In early February, President Donald Trump delivered remarks at the National Prayer Breakfast, an annual event organized by a well-connected Christian group, The Fellowship. Much of the speech was devoted to pleasant generalities about religion in public life—“America will thrive as long as we continue to have faith in each other and faith in God,” that kind of thing. Cable news coverage of the speech focused on Trump’s cheeky prayer request for the ratings of Arnold Schwarzenegger’s “Celebrity Apprentice” show.

The speech’s one concrete policy proposal stood out among these superficialities. As part of his commitment to religious liberty, Trump said he would “get rid of, and totally destroy, the Johnson Amendment,” a provision of the tax code that prohibits 501(c)3 organizations, including churches, from engaging in partisan politics. Ending the Johnson Amendment, Trump said, would “allow our representatives of faith to speak freely and without fear of retribution.”

This turned out to be a familiar refrain for Trump. During his acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention in Cleveland, Trump thanked “the evangelical and religious community” for their support, and lamented the fact that “our laws prevent you from speaking your minds from your own pulpits.” Trump mentioned the provision again when he announced Mike Pence as his running mate, claiming that “you are just absolutely shunned if you’re evangelical; if you want to talk religion, you lose your tax-exempt status.” He spoke candidly about the issue during the Value Voters Summit in September, saying he decided to “knock out” the Johnson Amendment after learning that it prevented sympathetic religious leaders from endorsing him for President. And on Thursday, Trump signed an Executive Order directing the Treasury Department to refrain from penalizing religious groups for speaking “about moral or political issues from a religious perspective”—not exactly destroying the Johnson Amendment, but defanging it for the duration of his presidency.

The Republican Party has since embraced the policy stance of its standard-bearer. For the first time, the 2016 party platform “urge[d] the repeal of the Johnson Amendment.” The same day Trump spoke to the National Prayer Breakfast, legislation to tweak the amendment was introduced by Senator James Lankford (R-Oklahoma), Representative Steve Scalise (R-Louisiana), and Representative Jody Hice (R-Georgia), who was once a Baptist preacher. One month later, Chairman of the House Committee on Ways and Means Kevin Brady (R-Texas) told a crowd at the Conservative Political Action Conference that the Republican tax reform bill would repeal the Johnson Amendment.

As Trump himself has admitted, his sustained attack on the Johnson Amendment is motivated largely by politics. Four out of five white Evangelicals voted for Trump. According to a Morning Consult/Politico poll, Evangelicals are more supportive than other religious groups of allowing tax-exempt organizations to engage in political activity. Additionally, Evangelicals and populist conservatives, the overlapping groups that compose Trump’s base, feel persecuted by powerful forces in society hostile to their values; no institution embodies this hostility more in their minds than the Internal Revenue Service, which targeted Tea Party groups in the run-up to the 2012 election. Trump’s political calculation is apparent in light of these facts. Pledging to end the Johnson Amendment is a way for him to reward loyal constituents and assure them that he shares their concerns.

What kind of reward the Johnson Amendment repeal would be is the subject of debate. According to proponents of repeal, it would be a defensive action on behalf of religious communities, protecting churches from government inquisitors with the power to bankrupt them for the content of a sermon. According to critics, repeal would be an offensive action that would increase the power of conservative Christians and allow them to abuse privileges like tax exemption and donor anonymity for partisan ends.

Reformers and defenders both have valid concerns. The Johnson Amendment is a vague and inconsistently enforced provision that discourages non-profits, including churches, from speaking about topics that are important to their missions. However, fully repealing the provision would be perilous, opening the door to campaign-finance abuse and over-politicization in the non-profit sector that could weaken public trust at a time when civil society is already hemorrhaging social capital by the bucket.

Would-be reformers should keep these facts in mind and anticipate the consequences of allowing non-profits to engage in partisan politics. If they are willing to proceed calmly and carefully, a compromise may be possible to assuage the concerns of most stakeholders.

It is worth briefly retelling the Johnson Amendment’s origin story to get a sense of what the non-profit sector was like before it. (For a more in-depth treatment of the subject, read Oliver Houck’s excellent paper on non-profits and politics.) As it turns out, Lyndon Johnson’s creation of the rule was no less politically motivated than Trump’s current desire to “destroy” it.

In 1954, the Texas Senator was challenged in the Democratic primary by oilman Dudley Dougherty, who was running to Johnson’s right as a fierce anti-communist. Dougherty’s campaign had the support of wealthy far-Right donors, including fellow oilman H.L. Hunt (who inspired the character J.R. in Dallas) and New York publisher Frank Gannett. Tax-exempt organizations affiliated with those donors circulated mailers attacking Johnson and promoting Dougherty. Gannett’s Committee for Constitutional Government distributed an article that attacked Johnson as a “Boss Tweed” figure who won his Senate seat by 87 votes in 1948 after “strange doings in Jim Wells County.” The article went on to assert that Johnson was a socialist who sought the abolition of the United States by promoting the New Deal and international entanglements like the United Nations and “NATO, the military phantasm.” “Nationalist-minded Texans…are down on Johnson for being too friendly to the internationalists,” the article stated in an interesting foreshadowing of today’s right-wing populism.

Johnson, incensed that his enemies were spending tax-free dollars to defeat him, asked his lawyers to find a way to “lash back,” according to aide George Reedy. They struck upon a solution that had been considered once before in the past: banning partisan campaign activity by non-profit organizations. Senators had considered taking that step in 1934 to curb the influence of partisan “educational” organizations, but decided against it because they were unwilling to bar all non-profits from participating in politics—they only wanted to bar non-profits that were pursuing objectives contrary to the public good, a difficult thing to adjudge in a pluralistic society. Those early reformers settled for banning non-profits from devoting a “substantial part” of their activities to lobbying, while allowing them to continue in partisan politics. In a fit of pique, Johnson decided to finish what his predecessors started; his amendment to section 501(c)(3) of the tax code was gaveled through with no debate and little fanfare.

There are at least two important takeaways from this history, aside from the general observation that the whole affair casts light on the stunning complications of separating church from state as the Founders’ meaning of the concept changed over time into a version they would not even have recognized. The first takeaway is that, in mid-century America, some private parties used 501(c)3 non-profits for political activities only tenuously related to the public interest. Full repeal of the Johnson Amendment would open that door again. The second is that the Johnson Amendment was championed by a lawmaker in a fit of pique, despite the misgivings of a previous generation of lawmakers. That helps to explain some of the problems that have emerged with the Johnson Amendment in the decades since it passed; it should also caution reformers to do their homework before committing to a major change in the law.

To fully understand the Johnson Amendment, it is also important to understand the non-profit sector it regulates. The government affords certain tax privileges to organizations whose mission is something other than turning a profit. These organizations can register for exemption from some Federal taxes under Section 501 of the tax code. Within that section are a multitude of tax-exempt options, ranging from 501(c)4 status, for “social welfare organizations” that often advocate for partisan political causes, to the rarely used 501(d) status, for “religious or apostolic organizations” whose members live communally and hold property in common (think the Shakers).

The most generous tax-exempt status is reserved for 501(c)3 organizations, which are devoted to religious, charitable, and educational activities that the government does not want to minimize through taxation. Most charities and churches in the United States, plus some private foundations, fall into this category. Like other tax-exempt groups, 501(c)3s are exempt from income tax; in addition to this standard benefit, contributions to 501(c)3s can be deducted by donors. These benefits—tax-exemption and deductible contributions—are important to the very survival of many churches and charities. The basic deal here is clear to see: The government will provide you financial advantages on the condition that you stay within the guardrails of your civic vocation. Government is thereby not abridging the free speech of individuals who may wish to express political convictions out of a religious framework, but it cannot subsidize the free speech of religious institutions as such.

The Johnson Amendment thus stipulates that in order for non-profits to keep 501(c)3 status, they must not engage in electoral politics in basically any form. The one-sentence-long rule requires non-profits not to “participate in, or intervene in…any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office.” What constitutes political campaign participation or intervention? Obvious examples include donations, fundraising, and endorsements; certain forms of election work are permitted so long as they do not suggest institutional support for one candidate or another, like voter registration and “souls-to-the-polls” initiatives. Non-profits also can support or oppose ballot initiatives, since they involve issues, not parties or candidates.

Beyond those guidelines, a fog obscures the issue. “The line between what is prohibited and what is permitted can sometimes be difficult to discern,” the Congressional Research Service wrote. Attempts by the IRS to clarify the rules have sometimes muddied them further. Take, for instance, the agency’s official answer to whether non-profits can take sides on issues that divide candidates in an election: “Section 501(c)(3) organizations may take positions on public policy issues, including issues that divide candidates in an election for public office,” it stated. “However, section 501(c)(3) organizations must avoid any issue advocacy that functions as political campaign intervention.” The vagueness of this passage cannot have comforted pastors who thought about speaking to their congregants about, say, immigration this past fall.

The Johnson Amendment’s vagueness is troubling especially when its punishments are called to mind: A single violation can result in excise taxes or loss of tax-exempt status. The unusual severity of this penalty was noted by a Senate-created commission on the Johnson Amendment: “No other provision of federal tax law has the potential to invoke the ‘nuclear’ penalty of loss of exempt status for what one organization’s leader may say in one or a few instances.”

Due to recognition that the issue is politically sensitive and unusual, the IRS has been careful in its enforcement of the Johnson Amendment. It has revoked the tax-exempt status of only a few non-profits in egregious cases over many, many years. One notable example was Branch Ministries v. Rossotti, regarding an Evangelical ministry that took out full-page newspaper advertisements advocating the defeat of Bill Clinton, titled “Christians Beware.” At the bottom of the ads, the ministry stated “Tax-deductible donations for this advertisement gladly accepted.”

The IRS has acted with notable restraint in cases involving sermons, which would open the agency to the charge that it was hassling pastors for their religion; so far, it has not taken the bait when Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative public interest law firm, has encouraged self-reported violations of the provision to trigger litigation on First Amendment grounds. Enforcement was slowed further by a 2009 court case that determined that Johnson Amendment investigations against churches were not being approved by a sufficiently high-ranking Treasury Department official, as required by law. Trump’s Executive Order will halt enforcement entirely, although it can be reversed by his successors in the presidency.

For critics, it is not a great comfort that the IRS rarely enforces the Johnson Amendment—if anything, they find the seeming randomness of the agency’s enforcement decisions troubling in its own right. Because of its vague language and draconian penalties, the provision hangs ominously over cautious non-profit leaders. “[L]oss of exempt income and deductible contributions constitute, for most nonprofits, the loss of life,” writes Houck. “Prospects such as these radiate a broad chill. Only the most secure organizations, or the most reckless, will dare speak at or even near the margin.”

These troubling aspects of the Johnson Amendment are felt most acutely by churches, which is one reason why debate over the provision centers on religious institutions. Most public charities that wish to engage in politics create a separate arm—usually registered as 501(c)4 social welfare organizations, which are not subject to the Johnson Amendment—to talk about partisan politics or candidates. In effect, they safeguard their tax-exempt status by creating a mirror organization that engages in political activity, funded by a (supposedly) separate stream of contributions. It is much more difficult for churches to do this, since most want only to make occasional statements about politics, not maintain a constant political apparatus. Additionally, churches’ political involvement typically occurs in Sunday sermons that cannot easily be paid for with a separate funding stream.

So for a mere one-sentence provision in the law, the Johnson Amendment turns out to be quite complicated, in no small part because it regiments the behavior of over 1.2 million 501(c)3 organizations. As defenders of the Johnson Amendment argue, “destroying” the provision would unleash all those groups to engage in partisan politics, including spending tax-exempt dollars.

The most sensational of these defenders argue that repeal would be a powerful weapon for the religious Right, whose operatives could turn offering plates into dark-money coffers and pulpits into bullhorns for the Republican Party. “Why does Trump want to change [the amendment]?” asked MSNBC’s Steve Benen. “Basically because the religious right told him to. But why does the religious right want this? Because some on the right still dream of creating a church-based political machine.”

Arguments like this seem to assume that because elements of the religious Right support changes to the Johnson Amendment, the changes would automatically redound to their partisan advantage. A closer look at the non-profit landscape calls this assumption into question. Repeal would alter the rules not only for conservative Evangelical churches—the backbone of the religious Right—but for every other house of worship that organizes as a 501(c)3. That list includes black churches, mainline Protestant churches, Reform Jewish synagogues, and mosques, whose congregants are mostly left-of-center; the former two groups already devote a great deal of energy and resources to political organizing, including activities that are dubious from the point of view of the Johnson Amendment. Those congregations are just as likely as Trump-friendly churches to put on the armor of God and wade into the political arena.

Including secular non-profits in the analysis further weakens the notion that the religious Right would be the main beneficiary of the Johnson Amendment repeal. Of the roughly 1.2 million 501(c)3 organizations registered in the United States, only 300,000 are religious congregations, so the vast majority of groups affected by changes to the Johnson Amendment would not be churches. Looking at the heavy hitters in the secular non-profit world—for example, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the American Civil Liberties Union—leaves little doubt about which party would benefit if the sector became involved in politics.

Setting aside the question of who benefits in strictly political terms, reformers should consider whether non-profits as a whole would benefit from changes to the Johnson Amendment. Many defenders of the provision are concerned about what reform would do to the credibility of non-profit institutions. Even if most non-profits do not change their behavior in response to changes in the law, some undoubtedly will embrace politics later if not sooner, and some of those will embrace politics in ways that seem untoward to many Americans. The rotten actions of these non-profit apples, it is argued, will sour the public’s perception of the non-profit barrel as a whole. Lower levels of public trust in non-profits would in turn reduce charitable giving, volunteerism, and community involvement. In the apocalyptic version of this scenario, the public’s perception that non-profits are little better than other, explicitly political organizations would lead to the elimination of tax-exempt status entirely.

The National Council of Non-Profits made this argument eloquently in a position paper opposing changes to the Johnson Amendment:

Those concerned about community life in America should take this warning seriously, as the politicization of charities and churches could balkanize already-divided communities. The lone Republican in a Reform Jewish synagogue or the lone Democrat in a Mormon temple could be estranged from their co-religionists by more explicit invocations of partisan politics. If they dropped out of their congregations, society would be further divided along red-blue lines, and civic life, in terms of volunteer hours, donations, and interpersonal connections, would thereby suffer.

Back in February, President Trump spoke in his typically bombastic style about destroying the Johnson Amendment; on Thursday he took a tiny step toward that goal by directing the Treasury Department not to enforce the provision. If he is serious about proceeding with reform through the legislative branch, then he needs to consider all the ramifications. As the President correctly senses, many religious and charitable leaders feel threatened by the provision, which could ensnare them in costly litigation because of a few careless words. On the other hand, many non-profit leaders fear that full repeal of the Johnson Amendment will weaken their organizations on account of the irresponsible actions of other groups.

A carefully tailored reform of the Johnson Amendment could satisfy Trump’s core constituents without unduly threatening other non-profit leaders. The Free Speech Fairness Act, the legislation introduced by Lankford, Hice, and Scalise, offers such a reform. The bill would permit 501(c)3 organizations to make political statements so long as they are made “in the ordinary course” of their “regular and customary activities” and cost a negligible (“de minimis”) amount of money. This tweak would carve out an exception for speech from the pulpit—the main concern of religious leaders, and a sphere most Americans consider inviolable—without threatening to open the floodgates to political activity by 501(c)3s.

The proposal is still not without its risks. It could prove harmful to civic life in America if too many pastors or charitable leaders avail themselves of the opportunity to talk about partisan politics during election time, and it is reasonable to assume the number of political sermons will increase somewhat if this reform is implemented. But it is unlikely that the increase would be intolerable. Some 90 percent of Protestant pastors—including 86 percent of Evangelical pastors—believe it is inappropriate to endorse candidates from the pulpit, according to a 2012 poll by the Southern Baptist organization LifeWay. They are unlikely to change their tune about the propriety of politics from the pulpit just because it is permitted, at least anytime soon. “[P]astors believe the government has no place in determining what is and is not said from their pulpits regarding candidates,” according to LifeWay Research Director Scott McConnell, “Yet most pastors don’t believe endorsement of candidates should be made from the pulpit.”

In an important sense, this reform would bring the law into harmony with how religious organizations actually operate. Polling from August 2016 shows that 14 percent of recent churchgoers heard their pastors speak for or against Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump at church, in clear violation of the Johnson Amendment as currently written. That figure encompasses 29 percent of black Protestants, 6 percent of Catholics, 4 percent of white Evangelicals, and 2 percent of white mainline Protestants. The IRS does not have the resources or the appetite to pursue these cases, and for good reason. Congress should remove its statutory commitment to do so. In any event, generally speaking, as none other than Albert Einstein once said, “Nothing is more destructive of respect for the government and the law of the land than passing laws which cannot be enforced.”

Donald Trump made repeal of the Johnson Amendment the centerpiece of his platform on religious liberty, and the reasons are easy enough to see. The Johnson Amendment is a source of at least mild concern for many non-profits, especially churches. Better yet, this obscure tax provision can be presented theatrically as an issue that pits government inquisitors against Trump’s base of culturally conservative and religious voters.

Despite these advantages, one of the amazing things about this saga is how Trump has elevated an issue of secondary or even tertiary importance to the center of his religious liberty agenda. The Johnson Amendment was a peripheral issue for social conservatives for many years—the Republican Party only thought to add it to its platform once Trump won the nomination.

Indeed, conservative policy experts and religious leaders have noted with frustration and anger that the Johnson Amendment is one of the few religious liberty items Trump has focused on, to the exclusion of reforms they consider more important in a hostile culture. These observers reacted with bitter disappointment to Trump’s Executive Order on religious liberty, which tinkered with the Johnson Amendment and the contraceptive mandate but omitted important reforms that had been included in earlier drafts. Reforming or repealing the Johnson Amendment will generate goodwill from religious leaders only if it is followed by substantive—and no doubt more controversial—reforms in other areas. If Trump fails to do that, all his talk about protecting religious communities will seem like a ploy to mollify an important constituency before the 2016 election—which is almost certainly all that it ever was. In this case, the richly ironic end result of Trump’s quest to “destroy” the Johnson Amendment would be granting religious leaders the ability to hold him accountable from the pulpit.