US Republican lawmaker voices against India’s FCRA Bill, calls ‘attack on Christians’; here's how he spreads fake information

On Wednesday, August 5, US Congressman Riley Moore, a Republican from West Virginia, took to social media to criticize proposed changes to India's Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Amendment Bill 2026, describing them as a "clear attack against Christians." This comes ahead of the time when the Central government is about to table the bill in the ongoing Parliamentary Monsoon Session. 

 

US Congressman Riley Moore criticizes proposed Indian FCRA amendments 

In a post on X, Moore noted that Christians have had a presence in India since St. Thomas the Apostle traveled to the Malabar Coast just decades after the resurrection of Jesus Christ. He argued that the move targets Christians and warned that if the bill moves forward as currently framed, it could become a significant strain on US-India relations.

 

Moore said that despite this long Christian history, India's Parliament is considering amendments to the FCRA that would permit government takeovers of churches and religious charities. He added, "This is a clear attack against Christians. If this bill proceeds in this way, it would be a point of major concern in our bilateral relationship with India."

 

 

Launching a sharp attack on Moore, Legal Rights Observatory (LRO) stated that the statement by Moore lacked basic truth. "No one is going to confiscate Church or Christian properties. You should understand that #FCRA 2.0 is a foreign fund regulatory law amendment and not a revenue/land reforms law. To take over Church or Christian properties, respective laws need amendments," it said.

 

 

It is important to note that the recent amendment proposed by the Indian government in no way alters the main FCRA itself, the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 2010. However, the Rules, which are the subordinate, delegated laws formed under the parent Act, are what have been changed. 

 

As per the official gazette, if any religious NGO registered under FCRA wants to change its area of operation or alter any purpose from its already available registration certificate, it must seek government approval. Notably, the Central Government can then approve or reject the application after due inquiry.

 

 

This section lists 16 permitted activities that religious organisations can carry out using foreign contributions, which include, construction and maintenance of places of worship, preservation of sacred scriptures, supporting institutions studying religious philosophy, pilgrim amenities, dharamshalas and langars, religious education and meditation retreats, devotional music and theatre, documentation of indigenous faith practices, protection of sacred relics and heritage sites, archiving of religious rituals, inter-faith dialogue, religious publications and research, religious libraries and museums, faith-based counselling and de-addiction centres, training in traditional sacred crafts, and burial or cremation ground maintenance. However, any of these activities undertaken with the intention of performing proselytisation has been specifically excluded.

Not the first time US is criticizing FCRA

The proposed changes in the FCRA bill have drawn criticism from abroad, particularly in the United States. Earlier, James Risch, Chairman of the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee, described the amendments as "deeply concerning" and cautioned against using the FCRA to harass US-linked Christian organisations. Democratic congressional staff also reportedly expressed concerns over the proposed asset-management provisions, describing them as an issue of bipartisan interest.

 

The reason is not difficult to understand. The United States has consistently remained the largest source of foreign contributions to India. Over the years, American philanthropic foundations, churches, missionary organisations, charitable trusts and advocacy groups have supported thousands of Indian non-governmental organisations working in education, healthcare, disaster relief, human rights and community development. Any tightening of the FCRA framework therefore has direct implications for donors and recipient organisations with longstanding financial and institutional links between the two countries.

 

ALSO READ: FCRA: How Missionary organizations in India misused foreign funds; their activities that forced the Centre to tighten FCRA

This also reflects a bigger difference in outlook. Many Western governments and advocacy groups view cross-border philanthropy as an important pillar of civil society and democratic engagement. India, on the other hand, maintains that foreign funding must remain subject to strict oversight to prevent its misuse for political mobilisation, religious conversion, public unrest or activities that threaten national security. The debate over the FCRA has therefore evolved into something much larger than a regulatory dispute; it has become a broader conversation about where international philanthropy ends and national sovereignty begins.

Much of the criticism followed sustained lobbying by US-based Christian organisations, which argued that the proposed changes could restrict the activities of faith-based charities operating in India. New Delhi, however, has maintained that the amendments do not impose a blanket ban on foreign funding. The government's position is that the changes are intended to strengthen oversight and apply only to organisations found to violate the law.