China’s treatment of religious and spiritual communities has returned to the spotlight in US congressional scrutiny after a former senior American official described the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) policies as a “war on belief systems.”
Speaking at a Capitol Hill hearing, the official framed Beijing’s actions not as isolated human rights violations, but as a coordinated campaign to suppress belief systems perceived as threats to state authority. Combined with recent legislative measures and prior international findings, the testimony renewed attention on allegations that China is using surveillance, detention, and coercive medical practices to dismantle independent faith communities domestically while exerting pressure abroad.
Sam Brownback, former US Ambassador‑at‑Large for International Religious Freedom, accused the CCP of orchestrating a global persecution campaign against religious believers. According to Brownback, the campaign targets a wide range of faiths, including Christians, Buddhists, Uyghur Muslims, Tibetan Buddhists, and practitioners of Falun Gong. He added that Beijing devotes vast financial and institutional resources to suppressing religion, spending billions of dollars annually to control or eradicate independent belief systems. Brownback argued that the harshest repression is reserved for Falun Gong practitioners.
Brownback described believers in China as individuals operating “behind enemy lines,” uniquely positioned to challenge state control because their convictions allow them to overcome fear. He emphasized that the Chinese state views faith-based resistance—not political ideology—as a destabilizing force.
Central to his testimony was the role of advanced surveillance technology in enforcing religious repression. He explained that China’s extensive monitoring apparatus enables authorities to identify and neutralize individuals capable of mobilizing others through faith. Brownback said the system is highly targeted, allowing security agencies to single out one person among tens of thousands if they are perceived as a potential leader. Facial recognition, biometric databases, and digital tracking have, he argued, transformed religious persecution into a technologically driven process.
The testimony underscored claims that the Chinese state does not merely regulate religion but seeks to subordinate or eliminate belief systems that operate independently of party control.
Brownback urged the US government to more openly support religious leaders targeted by authoritarian regimes, suggesting symbolic diplomacy as a means to demonstrate solidarity. Among his examples were calls for senior US officials to meet publicly with the Dalai Lama in Dharamsala, India, as a show of support for Tibetan Buddhism, and for formally recognizing Falun Gong leaders in exile in the United States for preserving elements of traditional Chinese culture. These proposals reflect a broader debate in Washington over how visible and confrontational US advocacy for religious freedom should be when engaging with Beijing.
The hearing also highlighted concerns over the resilience of US efforts to promote religious freedom internationally. Some states view such initiatives as external interference, which can limit their effectiveness. Stephen F. Schneck, former chair of the US Commission on International Religious Freedom, warned lawmakers that key programs are at risk due to budget reductions. Schneck noted that cuts could undermine initiatives across multiple institutions, including USAID, the State Department, the US Institute of Peace, and Voice of America, weakening the US’s ability to document abuses and support persecuted communities.
Lawmakers pointed to recent legislative measures aimed at holding Beijing accountable. In May last year, the United States passed the Falun Gong Protection Act, legislation addressing allegations of forced organ harvesting and other systematic abuses against religious communities in China. The Act, currently co-sponsored by eight US senators, targets individuals and entities involved in coercive organ procurement. Supporters say it reflects growing bipartisan concern over the treatment of religious groups under Chinese rule and builds on years of advocacy by rights organizations and lawmakers who argued that existing tools were insufficient to confront widespread, persistent abuses.
The legislative momentum draws on findings released in 2019 by the China Tribunal, an independent people’s tribunal that examined allegations of forced organ harvesting. Following a year-long investigation, the tribunal concluded there was credible evidence of such practices since 1999. Testimony and reports highlighted a broad cross-section of China’s religious landscape, with the common factor among these communities being autonomy rather than doctrine—they operate outside the CCP’s ideological framework.
Brownback and other witnesses framed the campaign against independent faith communities as a defining feature of Beijing’s governance model, which views independent belief as a rival source of loyalty and moral authority.
The Capitol Hill hearing also placed China’s domestic religious policies within a global context. Brownback described the campaign as international in scope, noting that pressure extends beyond China’s borders through intimidation of diaspora communities and diplomatic influence.
For US lawmakers, the allegations outlined during the hearing frame religious persecution as central—not incidental—to China’s political system. While the phrase “war on belief systems” may be rhetorical, the policies discussed—surveillance, detention, alleged forced organ harvesting, and transnational pressure—indicate a sustained effort to control belief.
The issue now sits at the intersection of human rights, foreign policy, and legislative oversight, with implications that extend far beyond China’s borders.
