Defacing the Left and Islamists globally will be aided by US President Donald Trump’s decision to block funding for the US Agency for International Development.
US President Donald Trump’s decision to freeze the funds of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) for 90 days was a bold and strategic move aimed at dismantling the global networks of Leftist and Islamist forces. Over the years, USAID and similar organisations have been accused of promoting radical ideologies under the guise of human rights, democracy and social justice. By cutting funding to these groups, Trump sought to curb their influence and reshape the global geopolitical landscape in favour of nationalist and conservative forces.
Washington Freezes Funds
This decision came close on the heels of Washington’s suspension of funding to Bangladesh, a country where USAID had allegedly been instrumental in enabling the rise of Islamist forces. One of the most controversial figures associated with this network is Muhammad Yunus, a Nobel laureate and former Chief Adviser of Bangladesh, who has been accused of fostering Islamist extremism. His close aide, Mahfuz Alam, has been linked to the radical group Hizb-ut-Tahrir, further raising concerns about USAID’s role in empowering dangerous factions. This revelation has caused many to question the legitimacy of USAID’s operations in politically volatile regions and whether its programmes truly align with the interests of the United States and its allies.
Max Primorac, a senior research fellow at the Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom, has extensively documented the ideological shift within USAID. According to him, the agency has prioritised political agendas like diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) over traditional good governance practices. The agency’s $45 million initiative to promote so-called ‘human rights, social justice, democracy, and inclusive development’ is a prime example of how it has become a tool for advancing radical Leftist ideologies rooted in Marxist social theories. This ideological realignment has weakened America’s soft power and inadvertently strengthened adversarial forces like China. The shift in focus has drawn criticism from conservative analysts who argue that international aid should be rooted in pragmatism rather than ideological activism.
Toppling Sheikh Hasina Government
Beyond the ideological concerns, USAID has been implicated in direct political interventions, such as orchestrating regime changes. Reports suggest that the US Deep State, through agencies like USAID, played a significant role in unseating the Sheikh Hasina Government in Bangladesh. Programmes like Promoting Accountability, Inclusivity, and Resiliency Support (PAIRS) initiative were allegedly designed to diminish India’s influence in the region and bolster Islamist elements. Such interventions have led to violent street protests and political instability, allowing US-backed political factions to exploit the chaos. If true, this would constitute a blatant overreach of US foreign policy, raising serious ethical and diplomatic questions about the role of development agencies in shaping the leadership of sovereign nations.
Trump’s effort to dismantle the Deep State by starving USAID of funds has predictably drawn sharp criticism from the global liberal establishment. His ally, Elon Musk, has gone as far as to call USAID a “criminal organisation.” Meanwhile, mainstream media outlets, including the BBC, have framed the funding freeze as a humanitarian disaster, citing its impact on aid programmes in countries like Afghanistan. While it is true that some health and development initiatives may suffer in the short term, the long-term benefits of neutralising USAID’s political meddling far outweigh the temporary setbacks. Critics argue that Trump’s move is an attack on humanitarianism itself, but supporters see it as a necessary step toward eliminating corruption and ideological bias in global aid distribution.
WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, reportedly backed by Beijing, delayed acknowledging human- to-human transmission of the virus, exacerbating the global crisis
For India, the decline in USAID disbursements in recent years—from $228.18 million in 2022 to $151.8 million in 2024—has been a welcome trend. While some development projects may face financial constraints, India can sustain essential initiatives through Government and philanthropic efforts. More importantly, reducing USAID’s footprint limits external interference in domestic affairs and strengthens national sovereignty. Indian policymakers have often expressed concerns about foreign-funded NGOs and their potential to influence domestic policy under the pretext of development and humanitarian work.
Moreover, the Trump administration’s stance against USAID fits into a broader pattern of challenging international organisations perceived as being infiltrated by Leftist and globalist ideologies. The World Health Organisation (WHO), for instance, faced heavy criticism for its alleged deference to China during COVID-19 pandemic. WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, reportedly backed by Beijing, delayed acknowledging human-to-human transmission of the virus, exacerbating the global crisis. The USAID case is no different; its policies and funding mechanisms have consistently aligned with an agenda that appears to serve political interests rather than objective humanitarian goals. Trump’s decision to cut its funding, therefore, reflects a broader effort to reclaim national sovereignty over international aid.
Instrument of Ideological Warfare
The debate over USAID’s influence extends beyond South Asia. In West Asia, there have been reports of USAID funds indirectly reaching groups with links to Hamas. This has fuelled suspicions that the agency, intentionally or not, has contributed to sustaining organisations that are hostile to the West. Similarly, in Africa and Latin America, USAID has been accused of funding Leftist movements under the pretext of supporting democratic activism. These actions suggest that rather than being a neutral development agency, USAID has functioned as an instrument of ideological warfare.
As Trump attempts to dismantle these entrenched networks, his opponents claim that his policies endangered vulnerable populations by cutting off essential aid. However, his supporters argue that much of USAID’s funding has been misallocated, supporting political activism rather than genuine humanitarian work. If development aid is to be effective, they contend, it must be free from ideological biases and focused solely on tangible improvements in living standards. In the long run, the freezing of USAID’s funds could set a precedent for reforming international aid. If the United States wishes to maintain influence in the developing world, it must ensure that its aid programmes are aligned with strategic interests rather than being vehicles for ideological expansion. The question that remains is whether future administrations will continue Trump’s policy of curbing the influence of international development agencies or revert to the status quo.
Ultimately, Trump’s decision to freeze USAID funds was a decisive step toward curbing the influence of radical Leftists and Islamists in global affairs. By cutting off their financial lifeline, he has weakened the international networks that thrive on ideological subversion and political manipulation. While his approach has been met with resistance from entrenched elites, it marks a significant shift in the battle against forces that seek to undermine liberty and national sovereignty. The move forces a long-overdue reassessment of the role of USAID and similar organisations in global politics. If successful, it may pave the way for a more transparent and accountable international aid framework, free from the ideological entanglements that have long plagued development efforts worldwide.
Comments