As President Donald Trump addressed the National Prayer Breakfast in Washington on Thursday, reports circulated that his administration may soon seek to dramatically expand what defines a religious organization and offer broad protections to individuals and organizations that oppose same-sex marriage, contraception coverage and more based on religion.

Trump did not directly address the rumored executive order at the breakfast, but he did issue a ringing defense of religious freedom.

“Freedom of religion is a sacred right, but it’s also a right under threat all around us,” he said. “My administration will do everything in its power to protect religious liberty in this land.”

The president spent much of his address defending his recent executive order on refugees, insisting that procedures will be put in place to ensure that all new entries to the country “fully embrace our values of religious and personal liberty, and reject every form of persecution and oppression.”

“We will not allow a beachhead of intolerance to spread in our nation,” he said, and added that terrorism must also be confronted abroad, “viciously if we have to.”

Trump did announce one new domestic move with implications for religious freedom, vowing to eliminate a 1954 amendment to the tax code barring 501(c)3 tax-exempt religious organizations from endorsing or opposing political candidates.

“I will get rid of and totally destroy the Johnson Amendment, and allow our representatives of faith to speak freely and without fear of retribution,” Trump said. “I will do that.”

The National Prayer Breakfast was founded in 1953 by Abraham Vereide, a Norwegian-born Methodist minister, and is hosted by members of the U.S. Congress. Every president since Dwight Eisenhower has participated in the event.

A draft copy of the possible executive order on domestic religious freedom protections was obtained by The Investigative Fund and The Nation. The White House refused to comment on its status.

“Americans and their religious organizations,” the leaked draft says, “will not be coerced by the Federal Government into participating in activities that violate their conscience.”

Titled “Establishing a Government-Wide Initiative to Respect Religious Freedom,” the draft would afford religious freedom protections to “any organization, including closely held for-profit corporations, operated for a religious purpose, even if its purpose is not exclusively religious.”

The right of closely held for-profit corporations to be exempt from contraception mandates imposed as part of the Obama administration’s health care reform was key to the 2014 Hobby Lobby case before the U.S. Supreme Court.

“Persons and organizations do not forfeit their religious freedom when providing social services, education, or healthcare; earning a living, seeking a job, or employing others; receiving government grants or contracts: or otherwise participating in the marketplace, the public square, or interfacing with Federal, State or local governments,” the draft says.

The order would specifically protect the religious freedom of any entity that “believes, speaks, or acts (or declines to act) in accordance with the belief that marriage is or should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman, sexual relations are properly reserved for such a marriage, male and female and their equivalents refer to an individual’s immutable biological sex as objectively determined by anatomy, physiology, or genetics at or before birth, and that human life begins at conception and merits protection at all stages of life.”

Among other things, the order would allow religious organizations to deny contraception coverage to employees, presumably ending the standoff between the U.S. bishops and other Catholic groups and the Department of Health and Human Services over that issue.

The draft order also instructs the federal government not to revoke tax-exempt status from the broadly defined religious organizations based on a group’s stance against same-sex marriage, pre-marital sex, abortion or recognition of transgender identity, and would create a “working group” within the Department of Justice aimed at investigating potential violations.

Some legal experts quoted in the Nation’s report questioned the constitutionality of aspects of the draft order, suggesting they may go well beyond what U.S. courts to date have recognized as permissible religious accommodations to generally binding public law.

It would be “astonishing,” said  Marty Lederman, a professor at Georgetown University Law Center, “if the Office of Legal Counsel certifies the legality of this blunderbuss order.”

Though styled as a move to protect religious believers against discrimination, the Nation’s report suggests that LGBT and women’s rights groups are likely to argue that the order actually codifies a right to discriminate against them.