In a major political development, U.S. President Donald Trump has once again stirred controversy by alleging that the previous Biden administration engaged in election interference in India. His claims stem from a $21 million grant allocated to India under the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) to enhance voter turnout, which Trump has questioned as unnecessary and possibly politically motivated. Speaking at the Saudi-backed Future Investment Initiative (FII) Summit in Miami, Trump remarked, “Why do we need to spend $21 million on voter turnout in India? I guess they were trying to get somebody else elected. This is a total breakthrough.” His comments suggested that the Biden administration may have been attempting to influence India's democratic process through financial aid.
Trump reiterated similar concerns at his Mar-a-Lago residence in Florida, where he questioned why American taxpayers' money was being spent on a country with a strong economy and high tariffs. He said, “Why are we giving $21 million to India? They have a lot more money. They are one of the highest-taxing countries in the world in terms of us; we can hardly get in there because their tariffs are so high.” He further emphasized his respect for India and Prime Minister Narendra Modi but remained critical of the funding, saying, “Giving $21 million for voter turnout? That’s ridiculous.” His remarks come in the wake of his administration's broader effort to reduce government expenditure and reassess foreign aid policies.
The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), a newly created entity led by tech billionaire Elon Musk under the Trump administration, announced last week that it had slashed $723 million in foreign aid as part of a budget overhaul. Among the cuts were the $21 million grant to India and a separate $29 million program aimed at strengthening Bangladesh’s political landscape. Since taking office in January, Trump’s administration has reportedly cut $8.5 billion in federal spending, with individual contract cancellations averaging around $7.7 million.
The move to cut foreign aid has ignited significant debate, both in India and internationally. Indian economist Sanjeev Sanyal, a key Prime Minister’s Economic Advisory Council member, strongly criticized USAID, labeling it the "biggest scam in human history." In a post on social media, Sanyal questioned the justification for such funding, asking, “Would love to find out who received the US$21 million spent to improve ‘voter turnout in India’ and the US$29 million to ‘strengthen political landscape in Bangladesh’; not to mention the US$29 million spent to improve ‘fiscal federalism’ in Nepal.”
Former Chief Election Commissioner of India, S.Y. Quraishi, also weighed in on the controversy, categorically denying that the U.S. had any involvement in boosting voter turnout in India. He clarified that there was no agreement between the Election Commission of India and any U.S. agency regarding financial assistance for voter participation. In a tweet, Quraishi wrote, “The report in a section of media about an MoU by ECI in 2012 when I was CEC, for funding of certain million dollars by a U.S. agency for raising voter turnout in India, does not have an iota of fact.”
This latest development has further strained diplomatic discussions regarding foreign aid and electoral integrity. The Biden administration has yet to respond to Trump’s allegations, but the debate underscores larger concerns regarding U.S. involvement in foreign elections and aid distribution. Some view foreign funding for voter turnout initiatives as a way to strengthen democracy globally, while others perceive it as potential interference in sovereign nations' political processes.
As the U.S. moves toward its own 2024 presidential elections, Trump’s remarks and his administration’s budget cuts signal a shift in America’s approach to foreign aid under his leadership. The issue is expected to remain a talking point in the months ahead, particularly in India, where the political landscape has already been shaped by high-stakes electoral battles. Whether the U.S. decision to cut this funding will have any tangible impact on voter turnout in India remains uncertain, but the broader implications for U.S.-India relations and international electoral funding policies continue to unfold.
