By Stephanos A. Peppas
In the quiet corridors of the United Front Work Department in Beijing, a new tactical manual is being written. After decades of successfully instrumentalizing Buddhism to build diplomatic bridges across the Global South, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is pivoting to a more ambitious target: the exportation of “Sinicized Christianity.” This is not an expansion of faith, but an expansion of statecraft—a model where religion is subservient to the party, designed to offer an alternative to Western-aligned religious networks.
Yet, as China ramps up its religious soft power to win hearts and minds in Africa, Southeast Asia, and Latin America, the United States is doing the unthinkable: it is dismantling the very infrastructure that has made it the world leader in faith-driven diplomacy for over two decades. Through a combination of institutional freezes and domestic polarization, Washington is creating a religious vacuum that Beijing is all too happy to fill.
The CCP’s “Patriotic Education” Export
For the CCP, religion has long been a “national security imperative” rather than a matter of individual conscience. As academic research and internal party documents confirm, Beijing has mastered the “Sinicization” of Buddhism, using state-controlled religious organizations as cultural ambassadors to advance socialist values internationally (Zumwalt, 2026).
One example is the cooperation between the Chinese authorities and Buddhists in organizing the inaugural World Buddhist Forum, which took place in Hangzhou from April 13th to 16th, 2006. At this forum, the 11th Panchen Lama, Bainqen Erdini Qoigyijabu, a prominent “living Buddha” of the Tibetan Buddhist tradition in China, stated that: “Defending the nation and serving the people is a solemn commitment that Buddhism has made to the nation and society.” (Kung, 2006).
Now, that same “Sinicization” pipeline—managed by the United Front Work Department—is preparing “politically reliable” Christian leaders for international deployment. The goal is to teach that politics must take precedence over faith and that all religious practice must be “obedient to the Beijing government” (Zumwalt, 2026). By exporting this model, China offers a version of Christianity that is compatible with authoritarianism, directly challenging the democratic, rights-based religious influence the U.S. has projected for half a century.
The U.S. Retreat: A “Wrecking Ball” to Soft Power
The American response to this challenge is currently paralyzed. Since early 2025, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID)—the primary engine of American engagement with global faith communities—has faced an unprecedented “freeze” on its grants. This disruption has been described by practitioners as a “wrecking ball” that threatens to kill the very “patient” it was intended to heal (CFR Workshop, 2025).
The irony is that the Strategic Religious Engagement (SRE) policies currently being paused were not the product of a single “liberal” or conservative” agenda. In fact, roughly 80% of the USAID policy released under the Biden-Harris administration was actually drafted during the first Trump administration (Mandaville, 2025). For twenty years, from the passage of the 1998 International Religious Freedom Act to the expansion of White House faith offices under George W. Bush, Barack Obama, and Donald Trump, there was a bipartisan consensus: faith leaders are among the “most trusted institutions” in unstable regions (Miller, 2026).
By pausing these grants, the U.S. is not just cutting “waste.” It is halting human rights programs in Pakistan, cutting off aid to religious minorities in Northern Iraq, and even leaving tons of American-grown wheat to rot in ports like Houston because the humanitarian partnerships required to distribute them have been suspended (Norquist, 2025).
Acknowledging the Counter-Voice in favor of the USAID freeze, it is presumed that the illegal trade observed in Uganda and Congo is tolerated, if not actively endorsed, by the governments of nations importing goods from this area, including the United States. Considering the magnitude of these operations and the increase in commodities from the Democratic Republic of the Congo transiting through Uganda, it appears that reports from USAID personnel are likely unwelcome in Washington (Anders, 2025).
The Cost of Domestic Polarization
The retreat is driven, in part, by a domestic shift toward the instrumentalization of religion. When U.S. leaders use forums like the National Prayer Breakfast to cast political opponents as “anti-God,” they do more than deepen domestic rifts; they shatter the “moral authority” required for international diplomacy (Rogers, 2025).
When American religious engagement becomes a “political football,” it loses its efficacy as a national security tool. While U.S. officials debate the “establishment clause” and “DOGE” budget cuts, China is building genuine, if coerced, ties. The U.S. Military Chaplaincy and organizations like the International Center for Religion & Diplomacy (ICRD) have spent decades building trust with local faith leaders to mediate conflict and “bridge generational divides” (Miller, 2026). That trust is an asset that, once lost, cannot be easily rebought.
The U.S. military identifies the chaplaincy as a “unique institutional capability”—a specialized resource that provides the “situational awareness” needed to navigate complex sacred spaces where traditional diplomacy might falter (Zumwalt, 2026). Specifically, U.S. military doctrine —Joint Publication 1-05— has long recognized that ‘religious situational awareness’ is a prerequisite for mission success. Chaplains aren’t just there for the troops; they are ‘strategic sensors’ who prevent conflict by bridging the gap between secular military objectives and the deeply religious societies in which they operate (Otis, 2009).
Countering the Sinicized Soul
If the United States is to compete in the new era of Great Power Competition, it must recognize that religious freedom is a strategic necessity. A world where “Sinicized Christianity” becomes the default for the Global South is a world where the concept of universal human rights—independent of the state—ceases to exist.
Washington must move past the demonization of the word “religion” in foreign policy. Protecting the global “mosaic” of faith is not just a moral duty; it is a defense against a Chinese model that seeks to nationalize the human soul. The U.S. must lift the freeze on USAID and empower its “faith-driven diplomacy” once again. In the battle for global influence, the most powerful tool in the American arsenal isn’t a missile—it is the protection of the “voiceless” and the sanctity of the individual conscience.
Sources
Anders, Sophia. (2025, February 26). USAID cuts and their fallout on the ground – LSE International Development. LSE International Development – Social, Political and Economic Transformation in the Developing World. https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/internationaldevelopment/2025/02/26/usaid-cuts-and-their-fallout-on-the-ground/.
Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). (2025, February 19). 2025 Religion and Foreign Policy Workshop: Bipartisan Religious Engagement in U.S. Foreign Policy. Featuring Samah Norquist, Melissa Rogers, Knox Thames, and Peter Mandaville. https://www.cfr.org/event/2025-religion-and-foreign-policy-workshop.
Kung, L.-Y. (2006). National identity and ethno-religious identity: A critical inquiry into Chinese religious policy, with reference to the Uighurs in Xinjiang. Religion, State and Society, 34(4), 375–391. https://doi.org/10.1080/09637490600974450
Miller, Martine. (2026). International Center for Religion & Diplomacy (ICRD): Five-Year Strategic Vision.
Otis, Pauletta. (2009, December). An overview of the U.S. military chaplaincy: A ministry of presence and practice. The Review of Faith & International Affairs 7(4):3-15. DOI: 10.1080/15570274.2009.9523410.
U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff. (2018). Religious Affairs in Joint Operations (Joint Publication 1-05).
Zumwalt, Zachary. (2026, February 17). China’s Exportation of Sinicized Christianity and the United States Military Chaplain Response. Berkley Center, GW University academic report.
