.png)
In a move that has sparked quiet yet serious conversations among faith leaders and legal experts, the IRS has softened its stance on political endorsements by churches and other houses of worship. In a recent court filing, the agency stated that if a church or religious institution endorses a political candidate to its members, the IRS would now view that as a private matter—likening it to “a family discussion concerning candidates”—rather than an official campaign activity.
Let’s be clear about the stakes here: For decades, churches, mosques, synagogues, and other religious groups—registered as tax-exempt nonprofits under Section 501(c)(3)—have been prohibited from endorsing or opposing political candidates under the Johnson Amendment, a 1954 law designed to separate charity from campaign politics. Violating this rule could threaten a house of worship’s tax-exempt status.
But in this filing, the IRS and the plaintiffs agreed to ask a federal judge to issue an order that would permanently block the government—including the Trump administration and all future administrations—from enforcing that ban on religious groups in such situations. In effect, even future presidents would be barred from punishing churches for endorsing candidates, so long as it happens within their congregation or as part of internal discussions.
Why This Matters?
We Need To Understand the Serious Impact of Government on our Culture
Voter turnout in the 2024 presidential election revealed both familiar patterns and surprising shifts. Overall, about 62.7% of eligible voters cast ballots, according to data from Catalist and Pew Research Center. This represented a slight decline from 2020’s historic 66% turnout but remained higher than the 2016 levels.
Among Black voters, turnout dropped compared to 2020. An estimated 57–59% of eligible Black voters participated, down from roughly 63% in the previous election. Several factors contributed to this decline, including disillusionment with the candidates, concerns about voter suppression in certain states, and reduced mobilization efforts. Within this group, Black men had noticeably lower turnout rates than Black women, and those who did vote were more likely to support Trump than in past elections.
Click on photo for video
Hispanic and Latino voters maintained steady turnout, with about 54–56% of eligible voters participating—slightly higher than in 2020. Younger Latino voters, especially Latino men, played a major role in this group’s turnout, with many shifting their support toward Trump. Notably, Trump captured a majority of votes from Latinos who had not voted in 2020, including many first-time or returning voters.
Asian American turnout also continued to climb, estimated between 53–55%. This group showed one of the largest increases in voter participation among minority communities since 2016, signaling growing political engagement.
Young voters under 30 experienced a slight decline in turnout compared to 2020, with about 50–53% casting ballots in 2024. While young voters remained largely supportive of Democratic candidates, Trump made significant gains among young men of color.
One of the most significant shifts in 2024 came from voters who had not participated in 2020—either because they had previously abstained or were too young to vote. Trump won 52% of these new or reactivated voters, while Harris secured 45%. Many of these voters were working-class, younger, and racially diverse, challenging the assumption that nonvoters are naturally more progressive.
The key takeaway from the 2024 election is that while minority turnout remained strong, lower participation among Black voters—especially men—and increased engagement from previously disengaged groups, many of whom leaned toward Trump, shifted the political landscape.
Trump’s strategy successfully targeted these "disengaged" or "disillusioned" groups, particularly among young Black and Latino men, while Democrats continued to rely on their traditional coalitions of consistent voters.
This shift could lead to significant changes in American religious life. For many years, religious leaders have been careful not to cross the political line, fearful of losing tax-exempt protections. Now, under this new approach, pastors, rabbis, imams, and other faith leaders can openly endorse candidates in their congregations—without fear of IRS consequences—so long as it’s framed as a “family discussion” within their house of worship.
Some applaud this change, arguing it restores freedom of speech for religious communities and acknowledges the moral leadership many faith groups provide. Others worry that this could turn houses of worship into political platforms, potentially deepening national divisions.
My Take
Here’s my honest opinion: I believe these kinds of conversations are needed. Whether we realize it or not, many of us learn about life, values, and even civic responsibility in our churches and through the missions we support. Our communities cannot afford to ignore the serious impact politics has on our lives and our nation’s future.
However, my prayer is this—any agency, church, or leader who exercises this freedom should also respect the privilege that comes with it. It’s one thing to present information and encourage thoughtful engagement, but it’s another to create an environment where people feel pressured to conform to a certain political belief.
Faith communities should remain places where people are free to listen, reflect, and make their own informed decisions—without fear of judgment or coercion.
As this ruling settles, every church and faith community will have to navigate these waters with wisdom. Freedom of speech is a gift—but it also comes with great responsibility. My hope is that we’ll use it to foster conversations that uplift, inform, and empower—never to divide or manipulate.
I would also caution to church leaders, while this may seem like an open door for free speech, it could also invite scrutiny like a 501c3 status.
Therefore, stay informed and approach this carefully. What feels like a moment of freedom could quickly become a question of compliance.
