Lawmakers of U.S. from Both Parties Raises Alarm Over India’s Proposal of FCRA Changes

By Gopal Ram Tripathi

A UNION BETWEEN Bipartisan and American Christian groups raises their voices on Capitol Hill to call out on New Delhi, to make them withdraw the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Amendment Bill,2026.

In both Washington and New Delhi, Bipartisan put on a rare display of union on Capitol Hill over India’s proposed foreign funding law. Senator James Risch, who is the head of Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has shown some serious concerns, including the Republicans and Democrats for the Foreign Contribution (regulation) Amendment Bill, 2026. Legislation critics say that they would dramatically expand the Indian government's power over civil society organisations, particularly those with ties to religious communities. 

See Also: CJI’s “Cockroach” Jibe Forced Gen Z to Do What They Do Best — Create an Online Campaign: The Making of the Cockroach Janata Party

Introduced in the Lok Sabha on March 25, 2026, the Bill seeks to amend the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 2010, which governs the acceptance and use of foreign donations by individuals, associations, and companies in India. The proposed amendment would create a sweeping legal framework under which, if an organisation's FCRA registration is cancelled, surrendered, or not renewed, its foreign funds and assets can be taken over, managed, and even disposed of by a government-appointed "designated authority," effectively centralising state control over such entities.

The move is particularly alarming to India's Christian community. Since the Hindu nationalist government assumed power in 2014, the government has cancelled or refused to renew more than 20,000 FCRA licenses, blocking organisations from receiving overseas funding. More than 10,000 Christian groups including the Evangelical Fellowship of India, Church Auxiliary for Social Action, World Vision India, and Compassion International have lost their FCRA licenses since 2011. 

Under the latest bill, once the government takes over a group's property, officials can transfer it to any of its departments or sell it on the open market. Organisations cannot challenge the decision in the courts. 

Religious Leaders of America are Looking to Push Back

The National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference, one of the United States' most influential Latino-Christian organisations, has formally called on the Indian government to withdraw the Bill. In a letter signed by Reverends Samuel Rodriguez and Johnnie Moore, the latter a former commissioner for the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom — the organisation asked New Delhi not merely to defer the legislation but to withdraw it entirely. 

The letter warned: "We anticipate that American donors whose contributions are now subject to potential seizure will pursue every available legal remedy. This is not a threat, it is a foreseeable consequence." 

The letter acknowledged India's legitimate security concerns but argued that India's Christians were not a security threat and that for decades, Indian Christian churches and their global partners have built schools, hospitals, and orphanages serving millions, especially in tribal communities and rural areas where the state has often not been present.

Both Muslim and Christian groups in India have spoken out against the proposed changes to the foreign funding law. The Catholic Bishops' Conference of India (CBCI) warned that the new rules could allow the government to interfere too heavily in how minority institutions are run, calling the amendments "dangerous" and "alarming."

The protest has not stayed within India's borders. Christian groups in the United States have raised the issue with journalists and with their own elected representatives in Washington, turning it into an international concern.

Their efforts appear to be paying off. Last month, ahead of Secretary of State Marco Rubio's trip to India, Republican Congressman Chris Smith wrote an opinion piece in the Washington Examiner urging Rubio to push the Indian government to drop the proposed amendments during his visit.

The fact that a senior U.S. lawmaker has waded into the debate suggests the FCRA controversy is now on the agenda well beyond New Delhi, reaching into the corridors of American foreign policy itself.

See Also: SC Rejects Urgent Hearing on PIL Against Cockroach Janta Party for ‘Commercial Exploitation of Courtroom Proceedings’

Huge Deal for India, New Delhi has a Response

The FCRA regime has brought much attention and with it came the country’s international scrutiny. During the 2017 peer review at the United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva, nearly a dozen nations, largely from Europe raised concerns, with the criticism led by the United States and Germany, both of which characterised the Act and its enforcement as "arbitrary." 

India's Supreme Court has also weighed in. In September 2025, the court reprimanded the Union Government for refusing to renew the registrations of two NGOs on "technical grounds" without any evidence of fund misuse.

The Indian government has defended the legislation. Union Minister Kiren Rijiju stated that any misunderstandings about the Bill would be addressed, emphasising that organisations working for the country's welfare would not be disturbed and that concerns raised by Christian missionaries would be taken into account. 

Minister of State for Home Nityanand Rai, who introduced the Bill, said its objective was to make the use of foreign contributions more transparent and accountable, and that any institution whose objectives align with the sovereignty and integrity of India would not be obstructed.  

What is on the Table?

U.S.-India relations have already been tested, and with the controversy it brings us some more sensitive moments . The bipartisan pressure on Capitol Hill signals that the FCRA amendments could become a diplomatic flashpoint, particularly as American donors, religious organisations, and civil society groups with ties to India watch the legislation's progress through parliament.

He added that the measure would move the state from administrative oversight to direct control of civil society organisations and warned that poor people would be the biggest losers.

The Bill remains under parliamentary consideration. Opposition parties have demanded its rollback, with Congress MP Manish Tewari characterising it as "arbitrary, malafide, and capricious" and arguing it violates constitutional protections. 

[VP]

Suggested Reading: