Fair Treatment of Religious Organizations Act of 2026
- Sponsor
- Rep. Moore, Blake D. [R-UT-1]
- Committees
- Oversight and Government Reform Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Mar 26, 2026
Bottom line
The bill aims to broaden and protect religious organizations' ability to maintain tax-exempt status and receive federal funding without regard to their stances on marriage, sexuality, or gender identity.
What it actually does
This bill proposes two key changes: first, it mandates that the determination of a religious organization's tax-exempt status under Section 501 of the Internal Revenue Code must disregard its beliefs or practices concerning marriage, sexuality, or gender identity, even if those beliefs are inconsistent with law or public policy. Second, it prohibits federal agencies from discriminating against religious employers receiving federal financial assistance for employment actions consistent with their religious beliefs and standards, referencing existing religious exemptions in civil rights law.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that the bill is essential for protecting religious freedom and preventing government overreach into the internal affairs and beliefs of religious organizations. They contend that religious organizations should not be penalized or denied federal benefits simply because their deeply held religious beliefs may differ from evolving societal norms or government policies regarding marriage, sexuality, or gender identity. They assert it ensures fair treatment and prevents discrimination against faith-based entities.
Opponents contend
Opponents contend that this bill could enable and legitimize discrimination against LGBTQ+ individuals and others by federally funded religious organizations, undermining existing civil rights protections. They argue that allowing organizations to use religious beliefs to justify employment practices that would otherwise be considered discriminatory, while still receiving taxpayer dollars, creates a carve-out that harms vulnerable populations and conflicts with the principle of equal protection under the law.
The bill is short and relatively straightforward to read, but its implications are far-reaching, requiring significant time to fully grasp the legal and societal ramifications.
Section 2
Determination of Religious Purpose for Tax-Exempt Status
This section amends Section 501 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. It specifies that when the IRS determines if an organization has a 'religious purpose' for tax-exempt status, it must ignore the organization's religious beliefs or practices related to marriage, sexuality, or gender identity. This holds true even if these beliefs are seen as inconsistent with other laws or public policy. Furthermore, a belief is still considered religious even if it's not a core or mandatory part of a specific religious system.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this provision is crucial for safeguarding the religious liberty of faith-based organizations, ensuring they are not penalized or denied tax-exempt status due to their adherence to traditional religious doctrines regarding marriage, sexuality, or gender identity. They believe it prevents governmental bodies from imposing ideological litmus tests on religious groups.
Critics contend
Critics contend that this provision could allow organizations to maintain tax-exempt status while openly discriminating against certain groups, particularly LGBTQ+ individuals, under the guise of religious belief, potentially undermining broader anti-discrimination principles in public policy.
Tradeoffs
This provision navigates the tension between protecting religious freedom and ensuring non-discrimination. It prioritizes the right of religious organizations to define their religious purpose according to their beliefs, even if those beliefs conflict with other public policy goals, potentially at the expense of protections for LGBTQ+ individuals.
Section 3
Nondiscriminatory Federal Financial Assistance
This section prohibits any federal government entity (branch, department, or agency) from discriminating against or disadvantaging religious employers when those employers apply for or receive federal grants, loans, or other financial assistance. This protection applies specifically to employment actions or practices that are consistent with the religious employer's right to hire individuals who share their religious beliefs and comply with their religious standards. It explicitly references existing religious exemptions found in the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, and the First Amendment.
Clarifies that a belief does not fail to be treated as a religious belief merely because it is not compelled by or central to a system of religion.
Section 2(s)(2)
Why it matters:This phrasing is standard legislative practice for defining terms and clarifying scope within a statutory amendment. It aims to prevent narrow interpretations of what constitutes a 'religious belief'.
Case for: Supporters argue this broadens the protection for individual religious conscience, ensuring that sincerely held beliefs, even if not universally mandated by a specific denomination, are recognized and protected under the law.
Case against: Critics might argue that this expansive definition could be exploited to justify a wider range of actions as 'religious' without clear theological grounding, potentially making it harder to distinguish genuine religious practice from other motivations.
Estimated impact: This provision could significantly expand the scope of what qualifies as a protected religious belief, potentially affecting a broader array of organizations and individuals seeking religious exemptions or protections.
Section 3 explicitly references exemptions and defenses described in sections 702(a) and 703(e)(2) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, section 103(d) of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, and the First Amendment.
Section 3, referencing existing laws
Why it matters:This is standard legislative drafting practice to avoid reprinting lengthy statutory language and to ensure consistency with existing legal frameworks. It incorporates established legal principles by reference.
Case for: Proponents argue that referencing these existing laws provides a clear legal basis for the protections offered, ensuring that the bill aligns with established religious freedom jurisprudence and statutory exemptions.
Case against: Opponents might argue that by broadly referencing these exemptions, the bill implicitly expands their application in the context of federal funding, potentially creating new avenues for discrimination that were not originally intended or fully litigated in the context of federal financial assistance.
Estimated impact: The cumulative effect of these references reinforces and potentially broadens the legal grounds for religious organizations to assert exemptions from anti-discrimination requirements in their employment practices while receiving federal funds.