Bangladesh protests: Why a former Hasina aide is blaming the US and the Clintons

Bangladesh protests: Why a former Hasina aide is blaming the US and the Clintons

Mohibul Hasan Chowdhury, a former minister in the government of Sheikh Hasina, has stated that what happened in 2024 - student-led protests that culminated in the ouster of Hasina - was not spontaneous but a foreign-backed regime-change operation. In an interview with Russia Today, he accused USAID and the family of Bill Clinton of funding and orchestrating the unrest.

Chowdhury said that "some NGOs especially from the United States – USAID to name a few, or the International Republican Institute" have been campaigning for changing Bangladesh's government since about 2018. He claimed funds meant for development were diverted to "regime-change activities". Chowdhury described the 2024 turmoil as "carefully planned". The former minister also said there had long been a nexus between the Clinton family and the interim government headed by Nobel Laureate Muhammad Yunus that followed Hasina's departure.

The protests started as student-led demonstrations against job-quota reforms but spiralled into violent, nation-wide unrest. Reports say hundreds lost their lives in the clashes. At the height of the unrest, Hasina was forced to flee the country in August 2024. An interim government then took over. The administration change also marked a shift in Bangladesh's foreign policy orientation, according to some media commentary.

The US government and its agencies have denied the charges. The White House, for instance, said in August 2024 that the United States had nothing to do with events that saw Hasina leave office. Charges of this nature, if confirmed, would have far-reaching ramifications for Bangladesh's sovereignty, the role of foreign aid agencies, and regional geopolitics in South Asia.

From a broader perspective, Chowdhury's claims raise questions over the limits of foreign influence in state affairs. As Bangladesh navigates turbulent political space, the narrative of external interference complicates efforts to interpret the events purely through domestic fault lines. The involvement of development-focused agencies like USAID in contested politics also underlines the blurred lines between aid, diplomacy, and strategic interests.