The magician’s choice: The IRS’ Johnson Amendment policy shift is an illusion disguised as reality

In the bowels of a turreted chateau a block north of the Grauman’s Chinese Theatre in Los Angeles are magicians, illusionists, and their students, teaching and learning the fundamentals of the black arts of magic. One of the first and most fundamental illusions an aspiring magician learns on day one is called “the force,” or the “magician’s choice.” The illusion is simple: the magician gives the audience the impression they have the freedom to influence the trick, all while controlling the outcome. In layman’s terms, it’s sleight of hand used to conceal what’s really happening.

In a Texas courthouse, a different kind of sleight of hand recently unfolded. In a filing in a lawsuit brought by two churches and the National Religious Broadcasters, the IRS suggested that churches could endorse candidates from the pulpit without violating the Johnson Amendment, the long-standing part of the tax code that bars tax-exempt organizations from partisan campaigning. On its surface, this looked like a change in the law. But as with the magician’s choice, the appearance of what is said masks the reality: the law itself has not changed.

The illusion of choice is what makes the magician’s trick work. Here, too, the illusion is dangerous. By suggesting that a pulpit endorsement is merely a “family discussion concerning candidates,” the IRS risks turning churches into political action committees while allowing them to keep their tax-exempt status. Such a shift would upend decades of established guidance and undermine the very integrity of religious communities.

Polling consistently shows that Americans, including clergy themselves, oppose pulpit endorsements. They know what is at stake: sacred spaces should not become platforms for political candidates. The majority prefers the clarity and integrity the Johnson Amendment has long ensured. The law has been a safeguard against the co-opting of faith by politics, and preserving it is essential for protecting both religious liberty and democratic institutions.

For more than 70 years, the Johnson Amendment has preserved the independence of houses of worship by shielding them from political pressure and the risks of becoming tools of partisan campaigns. It has never prevented clergy from speaking out on moral issues or leading their congregations in civic engagement. What it has done is draw a bright line between sacred spaces and electoral contests. Diluting that line now would create new pressures on religious leaders to align with candidates, risk dividing congregations, and entangle churches in campaign agendas.

The trick of the force is not in what the audience sees, but in what it fails to notice. The same is true here. The filing may appear to open the door to political endorsements, but it conceals the risks and pressures that follow. The freedom it promises is not freedom at all, but entanglement. And the cost of falling for the illusion could be the very independence of the pulpit.

For resources on this issue, visit our website at BJConline.org/JohnsonAmendment and read a new column from BJC Executive Director Amanda Tyler.

This article originally appeared in the summer/fall 2025 edition of Report from the Capital. You can view it as a PDF or read a digital flip-through edition.