Mr. President, Mr. Attorney General, part of "free exercise" means not being in fear of tax audits because you said something the administration didn't like.
How else am I supposed to read this? The Attorney General, the IRS, and the ACLU will help "educate" African American pastors and ministers on "what they can say and what they cannot say in the church that would violate their 501c3 status with the IRS." This is problematical, at best. What churches should be saying about elections is nothing. That's part of the deal, the Church doesn't say anything directly about the election, and the civil government doesn't interfere with the Church. And, quite frankly, how is this not coercion? You don't send the IRS (who can take away their 501c3 status) and the ACLU (who just love suing churches) for anything other than intimidation. And sending the AG? How out-of-bounds is that?
This is a blatant violation of the 1st Amendment, and any church which willingly attends should have their 501c3 status revoked. Presuming this is a voluntary event (and it's far, far worse if it isn't), anyone attending is de facto supporting a specific party- the Democrats- in the elections. And, as I mentioned in the first sentence, how many churches are sending representatives because they're afraid that they'll lose their 501c3 status if they don't? When the administration tasks the AG, plus the IRS, and then invites the ACLU, any church not sending a representative could also be seen as de facto supporting a specific party, the Republicans, in that case. Coercion can be implicit, after all.
Which, again, is why we have the Religious Protections in the First Amendment in the first place.