On Friday (Feb 21), the Indian Express published an “investigative” report claiming that USAID funding of 21 million dollars for voter turnout did not go to India, but to neighbouring Bangladesh.
The report was published in the wake of serious allegations faced by the Indian National Congress party of using alleged external influence in India’s electoral process and tipping the scales in its favour.
The controversy erupted after the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), United States, published a post on X announcing a list of funding initiatives that were recently stopped or cancelled. According to the list posted by DOGE, $486 million was given to the Consortium for Elections and Political Process Strengthening (CEPPS), which included $21 million for ‘voter turnout’ in India—equivalent to ₹182 crore as per today’s USD to INR value.
Later, US President Donald Trump reacted to the development, lashing out at the outgoing Biden administration for pumping money into India for “getting someone else elected.” Mr. Trump voiced these statements during the FII PRIORITY Summit in Miami on Thursday, February 20, 2025.
Notably, Trump doubled down against the Biden government in yet another public event, labelling ’21 million dollars for voter turnout in India a kickback scheme and questioning the need for such financial assistance to India. He also highlighted $29 million designated for Bangladesh’s political affairs and $19 million for Nepal’s biodiversity, making Indian Express’ ‘fact-check’ even more foolish.
“$21 million for voter turnout in India—why are we even concerned about their turnout? We have enough issues of our own. We should be focusing on our own voter turnout, shouldn’t we? Can you believe all that money going there? I wonder what they think when they receive it. It’s a kickback scheme. They don’t just get and spend the money; they send it back to the people who allocated it. In many cases, when no one understands what’s happening, it usually means there’s a kickback involved,” he said.
“$29 million allocated to enhance Bangladesh’s political landscape—whatever that means. Nobody knows what they mean by ‘political landscape.’ What does that even refer to? Then there’s $20 million for fiscal federalism and $19 million for biodiversity in Nepal, along with $47 million for improving learning outcomes in Asia. Why should I care about any of this?” Trump added.
Indian Express’ misleading fact check on USAID funding for external interference in India
Barely hours after allegations of receiving kickbacks—a form of corruption that leaders of the Indian National Congress have been accused of in the past—began swirling, the Indian Express rustled out an “investigative” report claiming that USAID grants meant for voter turnout was not for India, but for Bangladesh.
The newspaper ironically agreed to the fact that DOGE’s list of cancelled grants included a $29.9-million USAID funding to Bangladesh (which was mentioned both by Donald Trump and the official tweet by DOGE).
Later, it went on to claim that DOGE and Trump mistook ‘Bangladesh’ for ‘India’ over the $21 million grant. The Indian Express claimed that the funds for ‘voter turnout’ in India were given to Bangladesh about 2.5 years ago.
This confidence with which the Indian daily touted their ‘fact-check’ is astonishing, given that both USAID and CEPPS have shut down their respective websites. At the same time, DOGE has not yet responded to the claims.
Throughout the article, The Indian Express failed to provide any direct evidence that could rule out the fact that no US federal agency projects were meant to ensure ‘voter turnout’ during Indian elections.
The report said that in 2022, USAID sanctioned a grant to the Consortium for Elections and Political Process Strengthening (CEPPS) for the “Amar Vote Amar” (My Vote is Mine) program in Bangladesh, later renamed the “Nagorik” (Citizen) program.
Jay Mazoomdaar a staff at ICIJ, which in turn is a part of OCCRP
Even as The Indian Express published a grossly misleading “fact-check” to downplay external interference in Indian elections, the rather intriguing part is the author of the article and his links to USAID and the US deep state, making it an unambiguous case of direct conflict of interest.
The Indian Express article is authored by Jay Mazoomdaar. Interestingly, Mazoomdaar is a part of the International Committee of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ), an international organisation with journalist affiliates worldwide, including India.
ICIJ, in turn, is a partner of Open Society-funded Organised Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP), which although poses as a non-partisan organisation, is funded by the likes of George Soros’ Open Society Foundations (OSF), the Ford Foundation and the Rockefeller Brothers Foundation, according to information available on its website suggests.
OCCRP funded by George Soros’s Open Society and USAID
OCCRP, founded in 2007 in Bosnia’s capital city Sarajevo by a ‘journalist’ named Drew Sullivan, has always been operating in cahoots with the US government. It has spread its ‘network of journalists’ to every continent and has connections to 50 media partners.
In a report published in December 2024, OpIndia highlighted how OCCRP received significant funding from U.S. government agencies, including USAID and the State Department, as well as from organizations like the Open Society Foundations. The link between OCCRP and USAID makes it crystal clear that the grant it receives may influence OCCRP’s reporting, potentially serving U.S. government interests and propagating specific narratives against foreign governments and corporations. And its past attack on the Adani Group only reinforces the belief that it is a mercenary organisation doing the bidding of its masters.
The conflicting reports surrounding USAID’s $21 million voter turnout grant raise serious questions about foreign influence in India’s electoral process. While The Indian Express attempted to dismiss concerns, its report lacked concrete evidence and was authored by an individual with clear ties to USAID-linked organisations, representing a compelling case of conflict of interest.
