US stops $21 million ‘voter turnout’ aid to India; what it means for India? 

US President Donald Trump defended the decision to cancel the $21 million grant to India, raising questions about the appropriateness of such financial assistance (Image: Reuters)

In a move that has generated considerable debate, the Elon Musk-led Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) has taken steps to re-evaluate and reduce the financial commitments made by previous US administrations to international aid programs. One of their key actions involves a decision to cut $486 million from the "Consortium for Elections and Political Process Strengthening" (CEPPS), a significant chunk of which was allocated to projects in Moldova and India.

The decision to halt US taxpayer-funded initiatives, particularly the $21 million earmarked for "voter turnout" in India, has raised concerns and sparked discussions about the role of foreign financial support in domestic electoral processes. To fully understand the implications of DOGE’s actions and the ongoing controversies, it’s essential to explore the details of these decisions, the role of CEPPS, and the reactions from various political figures.

The DOGE Decision

On February 16, DOGE posted a breakdown of several international initiatives that would no longer be funded, including substantial cuts to programs supporting electoral processes. Notably, the post highlighted that $486 million would be withdrawn from the CEPPS, an organization dedicated to promoting elections and political processes worldwide. Among the cuts, $22 million had been allocated to support an "inclusive and participatory political process" in Moldova, while $21 million was intended to boost voter turnout in India.

The decision was framed as part of a broader strategy to reduce US government expenditures, particularly those directed towards foreign nations. The post mentioned that US taxpayers would no longer fund initiatives that were previously considered vital for international democracy-building efforts. The DOGE's justification for these cuts was based on a desire to reduce government waste and reassess the value of such financial commitments in light of evolving geopolitical and economic circumstances.

However, the specifics of the aid to India were particularly contentious. While the post did not mention the specific Indian agency or organisation that would have received the $21 million grant, it was linked to the broader work of CEPPS. The initiative, according to the DOGE post, was part of a global effort to enhance electoral systems and voter participation. Despite the lack of clarity on the Indian recipients, the move has sparked criticism, especially given the country’s rising economic power.

Trump’s Defence of the Cut

US President Donald Trump defended the decision to cancel the $21 million grant to India, raising questions about the appropriateness of such financial assistance. Speaking at Mar-a-Lago, Trump argued that India, as one of the world’s largest economies, did not need US taxpayer dollars for its electoral process.

While he expressed respect for India's leadership and Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Trump questioned the rationale behind allocating US funds for voter turnout efforts in a country that has long been seen as self-sufficient in many areas.

What is the CEPPS?

The Consortium for Elections and Political Process Strengthening (CEPPS) is an alliance of three key nonprofit organisations: the National Democratic Institute (NDI), the International Republican Institute (IRI), and the International Foundation for Electoral Systems (IFES). These groups work together to support democratic processes worldwide, often by providing technical assistance, training, and advisory services to electoral bodies and political parties.

CEPPS receives funding primarily from the US Agency for International Development (USAID), and its mission is to promote resilient, inclusive, and accountable democracies. The organisation focuses on improving electoral processes, strengthening political institutions, and fostering broader political participation in countries undergoing transitions or facing challenges in their democratic practices.

Reactions from BJP

The cancellation of the $21 million grant for voter turnout in India has led to mixed reactions within the country. Amit Malviya, the national head of the Bharatiya Janata Party's (BJP) IT department, voiced strong objections on social media. He criticised the US financial aid as “external interference” in India's democratic process, questioning who would benefit from such a program. According to Malviya, the ruling party would not stand to gain from foreign-funded initiatives aimed at influencing voter behaviour.

Malviya referenced to a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) signed between India’s Election Commission (ECI) and IFES in 2012. He suggested that the MoU was part of a larger scheme to involve foreign entities in the functioning of India’s electoral system. His claims were met with a counter-argument from former Election Commissioner SY Quraishi, who clarified that the MoU was purely technical in nature, intended to facilitate training for Indian election officials, with no financial commitments involved.

Quraishi, through a series of posts on X, rejected the charge. He said the MoU was signed with IFES in 2012, like the ECI had with many other agencies and election management bodies to facilitate training at ECI’s IIDEM, which had just been set up.

“There was no financing or even promise of finance involved in MoU, forget X or Y amount. The MoU in fact made it clear in black and white that there would be no financial and legal obligation of any kind on either side. This stipulation was made at two different places to leave no scope for any ambiguity. Any mention of any funds in connection with this MoU is completely false and malicious,” Quraishi said.

The Broader Debate on Foreign Aid

The debate over the cancellation of US funding for voter turnout programs in India and other countries is part of a broader conversation about the role of foreign aid. Critics of such programs argue that they represent undue interference in sovereign nations' political affairs, while proponents contend that they are necessary to support democratic transitions and ensure free and fair elections in regions with nascent or fragile democratic institutions.