In 1954, then-Senator Lyndon B. Johnson introduced what would come to be known as the Johnson Amendment, a provision added to the U.S. tax code. The amendment prohibits tax-exempt nonprofit organizations, including churches, from directly endorsing or opposing political candidates. Its intent was straightforward: to maintain a clear separation between the pulpit and the ballot box, ensuring that tax-exempt religious and charitable institutions could not be transformed into political machines.
Top Three Takeaways from the Article:
The Johnson Amendment, introduced in 1954 by Lyndon B. Johnson, was designed to prevent tax-exempt organizations, especially churches, from endorsing or opposing political candidates, preserving a separation between religion and partisan politics.
For decades, the amendment successfully kept most houses of worship and charities nonpartisan, though recent challenges from the Religious Right and some politicians have reframed it as a restriction on free speech.
In today’s polarized political climate, the future of the amendment is uncertain, with its defenders seeing it as a guardrail for democracy and its critics viewing it as an obstacle to political expression.
Johnson, who faced opposition from nonprofit groups that campaigned against him, sought to prevent similar political entanglements in the future. At its core, the amendment was designed to preserve both the integrity of the tax system and the democratic principle of keeping religion from becoming a tool of partisan power.
Here is Paragraph (3) of subsection (c) within section 501 of Title 26 (Internal Revenue Code) of the U.S. Code (U.S.C.) describes organizations which may be exempt from U.S. Federal income tax. 501(c)(3) is written as follows, with the Johnson Amendment in bold letters:
(3) Corporations, and any community chest, fund, or foundation, organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific, testing for public safety, literary, or educational purposes, or to foster national or international amateur sports competition (but only if no part of its activities involve the provision of athletic facilities or equipment), or for the prevention of cruelty to children or animals, no part of the net earnings of which inures to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual, no substantial part of the activities of which is carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting, to influence legislation (except as otherwise provided in subsection (h)), and which does not participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office.[bolding added]
Over the decades, the Johnson Amendment has been both lauded and contested. For much of the 20th century, it was understood as a safeguard: churches could preach values and advocate for policies, but could not turn themselves into campaign headquarters for candidates. This interpretation held strong, and by most measures, it has been successful; houses of worship in the United States generally remain places of spiritual and community guidance and not electioneering.
However, in recent years, particularly with the rise of growing political polarization within the Religious Right and the establishment of a near-militarized Christian Nationalist movement, the amendment has come under increasing attack. Some politicians have framed it as a violation of free speech for pastors and faith leaders, while others see attempts to dismantle it as a pathway to dark money and partisan corruption flooding into religious spaces.
Some politicians, including President Donald Trump, have sought to repeal the provision, arguing that it restricts the free speech rights of churches and other religious groups. These efforts have been criticized because churches have fewer reporting requirements than other non-profit organizations, and because it would effectively make political contributions tax-deductible. On May 4, 2017, Trump signed an executive order “to defend the freedom of religion and speech” for the purpose of easing the Johnson Amendment’s restrictions.
In today’s polarized climate, the Johnson Amendment sits at the center of a fundamental debate: should churches and charities remain nonpartisan, or should they have the same political freedoms as other organizations, even while enjoying tax-exempt status? Its endurance has been a testament to the idea that democracy is strengthened when faith and politics maintain a healthy distance.
But with mounting pressure to erode its restrictions, the amendment faces challenges unlike any it has seen before. Whether it continues to act as a guardrail against partisan takeover of America’s pulpits, or is dismantled in the name of free expression, will shape the relationship between religion, politics, and democracy for generations to come.