A proposed amendment to India’s foreign contribution law has drawn sharp criticism from US Congressman Riley Moore, who says the bill could hurt India-US ties if passed in its current form. Moore described the move as a “clear attack against Christians” and alleged that it could allow the government to take control of churches and religious charities.
The Republican lawmaker from West Virginia made the remarks in a post on X, where he argued that Christianity has a long history in India dating back to the arrival of St Thomas the Apostle on the Malabar Coast. Despite that history, he said, India’s Parliament is now considering changes to the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act that, in his view, would permit government takeovers of religious institutions.
Moore’s comments come as India’s proposed Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Amendment Bill, 2026 is being discussed in Parliament. The Bill seeks to create a Designated Authority that can take over the management of foreign contributions and assets created using such funds if an organisation’s FCRA registration is cancelled, surrendered or not renewed. It also says that if those assets include a place of worship, the religious character of the site must be preserved.
Along with the new authority, the Bill proposes several other changes to the FCRA framework. It would reduce the maximum punishment for violations from five years in prison to one year, and it introduces a minimum utilisation threshold for registration renewal. Under that provision, organisations that received or used less than ₹10 lakh in foreign contributions during the previous two financial years may no longer qualify for renewal.
The FCRA law regulates how NGOs, trusts, educational institutions, religious bodies and other associations receive and use foreign donations. The government has said the proposed changes are aimed at tightening oversight, improving transparency and preventing misuse of foreign funds. Supporters of the bill argue that stronger rules are needed to ensure donations are used for declared purposes and that national security concerns are addressed.
Moore, however, framed the issue as one of religious freedom and warned that the legislation could become a point of major concern in bilateral relations. His comments add an international dimension to a domestic policy debate that is likely to continue as Parliament reviews the proposed amendment.
