Clergy Act

H.R. 227 was introduced on January 7, 2025, by Rep. Fong (R-CA-20) with 21 cosponsors, referred to the House Ways and Means Committee, reported favorably (amended) on January 7, 2026, and passed the House under suspension of the rules on April 27, 2026. It was received in the Senate on April 28, 2026, and referred to the Committee on Finance. The bill is at an early stage in the Senate, with no further action recorded through June 11, 2026.

The bill authorizes zero direct federal spending. It modifies the Internal Revenue Code to permit certain clergy and Christian Science practitioners who previously filed an irrevocable exemption from self-employment (SECA) taxes to revoke that exemption during a defined window (between 2028 and the 2029 tax filing deadline). If they opt in, they become liable for the full 15.3% OASDI + HI self-employment tax on their ministerial earnings and become eligible for Social Security and Medicare benefits based on those earnings. The IRS must develop a plan to inform eligible individuals of this option.

The money trail: this is a tax administrative change, not a spending bill. The Congressional Budget Office would likely score a tiny revenue increase if any significant number of clergy opt in, but even an aggressive assumption of 50,000 clergy with average ministerial earnings of $50,000 opting in would generate roughly $380 million annually in additional SECA taxes — a rounding error within the Social Security trust funds ($1.3 trillion total annual revenue). Given that the opt-in is voluntary and requires payment of past-due taxes, actual participation is likely very low.

For financial sector firms (BAC, JPM, C, WFC, GS, MS, BLK, SCHW), there is no direct or indirect material revenue impact. The bill does not change bank regulation, lending requirements, interest rates, asset management fees, or any driver of financial sector earnings. The inclusion of these tickers is required by the dataset provided, but the correct analysis is that this bill is a legislative nullity for banks and financial service firms.

The bill is widely seen as a fairness measure for clergy who were unaware of the irrevocability of their exemption. It has strong bipartisan support, as evidenced by the unanimous 40-0 Ways and Means committee vote and voice vote passage in the House. Senate passage is likely but not guaranteed given the narrow focus and limited floor time for non-controversial bills. The most likely path is passage within the 119th Congress, either as a stand-alone unanimous consent measure or attached to an extenders package.