Why US lawmaker called India's FCRA Bill amendments an attack against Christians

Published 5 August 2026 · politics

A US Congressman has raised alarm over proposed changes to India's foreign-funding law, claiming they could allow the government to take control of churches and

A US Congressman has raised alarm over proposed changes to India's foreign-funding law, claiming they could allow the government to take control of churches and religious charities. Republican Congressman Riley Moore, who represents West Virginia, called the proposed changes to the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, or FCRA, a "clear attack against Christians". He also warned that the issue could become a concern in India-US relations. Read Full Story "Christians have been in India since St. Thomas the Apostle travelled to the Malabar Coast just decades after the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ," Moore said in a post on X. "But despite this long Christian history, India's Parliament is considering amending Foreign Contribution Regulation Amendment (FCRA) rules to permit government takeovers of churches and religious charities," he said. "If this bill proceeds in this way, it would be a point of major concern in our bilateral relationship with India," Moore added. Moore's remarks have now taken a debate already playing out among churches and Christian organisations in India to Washington. But can the government really "take over" churches under the proposed law? It is not quite that simple. THE FCRA BILL EXPLAINED FCRA is the law that regulates foreign donations received by organisations in India. Put simply, an NGO, charity or religious organisation that wants to receive donations from abroad generally needs permission or registration under FCRA. The law also regulates how that foreign money can be spent. The new FCRA Bill proposes rules for what happens to foreign money — and property bought or built with that money — when an organisation no longer has a valid FCRA registration. This is the part that has caused concern. Under the proposed law, if an organisation's FCRA registration is cancelled, surrendered, not renewed or allowed to expire, its unused foreign funds and assets created using foreign contributions can temporarily come under a government-appointed "Designated Authority". If the organisation gets its registration back within the prescribed period, the money and assets would be returned. If it does not, those assets could permanently vest in the Designated Authority.

The authority could then transfer them to a government department, agency or local authority for public use. In certain cases, the assets could also be sold, with the proceeds going to the Consolidated Fund of India. Take a simple example. Suppose an organisation received foreign donations over the years and used that money to build a school or hospital. Years later, its FCRA registration expires and is not renewed. Under the proposed system, that property could eventually come under the Designated Authority if the organisation fails to regain its FCRA registration within the stipulated period. And that is where much of the concern comes from. It is not necessary for an organisation to be found guilty of a crime for this process to begin. Its registration could simply expire, not be renewed or be surrendered. PRS Legislative Research has flagged this issue, noting that organisations with assets created from foreign contributions may effectively have to keep renewing their FCRA registration if they want to retain those assets. SO, CAN THE GOVERNMENT TAKE OVER A CHURCH? This is where Moore's description needs some context. The Bill does not give the government a blanket power to seize any church simply because it receives foreign donations. In fact, it contains a specific safeguard for places of worship. If a place of worship eventually comes under the Designated Authority, the authority must ensure that its "religious character" is maintained. Its management or operation has to be entrusted to an eligible person. In simple terms, a church covered by this provision cannot simply be taken over and converted into a government office or some other secular facility. There is another important point. The proposed provision applies to foreign contributions and assets created using those contributions. It does not mean every property belonging to an organisation can automatically be taken away just because the organisation once received money from abroad. The government has also argued that the basic idea is not entirely new. The existing FCRA already contains provisions dealing with foreign contributions and assets after an organisation's registration is cancelled.