FCRA amendment explained as US lawmaker claims it’s anti-Christian move that will hurt India-US ties

US Congressman Riley Moore has raised concerns over India’s proposed changes to the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act (FCRA), claiming the amendments could allow the government to take over churches and religious charities and potentially affect India-US relations.

Moore, a Republican from West Virginia, described the proposed changes as a “clear attack against Christians”. His comments have put the spotlight on the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Amendment Bill, 2026, particularly its provisions governing assets created using foreign contributions.

But what does the Bill actually propose, and are its provisions specifically directed at churches or Christian organisations?

The legislation establishes a broader framework covering organisations regulated under FCRA rather than targeting any particular religion. It also contains a specific provision requiring the religious character of places of worship to be maintained.

What does the FCRA Amendment Bill propose?

Introduced in the Lok Sabha on March 25, 2026, the Bill seeks to establish a framework for the supervision, management and disposal of foreign contributions and related assets when an organisation ceases to hold an FCRA certificate.

FCRA regulates foreign grants and donations received by individuals, associations and companies. Organisations seeking to regularly receive foreign contributions are required to obtain an FCRA certificate, which must generally be renewed every five years.

The bill proposes that an FCRA certificate would cease if it is not renewed before expiry, no application for renewal is made, or the renewal application is denied.

What happens to assets if an FCRA certificate ceases?

This is the key provision behind the current debate. Under the existing Act, when an FCRA certificate is cancelled or surrendered, foreign contributions and assets created from them vest with a prescribed authority.

The 2026 Bill proposes extending this mechanism to cases where the certificate ceases, including due to non-renewal.

It proposes creating a Designated Authority that would take charge of foreign contributions and assets created wholly or partly using those contributions.

Initially, the vesting would be provisional. If the organisation obtains a fresh certificate or its registration is renewed or restored, the Authority would return the unutilised foreign contribution or assets.

If that does not happen within a prescribed period, the vesting would become permanent. The Authority could then use the assets for public purposes, transfer them to central or state government bodies, or dispose of them. Proceeds from disposal would be credited to the Consolidated Fund of India.

Can churches and religious properties be affected?

Religious organisations can come within the proposed framework if they are covered by FCRA and hold assets created using foreign contributions. However, the provision is not limited to churches or Christian organisations.

The same framework can apply to other FCRA-regulated organisations and assets, including institutions such as hospitals, schools or libraries funded through foreign contributions.

The bill also specifically addresses places of worship. If a permanently vested asset is wholly or partly a place of worship, the Designated Authority must entrust its management in a prescribed manner and ensure that its religious character is maintained.

Therefore, while a church or another place of worship could potentially fall within the asset-vesting framework, the legislation expressly requires preservation of its religious character.

Why is the non-renewal provision significant?

PRS Legislative Research highlights a broader implication of the proposed change.

An organisation may have used foreign contributions years ago to create an asset but later stopped receiving foreign money and shifted entirely to domestic funding. Under the bill, if it does not renew its FCRA certificate, the foreign-funded asset could still vest with the designated authority.

PRS argues this could mean organisations owning such assets may have to continue renewing their FCRA certificates even if they no longer want to receive foreign contributions.

Another issue concerns assets financed partly through foreign contributions. Such assets would initially vest entirely with the Authority, although an organisation can seek the return of any “distinct or ascertainable” portion created using domestic funds.

Is there an appeal against denial of renewal?

PRS also points to the absence of a specific appeal mechanism when renewal of an FCRA certificate is denied.

While the Act provides appeals against decisions such as cancellation of registration, PRS says neither the existing Act nor the Bill provides a specific appeal mechanism against denial of renewal. This assumes greater significance because denial of renewal could now trigger the asset-vesting provisions.

Is the Bill specifically an anti-Christian measure?

The Bill and the PRS analysis do not indicate that the amendments specifically target Christians.

The proposed provisions apply broadly to organisations governed by FCRA and link the treatment of assets to their foreign funding and registration status rather than religious affiliation.

Moore’s comments have brought a diplomatic dimension to the debate, but the larger question around the bill is how the proposed asset-management framework would affect FCRA-regulated organisations — religious, charitable, educational and others — particularly when their registrations are not renewed.