The Wall Comes Down: Church, State, and the 2026 Midterms

I. What the FFRF Is Actually Alleging

  <p>On May 28, 2026, the Freedom From Religion Foundation announced it was "scrutinizing disturbing reports of House Speaker Mike Johnson's coordinated political activity with pastors ahead of the midterm elections."<sup><a href="#s1">[1]</a></sup></p>

  <p>The FFRF article itself is thin on detail — more of a signal that an investigation is underway than a documented exposé. But the underlying facts it points to are independently well-documented. The core allegation: Johnson held a private briefing with pastors before the Rededicate 250 prayer event on the National Mall, explicitly urged them to mobilize their congregations for the midterms, and promised that the Trump administration had billions of dollars earmarked for right-wing churches to run social programs.<sup><a href="#s2">[2]</a></sup></p>

  <p>These details come not from the FFRF but from evangelist David Herzog, who appeared on the Elijah Streams program and described the briefing in enthusiastic terms. According to Herzog's account, Johnson told pastors:</p>

  <blockquote>
    "You guys are the difference that can decide if this thing is going to go one way or the other."
    <cite>— Speaker Mike Johnson, as reported by David Herzog<sup><a href="#s2">[2]</a></sup></cite>
  </blockquote>

  <p>Johnson called the church "the missing link" in political outcomes and urged pastors to "pray, fast, and mobilize people." Herzog also reported that Johnson told attendees the administration wanted to "funnel billions to right-wing churches to carry out social programs," positioning them in "positions of power."<sup><a href="#s2">[2]</a></sup></p>

  <div>
    <h3>Source Assessment: FFRF</h3>
    <p>The Freedom From Religion Foundation is the nation's largest freethought association with 42,000+ members. It holds 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status and has a decades-long track record of litigation victories in church-state separation cases, including the first federal case challenging faith-based funding, removal of Ten Commandments from public property, and halting school-sponsored religious activities.<sup><a href="#s3">[3]</a></sup> It is an advocacy organization with a clear ideological position — but its legal track record is substantive, not performative. The FFRF is a credible source on church-state matters, though its claims should be verified against independent reporting (which, in this case, they are).</p>
  </div>

  <h2><span>II.</span> The Rededicate 250 Rally</h2>

  <p>The event at the center of the FFRF's concern — "Rededicate 250: A National Jubilee of Prayer, Praise & Thanksgiving" — took place on the National Mall on May 17, 2026. It was not a private church event. It was backed by the White House, funded with taxpayer money, and featured video messages from President Trump and cabinet members.<sup><a href="#s4">[4]</a></sup><sup><a href="#s5">[5]</a></sup></p>

  <div>
    <div>
      <span>$100M+</span>
      <span>Taxpayer funds (Interior Dept.)</span>
    </div>
    <div>
      <span>10.5 hrs</span>
      <span>Program length</span>
    </div>
    <div>
      <span>1</span>
      <span>Non-Christian speaker (of dozens)</span>
    </div>
  </div>

  <p>The Interior Department used at least $100 million in taxpayer funds to help hold the event. The speaker lineup — Franklin Graham, Paula White-Cain, Robert Jeffress, Cardinal Timothy Dolan, Bishop Robert Barron — consisted almost entirely of evangelical Christians and conservative Catholics. NPR reported that all but one speaker was Christian; the exception was Orthodox Rabbi Meir Soloveichik.<sup><a href="#s5">[5]</a></sup><sup><a href="#s6">[6]</a></sup></p>

  <p>No Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh, or non-religious Americans were represented among the speakers. Critics characterized the event as "using the power of the government to elevate one thin slice of American religion above others."<sup><a href="#s4">[4]</a></sup></p>

  <p>It was at this event — or rather, at the private pastoral briefing <em>preceding</em> it — that Johnson allegedly made his pitch to pastors. The sequence matters: a taxpayer-funded government event on federal land became the staging ground for a midterm mobilization effort directed at religious leaders.</p>

  <h2><span>III.</span> The Johnson Amendment: How the IRS Gave Up</h2>

  <p>To understand why Johnson's pastoral mobilization matters legally, you need to understand what the Johnson Amendment is and what happened to it.</p>

  <div>
    <span>Legal Framework</span>
    <p><strong>The Johnson Amendment (1954)</strong> is a provision of IRC &sect;501(c)(3) that prohibits tax-exempt organizations — including churches — from "participating in, or intervening in… any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office." Violating it risks loss of tax-exempt status.<sup><a href="#s7">[7]</a></sup></p>
    <p>Named after then-Senator Lyndon B. Johnson, the amendment has been the primary legal barrier preventing churches from operating as campaign arms for 70 years.</p>
  </div>

  <p>On July 7, 2025, in <em>National Religious Broadcasters v. Billy Long</em>, the IRS entered a consent decree that carved out a major exception: churches may endorse political candidates through their "usual channels of communication" — sermons, bulletins, congregational addresses — as long as the message is framed as a matter of faith. Such speech would not constitute "participation or intervention" and would not threaten tax-exempt status.<sup><a href="#s8">[8]</a></sup><sup><a href="#s9">[9]</a></sup></p>

  <p>The carve-out was enormous. ABC News reported that tax experts predicted it could "transform how money flows around elections, making houses of worship a way to avoid both taxes and transparency."<sup><a href="#s10">[10]</a></sup></p>

  <div>
    <span>The Dark Money Concern</span>
    <p>Unlike other 501(c)(3) organizations, churches are <strong>not required to file Form 990</strong> disclosing financial information, leadership, or activities. They also qualify <em>automatically</em> for tax exemption without an application. Ellen Aprill, tax law professor at Loyola Marymount, warned that the change "will encourage the creation of fraudulent churches who want to get tax-deductible money to engage in opposing or supporting candidates… so they don't have to disclose any other campaign intervention activities."<sup><a href="#s10">[10]</a></sup></p>
  </div>

  <p>However, this didn't stick. On March 31, 2026, a federal judge declined to approve the proposed settlement and dismissed the case, ruling that courts cannot issue declaratory or injunctive relief when doing so would interfere with federal tax assessment and collection.<sup><a href="#s7">[7]</a></sup> The Johnson Amendment remains the law as originally enacted — but the IRS's <em>willingness</em> to concede it signals an enforcement posture that renders the law effectively toothless.</p>

  <h2><span>IV.</span> The Executive Order Campaign</h2>

  <p>The IRS action didn't happen in isolation. It sits within a systematic executive branch campaign to redefine the relationship between religion and government.</p>

  <table>
    <thead>
      <tr>
        <th>Date</th>
        <th>Action</th>
        <th>Effect</th>
      </tr>
    </thead>
    <tbody>
      <tr>
        <td>Feb 6, 2025</td>
        <td>Executive Order: "Eradicating Anti-Christian Bias"<sup><a href="#s11">[11]</a></sup></td>
        <td>Created a cabinet-level task force to review all agencies for "anti-Christian" policies. 2-year duration. The fact sheet referenced only Christianity, despite vowing to promote "religious pluralism."</td>
      </tr>
      <tr>
        <td>May 1, 2025</td>
        <td>Executive Order: Religious Liberty Commission<sup><a href="#s12">[12]</a></sup></td>
        <td>Created a commission to report on "threats to domestic religious liberty." Composed exclusively of Christians and one Orthodox rabbi. Expires July 4, 2026.</td>
      </tr>
      <tr>
        <td>Jul 7, 2025</td>
        <td>IRS consent decree on Johnson Amendment<sup><a href="#s8">[8]</a></sup></td>
        <td>Attempted to exempt churches from political endorsement restrictions. Later voided by court, but signaled non-enforcement posture.</td>
      </tr>
      <tr>
        <td>Jul 28, 2025</td>
        <td>OPM memo on workplace proselytizing<sup><a href="#s13">[13]</a></sup></td>
        <td>Authorized federal employees to promote religious beliefs to colleagues, attempt to persuade others of "correctness" of their views, display religious items, form prayer groups.</td>
      </tr>
      <tr>
        <td>May 17, 2026</td>
        <td>Rededicate 250 rally on National Mall<sup><a href="#s4">[4]</a></sup></td>
        <td>$100M+ taxpayer-funded prayer event, nearly all-Christian speakers, with private pastoral briefing for midterm mobilization.</td>
      </tr>
    </tbody>
  </table>

  <p>Each action, taken alone, might be defensible on narrow grounds. Taken together, they form a pattern that is difficult to characterize as anything other than the systematic alignment of federal government with a specific religious tradition.</p>

  <h2><span>V.</span> The Religious Liberty Commission</h2>

  <p>The commission Trump created in May 2025 to examine "threats to religious liberty" has itself become a flashpoint.</p>

  <p>Its chair, Texas Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick, stated at the commission's final hearing:</p>

  <blockquote>
    "Would it not be a good recommendation that every school, every university, every business, has to have that one sheet on the bulletin board about protecting people's religious liberty, and that the separation of church and state is the biggest lie that's been told in America since our founding?"
    <cite>— Dan Patrick, Chair, Religious Liberty Commission<sup><a href="#s14">[14]</a></sup></cite>
  </blockquote>

  <p>Commission member Helen Alvaré, a law professor at George Mason University, agreed with Patrick's bulletin-board suggestion, saying it would "clarify" rights that "have been misunderstood."<sup><a href="#s14">[14]</a></sup></p>

  <p>The commission's membership tells its own story. It consists exclusively of Christians — evangelical allies, Catholic bishops, and TV personality Phil McGraw — plus one Orthodox rabbi. No Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs, or non-religious Americans sit on a commission ostensibly studying "America's peaceful religious pluralism."<sup><a href="#s14">[14]</a></sup><sup><a href="#s12">[12]</a></sup></p>

  <p>In February 2026, Americans United for Separation of Church and State and Democracy Forward filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of a multifaith coalition — including Interfaith Alliance, Muslims for Progressive Values, Sikh American Legal Defense and Education Fund, and Hindus for Human Rights — challenging the commission's creation under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA). The suit alleges the commission was unlawfully constituted with unbalanced viewpoints and seeks disclosure of documents that should be public.<sup><a href="#s15">[15]</a></sup></p>

  <h2><span>VI.</span> Religion in the Federal Workplace</h2>

  <p>On July 28, 2025, the Office of Personnel Management issued a memorandum declaring that federal agencies "should allow personal religious expression by Federal employees to the greatest extent possible." The guidance stated that employees may:<sup><a href="#s13">[13]</a></sup></p>

  <ul>
    <li>Promote their religious beliefs to colleagues</li>
    <li>Attempt to persuade others of the "correctness of their own religious views"</li>
    <li>Display religious items (Bible, rosary, tefillin) at their desk</li>
    <li>Form workplace prayer groups and gather for scripture study</li>
  </ul>

  <p>The memo came from OPM Director Scott Kupor, with the caveat that such efforts should not be "harassing in nature." CBS News reported that the administration framed this as allowing employees to "encourage co-workers to re-think their religious beliefs."<sup><a href="#s13">[13]</a></sup></p>

  <p>Separately, cabinet secretaries began incorporating overt Christian messaging into official communications. The February 2025 executive order on "anti-Christian bias" released a fact sheet that <em>only directly referenced Christianity</em>, despite its stated mission to promote pluralism.<sup><a href="#s12">[12]</a></sup></p>

  <h2><span>VII.</span> Timeline: 18 Months of Erosion</h2>

  <div>
    <div>
      <div>January 20, 2025</div>
      <div>Trump inaugurated for second term. Paula White-Cain delivers invocation.</div>
    </div>
    <div>
      <div>February 6, 2025</div>
      <div>Executive Order: "Eradicating Anti-Christian Bias." Cabinet-level task force created to review all agencies.<sup><a href="#s11">[11]</a></sup></div>
    </div>
    <div>
      <div>February 2025</div>
      <div>ProPublica reports Speaker Johnson is living in a $3.7M Capitol Hill townhouse that serves as the base for evangelical pastor Steve Berger's political influence operation. Berger's stated goal: having congressional members learn principles "translated into policy."<sup><a href="#s16">[16]</a></sup></div>
    </div>
    <div>
      <div>May 1, 2025</div>
      <div>Executive Order: Religious Liberty Commission created. Nearly all-Christian membership. Dan Patrick (TX Lt. Gov.) named chair.<sup><a href="#s12">[12]</a></sup></div>
    </div>
    <div>
      <div>July 7, 2025</div>
      <div>IRS enters consent decree in <em>NRB v. Long</em>, carving out church endorsement exception to Johnson Amendment.<sup><a href="#s8">[8]</a></sup></div>
    </div>
    <div>
      <div>July 28, 2025</div>
      <div>OPM memo authorizes federal workplace proselytizing — employees may promote religious views and attempt to persuade colleagues.<sup><a href="#s13">[13]</a></sup></div>
    </div>
    <div>
      <div>February 9, 2026</div>
      <div>Americans United + Democracy Forward file FACA lawsuit challenging Religious Liberty Commission composition.<sup><a href="#s15">[15]</a></sup></div>
    </div>
    <div>
      <div>March 31, 2026</div>
      <div>Federal judge rejects IRS consent decree, dismisses case. Johnson Amendment remains law — but enforcement posture is clear.<sup><a href="#s7">[7]</a></sup></div>
    </div>
    <div>
      <div>April 14, 2026</div>
      <div>Commission chair Dan Patrick calls church-state separation "the biggest lie" in American history. Proposes mandatory bulletin-board postings in every school and business.<sup><a href="#s14">[14]</a></sup></div>
    </div>
    <div>
      <div>May 17, 2026</div>
      <div>Rededicate 250: $100M+ taxpayer-funded prayer rally on the National Mall. Preceding private briefing: Johnson tells pastors they are "the missing link" and urges midterm mobilization.<sup><a href="#s2">[2]</a></sup><sup><a href="#s4">[4]</a></sup></div>
    </div>
    <div>
      <div>May 28, 2026</div>
      <div>FFRF announces investigation into Johnson's pastoral coordination.<sup><a href="#s1">[1]</a></sup></div>
    </div>
  </div>

  <h2><span>VIII.</span> The Legal Landscape</h2>

  <h3>The Supreme Court Shifted the Ground</h3>

  <p>This didn't begin with Trump. The Supreme Court's 2022 decision in <em>Kennedy v. Bremerton School District</em> fundamentally altered Establishment Clause jurisprudence by abandoning the <em>Lemon</em> test — the three-part framework (purpose, effect, entanglement) that had governed church-state cases for decades. The 6-3 ruling described <em>Lemon</em> as "abstract" and "ahistorical" and replaced it with a standard based on "original meaning and history."<sup><a href="#s17">[17]</a></sup></p>

  <p>The practical effect: courts now look to "historical practices and understandings" rather than examining whether government action has the purpose or effect of endorsing religion. Since the Founders' era included tax exemptions for churches, legislative chaplains, and presidential prayer proclamations, the new standard makes it far harder to challenge government-religion entanglement.</p>

  <h3>Project 2025 Provided the Blueprint</h3>

  <p>The Heritage Foundation's Project 2025 — the 900-page policy manual that has guided much of the Trump administration's second term — explicitly calls for increased government funding to religious institutions with decreased oversight, universal school vouchers that would direct taxpayer money to religious schools, and policies based on a "biblically based, social science-reinforced definition of marriage and family."<sup><a href="#s18">[18]</a></sup></p>

  <p>Legal analysts at the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty wrote that Project 2025 "would undermine healthy boundaries between church and state" with "an emphasis on promoting more government funding being directed to religious institutions, while decreasing the oversight on such organizations."<sup><a href="#s19">[19]</a></sup></p>

  <h3>The Steve Berger Pipeline</h3>

  <p>ProPublica's February 2025 investigation into Speaker Johnson's living arrangement added a personal dimension. Johnson has been staying at a $3.7 million Capitol Hill townhouse owned by Republican donor Lee Beaman, which serves as the base for evangelical pastor Steve Berger's nonprofit "Ambassador Services International" (~$1M annual budget). Berger's stated mission: having congressional members learn spiritual principles that get "translated into policy."<sup><a href="#s16">[16]</a></sup></p>

  <p>Berger has claimed direct impact, saying in a 2022 sermon: "You get a text message from a senator that says: 'Thank you for your inspiration. Because it has caused me now to create a bill.'" His policy advocacy covers federal employee termination, automotive fuel efficiency, post-2020 election challenges, and Israeli policy.<sup><a href="#s16">[16]</a></sup></p>

  <h2><span>IX.</span> Analysis: What Has Actually Changed</h2>

  <div>
    <h3>Adversarial Frame-Check</h3>
    <p>Before locking a verdict, the strongest counterargument: <strong>None of this is technically illegal.</strong> Executive orders are within presidential power. The OPM memo cites existing religious freedom statutes. The Rededicate 250 event used public gathering spaces available to all. Johnson's pastoral briefing, while unseemly, may not violate any specific statute if he avoided direct candidate endorsements. The Religious Liberty Commission is a legitimate advisory body. And the Supreme Court has shifted the constitutional framework in ways that make many of these actions legally defensible.</p>
    <p><strong>Score: 3/5.</strong> This counter is plausible but tangential. "Technically legal" is not the same as "consistent with the Establishment Clause." The question is not whether any single action breaks a statute — it's whether the pattern constitutes government establishment of religion, and the totality of the evidence strongly suggests it does.</p>
  </div>

  <p><strong>What the FFRF is alleging is real, but it's also the least of it.</strong> Johnson telling pastors to mobilize for the midterms is one node in a network that includes:</p>

  <ul>
    <li>An executive order explicitly targeting "anti-Christian bias" — not anti-religious bias generally</li>
    <li>A Religious Liberty Commission whose chair calls church-state separation a lie</li>
    <li>$100M+ in taxpayer funds for a nearly all-Christian prayer rally on federal land</li>
    <li>An IRS that attempted to exempt churches from political endorsement restrictions</li>
    <li>Federal workplace rules encouraging employees to proselytize colleagues</li>
    <li>A Supreme Court that replaced the primary church-state test with one far more permissive</li>
    <li>A 900-page policy blueprint calling for "biblically based" government</li>
    <li>The House Speaker living in an evangelical pastor's influence-operation headquarters</li>
  </ul>

  <p><strong>The pattern is not subtle.</strong> Each action narrows the space between church and state. Executive orders target Christianity specifically, not religion broadly. The commission studying "religious liberty" excludes the religions whose liberty is most at risk. The prayer rally billed as celebrating "pluralism" featured almost exclusively Christian speakers. The workplace memo frames proselytizing as "expression." The IRS signals it won't enforce the law that prevents churches from becoming campaign operations.</p>

  <p><strong>The legal guardrails are weaker than they look.</strong> The Johnson Amendment still exists but the enforcement agency tried to gut it. The Establishment Clause still exists but the Supreme Court replaced its enforcement test with one that looks to the practices of an era when state-established churches were common. The FACA lawsuit challenges the commission's composition but not its existence. None of these guardrails are holding the way they were designed to.</p>

  <blockquote>
    The question is not whether any one of these actions crosses a line. It's that the line itself is being moved — by executive order, judicial reinterpretation, administrative capitulation, and the quiet redefinition of "religious liberty" from a shield for minority belief into a sword for majority faith. What was a wall has become a door, and the traffic flows in one direction.
  </blockquote>

  <p><strong>What happens next matters.</strong> The Religious Liberty Commission expires July 4, 2026 (unless extended). The FACA lawsuit is pending. The 2026 midterms — the very elections Johnson is mobilizing pastors for — will determine whether the legislative branch checks this trajectory or accelerates it. And the IRS's next move on the Johnson Amendment, now that the consent decree was rejected, will signal whether the law has any remaining enforcement reality.</p>