to undermine them. Trump's executive orders targeting law firms and the deals some firms have entered into with his administration have cowed Big Law from challenging his policies. The country's top 50 law firms have dramatically scaled back their pro bono legal work challenging the administration even though four of Trump's orders have been emphatically struck down by courts, according to Reuters. The administration has also threatened to strip nonprofits that challenge Trump or are aligned with the Democratic Party of their tax-exempt status, and launched investigations into the election apparatus of the Democratic Party. Where Trump punishes his enemies, he rewards his allies. This includes those who tried to help him overturn his 2020 loss. He issued pardons or commuted sentences for all defendants prosecuted for their actions on Jan. 6, 2021, including those who assaulted police officers or engaged in sedition. Meanwhile, his administration has unsuccessfully pressured Colorado to release Tina Peters, a former election clerk convicted of illegally providing access to voting systems to a Trump ally after the 2020 election. These disparate actions can all come together ahead of or after the next election to disrupt, undermine or actually subvert the outcome in a variety of ways. 'What actually ends up being the lever that needs to be pulled to interfere with the outcome of an election or the outcome of multiple elections depends on where elections are close,' Morales-Doyle said. 'It depends on who is in the position that you need to put the pressure on. You can see a number of different scenarios that could be pressure points in 2026.' Refusal to comply with Trump's executive order could fuel propaganda claiming the results from those states are fraudulent or as a pretext to declare an election-related emergency and seize voting machines. Requests for voter files could lead the administration to demand specific individuals be removed from the voter rolls, both altering the electorate or, if states do not comply, provide propaganda fodder and pretexts for interference. By dismantling CISA, the administration could claim any attacks on election systems, now made easier absent protection, as evidence that the election's integrity has been undermined and as a pretext to seize voting machines or otherwise interfere with the results. The threats and targeting of law firms, election officials, nonprofits and the Democratic Party not only aim to disable opposition, but also to serve as a warning to those who might buck any requests when they come. In 2020, Trump attempted to pressure Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, a Republican, to change the election results so that he would win the state. Raffensperger refused to budge. He also pressured local election officials in Wayne County, Michigan, to refuse to certify the county's results. This initially worked, but the two officials reversed themselves and certified the results after public pressure. But others may not, especially now that they know that they could face investigations, prosecutions or other threats and punishments. 'They've seen the reality of what it means to have the sheer force of the executive branch targeted at a perceived adversary,' Morales-Doyle said. One end result of these efforts to cast doubt or subvert elections just played out in North Carolina following the 2024 election. In a crucial state Supreme Court race, Democrat Allison Riggs defeated her Republican opponent Jefferson Griffith by 734 votes. After the election, Griffith filed a lawsuit seeking to reverse his loss with claims that certain registered voters with incomplete information on their registrations should have been removed from the rolls before they cast their ballots. Griffith's allegations mirror some of those raised by the Trump administration in its pursuit of state voter files. In highly partisan decisions, the Republican-controlled state courts sided with Griffith and ordered tens of thousands of votes to be discarded and Griffith awarded Riggs' seat. But Riggs appealed in federal court and won with a judge ruling that valid votes cast by voters who followed the rules cannot be thrown out after the election is run. While the correct result was ultimately reached, the legal process prevented Riggs from taking her seat for over four months. The Trump administration and Republicans could do something similar by using whatever alleged violation of Trump's executive order or claim about voter roll errors to challenge the outcome after the election. If Democrats had won a majority in the House or Senate, it's theoretically possible for Congress to refuse to seat anyone in one of these contested seats. That could allow Republicans to remain in control even if they lost, at least temporarily. As shown by the result in the North Carolina Supreme Court race, federal judges are not willing to overturn election results after the fact on specious claims. The courts dismissed, often with great prejudice, Trump's lawsuits challenging his election defeat in 2020. 'I'm worried about that scenario, but not because I think they'll overcome the line drawn in the sand by courts and get votes thrown out after the fact,' Morales-Doyle said. The Brennan Center's purpose in raising these threats in their report is not to highlight an unavoidable doom scenario, but rather as a warning for institutional actors — from election officials to lawyers to information security experts — and the public to be aware ahead of time about the risks posed by a White House hellbent on undermining elections so that they can work to counter it. 'We have to reckon with the difference when that attack comes from the White House,' Morales-Doyle said. 'That if we're going to survive that kind of attack, it's going to require a lot of actors to show their resistance and strength at an even greater level than they've had to in the past.'

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store