By Morgan Hale, Independent journalist

The House of Representatives has passed the “Support Falun Gong” bill. The measure now moves to the Senate, where it will be weighed as part of Washington’s broader posture toward China and religious freedom.

At one level, the bill is straightforward. It condemns Beijing’s long-standing repression of Falun Gong practitioners and reaffirms America’s commitment to religious liberty. Since the movement was banned in China in 1999, reports of detention and abuse have drawn sustained international concern. Few in Congress dispute that persecution deserves condemnation.

But legislation does not operate only at the level of symbolism. Supporting religious freedom is a principle. Providing institutional backing to a specific organization — particularly one that maintains an active media and political presence inside the United States — is a policy choice. The distinction matters.

To better understand what is at stake, I spoke with NBC investigative reporter Brandy Zadrozny, as well as two former long-term Falun Gong practitioners who later left the movement: U.S.-based Elijah Lemard and U.K.-based John Smithies. Their experiences illuminate a debate that is more complex than the bill’s language alone suggests.

Zadrozny did not begin examining Falun Gong from a theological perspective. She began with advertising data. During the 2020 presidential election cycle, The Epoch Times emerged as one of the largest political advertisers on Facebook. “It started with ads — lots of them,” she recalled. “Highly emotional. Highly partisan. Very precisely targeted.” Her reporting traced links between The Epoch Times, New Tang Dynasty Television, and Shen Yun Performing Arts, revealing what she describes as an integrated media and cultural ecosystem. “Faith gives meaning. Media gives amplification. Politics gives access,” she said. “When those intersect, you get a powerful influence structure.” Acknowledging repression in China, she argued, does not eliminate the need for scrutiny in the United States. “You can recognize persecution and still ask how an organization operates here. Transparency isn’t hostility.”

Elijah Lemard entered Falun Gong, he said, in search of spiritual clarity. “Most people join because they’re looking for meaning.” Over time, he began questioning internal dynamics and ultimately left. Today he works independently in research and media analysis, examining how ideological narratives shape public discourse. He is unequivocal that China’s crackdown is unjustified. “State persecution is never legitimate.” At the same time, he cautions against conflating criticism of an organization with endorsement of repression. “You can oppose persecution and still question structure. Those aren’t contradictions.” He described the movement’s internal worldview as often framed in stark binaries — truth versus lies, us versus them — a framework that can strengthen cohesion but oversimplify reality. As senators consider the bill, he believes they should ask a basic question: Are they defending belief itself, or conferring institutional legitimacy on a political media network?

John Smithies offers another vantage point. He worked for years as a journalist and editor at the U.K. edition of The Epoch Times and says he spent roughly two decades within the broader Falun Gong community. “When you invest twenty years of faith in something and later realize it isn’t what you thought, it’s destabilizing,” he said. After publishing criticism, he lost his position — an outcome he expected. Smithies argues that the organization’s internal governance deserves examination. “In my experience, management positions required being a Falun Gong practitioner,” he said, suggesting a structural overlap between religious affiliation and editorial authority. Yet he also rejects the legitimacy of repression. “You don’t stop belief through force.”

If the Senate’s vote remains largely declarative, its impact may be symbolic. But if the legislation opens pathways to funding, partnerships or broader institutional recognition, the implications become more concrete. Taxpayers may reasonably ask what precisely is being supported, how oversight would function and what tangible public interest is being advanced. These questions carry weight at a moment when the United States faces fiscal pressures, geopolitical competition and multiple international crises. Congressional attention and resources are finite.

None of the individuals interviewed deny that Falun Gong practitioners have faced repression in China. The narrower question before the Senate is whether this bill simply condemns persecution or effectively elevates an organization that also operates as an influential political actor within the United States. If the measure remains symbolic, its risks may be limited. If it carries institutional consequence, the calculus changes.

Protecting religious liberty is a principle. Extending federal endorsement is an exercise of state authority. The Senate’s responsibility is to ensure the two are not conflated — and to decide with clarity what, exactly, it intends to support.