The controversy surrounding the United States' decision to allocate $21 million through USAID to boost voter turnout in India has sparked a heated debate, particularly after US President Donald Trump defended his administration’s move to scrap the funding. The issue gained traction when Trump questioned why the US was spending millions to improve voter participation in India, a country with one of the highest voter turnouts, while struggling with turnout issues at home. His remarks highlighted not just the irony of the situation but also the broader question of foreign aid priorities.
The US presidential elections have historically seen fluctuating voter turnout rates, with the 2024 election recording 63.9%, lower than India’s 66.1%. India, the world's largest democracy, has consistently seen higher voter participation than the US in recent election cycles. The 2019 Lok Sabha elections, for instance, saw a record-breaking turnout of 67.40%, and while it dipped slightly to 65.79% in 2024, it still surpassed US levels. Despite this, USAID was directing funds toward voter participation efforts in India, a move that Trump found perplexing, especially considering the US’s own voter engagement challenges.
Trump’s criticism of the aid package was also tied to broader economic and trade concerns. He pointed out that India is one of the highest-taxing countries in terms of US businesses and that high tariffs make market access difficult. He questioned why a country with such financial strength needed American funding for voter outreach, emphasizing that India has the resources to manage its own elections. His remarks came after the Elon Musk-led Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) announced a $723 million cut in foreign aid spending, including the $21 million grant to India. The decision was framed as part of a broader effort to streamline the US budget and redirect resources to domestic priorities.
What further fueled the controversy was the staggering scale of India’s own election spending. A study by the Centre for Media Studies estimated that India spent approximately Rs 1.35 lakh crore (around $16.3 billion at the February 19, 2025 exchange rate) on its 2024 general elections. This surpassed the expenditure of the 2024 US presidential election, which was estimated at $15.9 billion, making India’s elections the most expensive democratic exercise in history. Given that political parties and candidates in India pour massive amounts of money into campaigning, voter outreach, and mobilization efforts, the $21 million from USAID appeared minuscule in comparison.
The funds from USAID were allegedly directed toward encouraging voter participation, but critics questioned the necessity of such aid, especially when India’s own resources far exceeded the US grant. Some political leaders in India saw the funding as a form of foreign interference. The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) was quick to raise concerns, with its IT Cell head, Amit Malviya, calling the funding an external attempt to influence India’s elections. He pointed out that the ruling party had no incentive to benefit from such foreign aid, raising the question of who exactly stood to gain from the US funding.
With Trump scrapping the funding, the debate over US foreign aid priorities has intensified. Some argue that such funds could have been better utilized to improve voter engagement within the US, where participation remains inconsistent. Others see it as a reflection of how foreign aid is sometimes allocated to causes that may not necessarily align with the recipient country’s needs.
As discussions continue, one thing remains clear: India, as the world’s largest democracy, has demonstrated its ability to conduct elections at an unprecedented scale, both in terms of voter participation and financial investment. The $21 million grant, in this context, appears insignificant, raising valid questions about why it was allocated in the first place. With Trump’s decision to cut the funding, the focus now shifts to how the US government rethinks its approach to foreign aid and whether similar allocations will be scrutinized in the future.
