Disgruntled Trump supporters could stay home during midterm elections
Disgruntled Trump supporters may not back Democrats, but declining turnout could still threaten the Republican majority in the midterm elections.
- The so-called Johnson Amendment prohibited all tax-exempt 501c(3) organizations, such as churches and charities, from participating in politics “directly or indirectly.”
- A group of churches and organizations sued the IRS in 2024, claiming the rule violated the First Amendment.
- As part of a 2025 settlement agreement, the IRS agreed to allow religious 501c(3) organizations to endorse political candidates under certain circumstances, but a judge dismissed the case in 2026.
- The plaintiffs appealed the dismissal in July, reigniting the lawsuit in the months leading up to the heated midterm elections.
As the midterm election campaign heats up, a legal battle continues to unfold over whether churches can support candidates and participate more openly in politics without incurring the wrath of the Internal Revenue Service.
The IRS has long prohibited tax-exempt houses of worship from directly engaging in politics. However, starting in 2024, a fierce legal battle has been underway to overturn this rule. At one point, the settlement cleared the way to overturn decades of precedent, only for a judge to throw out the whole thing.
The so-called Johnson Amendment was added to the Internal Revenue Code in 1954 and prohibited all tax-exempt 501c(3) organizations, such as churches and charities, from participating “directly or indirectly” in politics, especially in support of or opposition to candidates.
The National Association of Religious Broadcasters, an international group of evangelical Christians, the conservative advocacy group Intercessors for America, and two Texas churches, First Baptist Church Waskom in Waskom, Texas, and Sand Springs Church in Athens, Texas, sued the Internal Revenue Service over the rule in September 2024, alleging it violates their First Amendment rights to free speech and freedom of religion.
The parties reached a settlement in 2025. It involved the IRS overturning decades of precedent by saying churches and other religious 501c(3) organizations can endorse political candidates under certain circumstances.
The agency said in court documents that political endorsements by churches are not considered “participation” or “interference” in political campaigns, but rather “family discussions about politics.”
But in a surprise ruling in late March, a judge dismissed the entire lawsuit, saying federal courts do not have the authority to change plaintiffs’ tax status or create exemptions from tax laws.
Days later, President Donald Trump’s administration released guidance on the Johnson Amendment for religious groups, saying it would “continue to protect religious freedom as a fundamental right” amid a fluctuating legal debate.
The guidance had not yet been filed as of July 24, when the plaintiffs had formally appealed their dismissals and the legal dispute continued. In their July 7 filing, they said the decision resulted in “a dismissal that the parties did not request, an agreed-upon resolution being rescinded, and plaintiffs remaining silent as they seek closure of the litigation.”
The filing outlines the plaintiffs’ belief that the IRS “goes after unpopular conservative and religious speakers while allowing others to speak freely.”
Religious leaders and groups across the ideological spectrum have similarly denounced what they describe as mass surveillance of their own allies and groups while overlooking tax violations from across the aisle.
In an April interview with USA TODAY, the Rev. Jamal Bryant, senior pastor of New Birth Missionary Baptist Church in Stonecrest, Georgia, called it a “double standard” regarding the Johnson Amendment, calling it “very selective and how it has been used in American discourse.”
Rhetorical and legal battles over the Johnson Amendment continue, leaving religious groups uncertain about what kind of political engagement the Trump administration will or won’t allow in the tense November election.
Despite allegations, rare enforcement of Johnson Amendment history
Despite being in existence for more than 70 years, the Johnson Amendment, named after former President Lyndon B. Johnson, who introduced the amendment while serving as Senate majority leader, is rarely enforced.
A New York church lost its tax-exempt status after running newspaper ads to discourage Christians from supporting former President Bill Clinton in the 1992 election. The court rejected the church’s First Amendment claims, and the church also lost on appeal.
In the decades since then, countless churches and religious leaders have entered the political world.
Religious watchdog groups say these efforts sometimes cross legal lines.
That includes the Religious Freedom Foundation, which has filed numerous complaints with the Internal Revenue Service over the years over alleged violations of the Johnson Amendment. For example, in June, it asked the department to investigate Sheridan Church in Tulsa, Oklahoma, after the Rev. Jackson Rahmeyer said supporters could pick up signs from his since-abandoned congressional bid at the church.
Chris Lyne, the foundation’s general counsel, told USA TODAY in March that Johnson’s alleged Amendment violations appear to be more common in conservative churches, but that it is “not a major issue on the Democratic side either.” The group had previously criticized Bryant for what it characterized as the church’s efforts to secure votes for then-Vice President Kamala Harris ahead of the 2024 presidential election.
The Freedom From Religion Foundation is not alone in doing so. Americans for the separation of church and state also criticized Bryant for removing former Republican Senate candidate Herschel Walker from the pulpit in 2022. The Trinity Foundation also claimed that one of Bryant’s Instagram posts endorsed Sen. Raphael Warnock (D-Ga.) in the 2022 election.
Leaders say faith, not criticism, shapes decisions
Bryant is one of several religious leaders who told USA TODAY that they believe it is essential for faith to influence other areas of believers’ lives, including politics.
“Our responsibility is to interpret the times and speak to the times,” Bryant said.
In a February opinion piece in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Bryant wrote that black churches have historically been “both worship and witness, sanctuaries and sites of social change.” In his view, that “dual role” “often makes us targets for surveillance, scrutiny and selective policing.”
In an interview with USA TODAY, he cited white evangelical leaders and churches that have clearly aligned with President Trump over the years. Among them was the Rev. Franklin Graham, president and CEO of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association, an ardent supporter of President Trump and a member of Trump’s Religious Liberty Commission.
Justin Arnott, general counsel for the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association, defended Graham’s involvement in the Trump administration in a February interview with USA TODAY. In his view, more religious leaders should leverage the influence of both church and state to shape the country’s moral character.
At the same time, Arnott said only a small portion of the organization’s activities touch on the political realm. He called complaints about such activity “suspicious” and described efforts by groups such as the Religious Freedom Foundation as an act of intimidation.
In 2012, the IRS audited both the organization and Samaritan’s Purse, a disaster relief nonprofit also led by Graham. “Someone within the administration is trying to target and intimidate us,” Graham said in a letter to then-President Barack Obama about the issue. Stephen Miller, the acting IRS commissioner at the time, also resigned at about the same time amid broader controversy over the IRS’ oversight of Tea Party groups.
Ultimately, Arnott said, the organization’s political decisions are not guided by critics.
“We base our decisions on our Biblical beliefs and mission, and we are informed by the law to ensure that we are complying, and we believe that we are,” he said.
The future of the Johnson Amendment could reshape religious and political life
Leaders on all sides of the Johnson Amendment debate told USA TODAY that the ultimate outcome of the state religious broadcaster’s lawsuit could have a significant impact on the future of the church and political life in America.
Julius C. Trimble, a former United Methodist bishop, said opening the door for political money to influence the church could limit what he called the faith community’s prophetic and unifying role in society.
Rein similarly worried that if churches were allowed to support political candidates as tax-exempt organizations, they would “just become super PACs.” He also expressed concern that political groups may seek to redesignate as churches for tax benefits, given that the IRS does not have a specific definition of what it considers a “church.”
Meanwhile, Arnott said the current Johnson Amendment has negative constitutional and financial implications for religious groups.
“The threat of cancellation not only chills speech, it can chill donations,” Arnott said. In his view, the subsequent settlement would have simply forced the IRS “not to enforce it (the Johnson Amendment) on religious institutions in a random or arbitrary manner.”
Church Voter Guide Drives Registration Ahead of Midterm Elections
As the midterm elections approach, religious leaders and organizations are making their own decisions about how much to get involved as the fight over the Johnson Amendment continues.
The United Church of Christ has created a toolkit to support “bipartisan faithful engagement” in the midterm elections, while a New York church hosted a “Get in Good Trouble” voter registration drive in memory of the late U.S. Rep. John Lewis, one of 13 former Freedom Riders beaten and imprisoned for their civil rights work in the 1960s.
The United Methodist Church has also long provided resources to encourage civic engagement and allowed individual churches to host voter registration drives. UMC leaders noted that the denomination’s social principles are set by the church’s General Conference, not canon law, and draw a line between partisan political activity and necessary involvement in social justice issues.
“When I think about it, some people have a left-right view…we look at things in terms of what’s right and what’s wrong,” Trimble said.
Contributor: Angele Latham, The Tennessean
Breanna Frank is USA TODAY’s First Amendment reporter. please contact her bjfrank@usatoday.com.
USA TODAY’s coverage of First Amendment issues is funded by the Freedom Forum in collaboration with our journalism funding partners. Funders do not provide editorial input.
