Four days after his remarkable showing in New York’s Democratic mayoral primary, Assemblyman Zohran Mamdani appeared at the Harlem headquarters of a group headed by the Rev. Al Sharpton. He acknowledged the leaders and biblical scriptures that fueled his campaign.
“Weeping may endure for the night, but joy comes in the morning,” Mr. Mamdani said, a reference to Psalm 30:5, a scripture that is especially popular in Black churches. “And it has been night for far too long in this city.”
Mr. Mamdani did not come to the gathering on June 28, for the National Action Network, explicitly seeking an endorsement from the faith leaders in the crowd. But under a new rule change from the I.R.S., he and his opponents in the mayoral race may be able to secure one without tax repercussions.
The I.R.S. said in a court filing last week that houses of worship could endorse political candidates to their congregations without losing their tax-exempt status. The move was initially seen as the agency’s formal termination of a longstanding but spottily enforced rule against campaigning from the pulpit.
But in New York, the ruling could also open up a new front in the city’s heated mayoral race, offering candidates the chance to formally consolidate support from not only faith leaders but their congregations.
It could present a lifeline for Mayor Eric Adams and former Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo, two candidates who have relied heavily on support from the city’s influential synagogues and Black churches to consolidate support during political crises. Mr. Mamdani has also made some inroads with Black church leaders, and frequently campaigned at some of the city’s largest mosques and Muslim community centers.
Still, no candidate is assured of any endorsement. Many of New York’s faith leaders said they regard the new policy as a slippery slope, and worry that their institutions may be viewed as political chess pieces for candidates to win and maneuver.
“I’m concerned that opening this Pandora’s box can lead to undue influence by political parties, PACs, parties, etc. upon clergy — pastors — to endorse a particular political candidate,” said the Rev. A.R. Bernard, a founder and senior pastor of the Christian Cultural Center, an influential Black congregation in Brooklyn. He added, “I’m concerned when the preacher can be bought.”
For decades, faith leaders across the political spectrum have loosely interpreted or ignored the Johnson Amendment, a decades-old measure that mandated that tax-exempt nonprofits refrain from endorsing political candidates or causes.
The I.R.S., in a court filing intended to resolve a lawsuit filed by two Texas churches and an association of Christian broadcasters, modified the ban to exempt religious nonprofits from limits on their political speech. The agency said a religious leader’s endorsement of a politician directly to their congregants equated to “a family discussion concerning political candidates.”
It was not clear if the definition of endorsement would extend beyond the pulpit to supportive words in church bulletins, posts on worship centers’ websites or political endorsements played in streamed religious services that could be viewed by congregants in other states.
White evangelical church leaders and organizations have long pushed for a repeal of the Johnson Amendment, claiming it stymies freedom of speech and religion. President Trump, who has garnered overwhelming support from white evangelical leaders, promised during his first term to “get rid of and totally destroy” the policy. The president’s close relationship with white evangelical churches has been a source of tension for some prominent left-leaning Black faith leaders, who say they have faced scrutiny under the Johnson Amendment that their conservative white counterparts have not.
Some religious leaders still have questions about the new guidelines. Mr. Sharpton said he would meet this week with national faith leaders and all chapters of the National Action Network to discuss a response to the rule change. The organization is also weighing pursuing additional legal action that would force the I.R.S. to further clarify what now constitutes political speech in houses of worship.
“The ruling is not narrow enough to say, ‘Does the church have a vote?’” Mr. Sharpton said. “I think it needs guardrails specifically outlined.”
For some, the change offers a chance to leverage newfound political influence. Some Muslim faith leaders and organizers seek to increase political engagement among the city’s more than one million Muslims and push city leaders to prioritize policies relevant to their communities. That effort has coincided with Mr. Mamdani’s bid to become the city’s first Muslim mayor.
“The potential is huge for masajid to get involved and to endorse,” said Afaf Nasher, executive director of the New York chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, which is nonpartisan. She added: “We’re growing more sophisticated, the Muslim community, in terms of looking at politics.”
Mr. Mamdani, who represents Queens, and Mr. Adams, who built his political career in Brooklyn, hail from two of the nation’s most religiously diverse communities. Both politicians have made extensive use of New York’s myriad houses of faith on the campaign trail: Mr. Adams, who frequented Black churches during his first campaign for mayor and has defended himself against federal corruption charges from the pulpits of fellow Black Christians. Mr. Mamdani has woven his Muslim faith into his campaign and held events at mosques and Muslim community centers.
Mr. Cuomo, who is Catholic, often made Black churches a stage for his failed campaign to be the Democratic nominee for mayor, using the pulpits to make pronouncements about his campaign and the future of New York. He often promoted his endorsements from leaders of prominent Black congregations to bolster his credibility with Black voters.
A spokesman for Mr. Mamdani did not comment on the I.R.S. rule change or specify plans to adjust its campaign strategy in response to it. Mr. Adams’s campaign spokesman, Todd Shapiro, said in a statement that the campaign was reviewing the agency’s new rule and that “we welcome the support of those who share our vision for a safer, fairer and more united city.”
Gregory Magarian, a constitutional law professor at Washington University in St. Louis who specializes in First Amendment law, said there may be little immediate or obvious change in how houses of worship or faith leaders respond to the rule. Many of New York’s religious sects have made their allegiances to particular candidates or issues clear over the years, from Black church leaders’ support of political candidates who champion voting rights to the Catholic Church’s opposition to abortion.
But, he added, the ruling could send a message to politicians and faith leaders who want to leverage the influence of some religious spaces.
“The sort of blur between the private communications of congregations and public communications is a different dimension,” he said. “Are some aggressive churches who want to be engaged in politicking going to use this as a way of making stronger public statements?”
Some faith leaders have echoed the concern that the pulpit could become another tool for campaigns to exploit the political influence that religious spaces can often wield in their respective communities.
“Whatever the I.R.S. determines is legal, it would be profoundly misguided for clergy to endorse candidates for elective office,” said Rabbi Jeremy Kalmonofsky of Temple Ansche Chesed in Manhattan, who added that he would implore his colleagues across faiths not to use their posts to endorse political candidates.
“There are no Torah rules about tariffs or tax rates or immigration laws for 21st-century America,” he added. “That level of specificity is for policy professionals to hammer out.”
Eliza Shapiro contributed reporting.