Press Releases

Treasury and IRS to Provide Guidance to Religious Organizations

WASHINGTON — In response to recent litigation, ongoing public interest, and the need for more clarity, the U.S. Department of the Treasury and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) today announced plans to develop and issue additional guidance on the application of the Johnson Amendment to religious organizations. 

“Religious liberty is foundational to our Constitution, and the freedom to practice one’s faith openly and in community is central to the American story as we celebrate 250 years of independence as a nation this year,” said Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent. “As many Americans gather to observe Holy Week and Passover, President Trump and this administration continue to protect religious freedom as a fundamental right in principle and in practice as our laws are applied. Treasury and the IRS will provide additional clarity and guidance to houses of worship that reflect these ideals and uphold the First Amendment.”

The forthcoming guidance will provide clear, administrable standards for houses of worship, including how the law applies to certain communications made within the context of religious services.

Treasury and the IRS will engage with stakeholders as appropriate in the development of the forthcoming guidance and its release will be determined later this year.

Background

In National Religious Broadcasters v. Bessent, the IRS sought to resolve the case through an agreement reflecting the government’s position that bona fide communications internal to a house of worship, including communications between the house of worship and its congregation in connection with religious services and communicated through customary channels on matters of faith, do not constitute the type of political campaign intervention prohibited under current law. Such communications are distinguishable from broader political activity and are consistent with longstanding protections for religious exercise.

The federal district court dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction before the court could consider or approve that proposed resolution.

###