US President Donald Trump lashed out at a $21 million US taxpayer-funded initiative for voter turnout in India, questioning the need for such financial support to a country with a booming economy and high taxation rates.
Speaking at Mar-a-Lago on Tuesday while signing executive orders, Trump expressed his disbelief. “Why are we giving USD 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. I have a lot of respect for India and their Prime Minister, but giving USD 21 million for voter turnout?” he said.
His comments came after the US Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), led by billionaire Elon Musk, announced the cancellation of several taxpayer-funded programs, including the controversial voter turnout initiative in India. On February 16, DOGE released a list of nixed expenditures, citing concerns over wasteful spending.
Amit Malviya, the BJP’s IT Cell chief, reacted sharply to the revelations, calling it a case of “external interference in India’s electoral process.” “$21M for voter turnout? This definitely is external interference in India’s electoral process. Who gains from this? Not the ruling party for sure!” Malviya posted on X.
The India-bound funds were part of a broader list of initiatives axed by DOGE, including:
- $10 million for voluntary medical male circumcision in Mozambique.
- $486 million for the “Consortium for Elections and Political Process Strengthening,” which included $22 million for Moldova and $21 million for India.
- $29 million for “strengthening the political landscape” in Bangladesh.
- $39 million for “fiscal federalism” and biodiversity conservation in Nepal.
- $1.5 million for “voter confidence” in Liberia.
- $14 million for “social cohesion” in Mali.
- $2.5 million for “inclusive democracies” in Southern Africa.
- $47 million for “improving learning outcomes in Asia.”
Musk’s DOGE department framed these cuts as part of a broader push to eliminate unnecessary foreign expenditures, a move that has sparked debate over US priorities. While some have praised the initiative for reducing wasteful spending, critics argue that slashing funds for democratic and social programs may have unintended consequences.
