Submit your Article

Following the executive order issued by the US President on Jan 20—which halted ongoing USAID-supported projects and suspended all new grants and aid—it not only resulted in a cut of the fund flow from  the US, it  signaled a broader shift in foreign aid dynamics globally. Other countries and development partners appeared to be reassessing their funding priorities and gradually moving away from development cooperation. This shift has significant implications for Nepal’s development, especially considering that foreign aid accounts for approximately 15–20 percent of the national budget. 

Furthermore, this change disrupts a range of development interventions previously channeled through INGOs, private development companies, NGOs, and networks. Notably, the incident exposed a growing disconnect between media narratives and public opinion. While mainstream media—traditionally seen as agenda-setters and key influencers—offered a balanced portrayal of foreign aid by highlighting both its opportunities and challenges, Nepal’s civil society and public have increasingly held a skeptical view.  Against this backdrop, this article first examines how mainstream media have framed the issue and then contrasts this with prevailing public opinion, which, according to the trickle-down theory of communication, is typically shaped by media and opinion leaders.

Editorial narratives in the wake of the US aid withdrawal

The editorial positions and feature articles of selected mainstream Nepali media—The Kathmandu Post, myRepublica, The Annapurna Express, and Kantipur—were carefully examined to understand the tone and framing of their coverage following the US government’s announcement regarding a reduction and cut in USAID support. For instance, The Kathmandu Post’s editorial ‘Time for Some Self-Help’ (Feb 17) adopted a reflective tone, positioning the aid rollback as an opportunity for Nepal to strengthen self-reliance and reform its institutions. MyRepublica’s ‘Prepare a Contingency Plan’ (Feb 16) took a more urgent, pragmatic approach, focusing on the potential risks to critical sectors such as health and education and recommending proactive planning by the government. Similarly, The Annapurna Express’s cover story by Lok Nath Bhusal critically examined foreign aid, suggesting that much of it reflects the strategic interests of donor nations rather than altruistic motives, while Kantipur daily, in its editorial, emphasized the need for greater transparency and self-sufficiency in Nepal’s approach to foreign assistance.

The analysis found that the editorials maintained a balance acknowledging USAID’s contributions and stressing the need for Nepal to reduce its dependency on foreign aid. There was a clear call for national ownership of development agendas, diversification of funding sources, and improved donor coordination. This apart, the editorials’ tone—ranging from cautious to critical—highlighted a common message: the uncertainty surrounding foreign aid should be viewed not with alarm, but as an opportunity for Nepal to pursue internal reforms, strengthen fiscal discipline, and build a more sustainable development strategy.

Public opinion on aid cuts: Voices from social media and beyond

Many social media users, including politicians, academics, and social activists have openly criticized the long-term dependency fostered by foreign aid, arguing that it often entrenches power hierarchies and allows INGOs to set priorities that are irrelevant to the local needs. Some voices have even gone as far as claiming that aid undermines Nepal’s sovereignty. Some hailed the aid cut  as a victory for national independence. These highly charged posts have gone viral, shaping popular sentiment around the issue. Memes, tweets, and commentaries increasingly portray foreign aid as a form of ‘soft imperialism’, accusing donor countries of using aid to push political agendas and manipulate Nepal’s policy formulation and implementation.

Moreover, social media users have criticized the role of civil society organizations, INGOs, and development partners, dubbing their staff as ‘foreign agents’ and their action being ‘dollar-driven’. This category of the social-media users celebrated the aid cut as a form of revenge. Social media platforms have become flooded with accusations that NGOs and INGOs prioritize administrative overhead and personal gains over the societal benefits they purport to deliver. There have also been claims that these organizations promote agendas that clash with Nepal’s cultural values. Alongside these criticisms, conspiracy theories abound, suggesting that foreign aid, particularly from the US, has been strategically used to shape Nepal’s political landscape—especially in pushing federalism and secularism. Such narratives, fueled by misinformation circulating on platforms like Facebook, YouTube, and TikTok, have deepened public confusion.

Why the conflicting narratives on foreign aid? 

One key reason for the discrepancy between media narratives and public opinion is the greater influence of social media, where content is often driven by emotion, perception, and virality rather than fact-checked journalism or editorial oversight. Unlike mainstream media, social media platforms lack gatekeeping mechanisms. Non-professional content creators and influencers, prioritize sensationalism to boost engagement, often spreading misleading or emotionally charged narratives. This environment fuels public skepticism, as viral posts—often based on individual perception or political bias—are more readily consumed and believed than editorials grounded in verified information. The Vibrant Information Barometer (VIBE) Nepal 2024 report emphasizes this trend, highlighting the influence of cyber armies and politically motivated content creators who now act as de facto opinion makers.

Additionally, the psychological phenomenon of ‘negativity bias’ makes the public more interested to receive negative portrayals of foreign aid, further distancing public sentiment from the more balanced perspectives offered by mainstream media.

A third contributing factor is the gap between macro-level policy discussions in editorials and the micro-level realities of citizens’ everyday lives. While media narratives often frame foreign aid within the broader context of national development, governance, or international diplomacy, the public tends to assess aid based on concrete local impact. When people fail to see direct benefits in their communities—despite decades of foreign assistance—they develop negative narratives. This is compounded by political actors and influencers who capitalize on public frustration, promoting populist or nationalist rhetoric that portrays aid as manipulative or infringing on sovereignty. Limited media literacy, ideological echo chambers, and the rise of political cyber wings further polarize discourse, reinforcing a public narrative shaped more by emotion, misinformation, and unmet expectations than by mainstream media content.

Conclusion and way forward

The growing gap between media narratives and public opinion on foreign aid in Nepal signals a major shift in Nepal’s information ecosystem. Traditional theories like trickle-down and agenda-setting fall short in explaining today’s digital dynamics, where algorithm-driven, emotionally charged social media content often overrides fact-based journalism. Influencers, cyber armies, and politically motivated content creators now shape public perception more than trained journalists, especially among digitally illiterate populations. This has led to an environment dominated by misinformation, disinformation and mal-information.

To address this, Nepal must urgently foster a culture of fact-based opinion building. Media and information literacy should be prioritized, alongside institutionalized fact-checking and inclusive public dialogue. Empowering citizens with critical thinking tools and promoting ethical journalism are key to bridging the narrative gap.

Since the 1950s, America’s development assistance to Nepal has steadily increased. However, after Donald Trump was re-inaugurated as the 47th President of the United States, this assistance was significantly cut, straining small countries’ health, education, and humanitarian sectors.

Small nations are increasingly viewing superpowers as unreliable partners, as assistance and projects have often been canceled midway. Experts say at the very least small countries should have been given time to find alternative sources of funding before support in critical sectors like health and education was withdrawn.

While the exact figures remain unclear, dozens of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) have canceled projects previously supported by USAID. Referring to America’s Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) during an internal party meeting, Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli noted that agreements signed after years of deliberations were abruptly terminated.

With media reports suggesting that the Trump administration might shut down the MCC, there is growing concern in Nepal that two major projects—a cross-border transmission line and a road upgrade—could be affected. Prime Minister Oli says that Nepal should not overly rely on foreign aid. In a direct reference to the MCC, he noted that even though the parliaments of both countries had ratified the compact, the US unilaterally decided to terminate it.

Foreign policy experts say the new US administration’s policies pose both challenges and opportunities for countries like Nepal, which have relied heavily on foreign aid for decades, even in critical sectors like health. In the short term, countries will struggle to secure funds, impacting infrastructure development. But in the long run, experts say it presents an opportunity to reduce dependency on foreign assistance.

Nilanthi Samaranayake, an independent analyst based in Washington, DC, says that smaller countries are clearly affected by the shift in US international engagement policy and that they should reassess their economic and security dependencies on the US.

Nepal, she suggests, should seek a broader range of international partners beyond just the US, India, and China. While Washington’s policy changes bring challenges, she is of the view that they also offer Nepal an opportunity to enhance its diplomatic outreach and diversify its economic and security partnerships.

Development cooperation between Nepal and the US dates back to 1951, when the two countries signed their first bilateral aid agreement under the US’s Point Four Program. Early US assistance prioritized building roads, establishing telephone exchanges, eliminating malaria from the Tarai region and promoting agricultural development. By 1959, the US had helped Kathmandu install its first automatic telephone exchange, providing 1,000 lines, and supported the construction of the 87-kilometer Bharatpur-Hetauda road under the Rapti Development Program. Work also began on the Hetauda-Kathmandu ropeway the same year.

In the 1960s, during King Mahendra’s consolidation of the Panchayat system, US aid surged dramatically. President Dwight Eisenhower’s unexpected $15m pledge to King Mahendra in April 1960 marked a turning point in US involvement in Nepal’s development. USAID expanded its programs in agriculture, health, education and industrial development. After King Mahendra dissolved parliament and banned political parties in 1960, US aid was redirected to support the Panchayat system. The US supported construction of administrative structures across Nepal, viewing the Panchayat system as a potential vehicle for mobilizing human resources and fostering economic, social and democratic political development.

Chandra Dev Bhatta, a Kathmandu-based geopolitical expert, says that as traditional Western donors reassess their commitments, the impact on countries like Nepal’s development and service delivery mechanisms could be significant.

“With the withdrawal of USAID and now the MCC, some of Nepal’s vital infrastructure projects may face serious challenges, if not come to a complete standstill,” Bhatta says. “International aid architecture is not only evolving but has also become increasingly politicized. While reduced aid and grants are a concern, Nepal must press forward with infrastructure development and keep the service delivery systems intact.”

In the short term, Bhatta suggests that Nepal should urge donor countries to honor their previous commitments despite new geopolitical realities. In the long term, he says, the importance of recognizing that aid is often driven by the donor’s own interests. “This is the stark reality of international cooperation,” he says. “Global political and economic dynamics demand us to have self-reliant models of economic development, and Nepali certainly will have to work in that direction.”

It is now almost certain that US assistance to Nepal will continue to decline. Support is likely to persist only in areas aligned with the Republican Party’s priorities. So far, there have been no concrete discussions between the two countries regarding this new reality.

Satoru Nagao, a Non-Resident Fellow at the Hudson Institute, says that under the current rules of global free trade, China has been catching up with the US. And for small countries, he adds global trade brings both opportunities and challenges. “While factories may relocate elsewhere, small countries can still attract investment if they maintain competitive production costs.”

Nagao points out that if tariffs dominate the new global trade rules, small countries will need to adapt. Although this shift may allow local industries to survive, there will likely be fewer opportunities for foreign investment. He says since the primary target of current US policy is China, countries that depend heavily on China could suffer under these shifts. He warns that if Nepal increasingly relies on China, it risks becoming “a passenger on a sinking ship.”

The culture of Mithila is deeply rooted in its sacred rivers. Ancient Mithila is blessed with many silvery rivers, including the Kaushiki (Koshi), Kamala, Dugdhamati, Yamuni, Jibachha, Geruka, Jhim, Bagmati, and Lakshmana (Lakhandei).

Kaushiki or Koshi

A legend in the Valmiki Ramayana tells the story of King Kush, whose son Vishwamitra was a revered sage. Vishwamitra’s daughter, Kaushiki, was deeply devout and married the sage Richik. They had three sons.

Once, King Ambrish performed an Ashwamedha Yagna, but Indra, the king of gods, stole the sacrificial horse. Distressed, the king and sages searched for a human substitute to complete the ritual. Despite offering great wealth, no one came forward. Finally, King Ambrish begged Richik to sacrifice one of his sons. Reluctantly, Richik offered his middle son, Sunahsen.

Kaushiki, overcome with grief, wept ceaselessly until her body dissolved into a river—the Kaushiki. Sunahsen was later saved by Vishwamitra’s grace. Kaushiki became a beloved companion of Janaki (Sita) and now flows as the Koshi, nourishing Mithila with its waters.

Kamala 

Kamala was the daughter of a Brahmin who lived on the Mandarachal Mountain. She came to perform penance in a beautiful cave of the Himalayas, continuing her meditation for a thousand years. At last, a radiant glow burst forth from her mouth. The king of the mountain approached her and asked who she was. Pleased with her devotion, he said, "I am very much pleased with you. Ask for whatever you desire; I will fulfill all your wishes."

Hearing this, Kamala prayed, "If you are truly pleased with my penance, grant that I be as sacred as the Ganges." Himban, the king of the mountain, blessed her, saying, "You are as dear to me as the Ganges herself. All her sacred qualities will reside in you." Kamala was deeply satisfied with this grace.

Thus, the Kamala River became an intimate and playful Sakhi (companion) of Sita. Rivers such as Shree Triyuga, Narayani, Lakshmana, Adhobara, Vanbhosha, Mandana, Yamuni, Ghumra, and Virja are also considered Sita’s companions. They are said to have visited Sita at night to play with her.

The background of the puja is provided by the Kamala Ka Geet (Song of Kamala), which narrates her brave and divine deeds, accompanied by the Dholaka, Mridanga, and Jhala. The song is soothing to the ears, and the performance as a whole is exhilarating. Similarly, the Koshi Puja is celebrated with the Koshi Ka Geet in the same style in parts of Tirhut.

Dugdhamati 

In no other part of the world is there mention of a river of milk, but Mithila, a land rich in mythology and legend, is home to such a river—Dugdhamati. The literal meaning of Dugdhamati is "river of milk." When Janaki, the daughter of King Janak, was born, she began to cry. The earth, regarded as her mother since she emerged from its womb, manifested itself in the form of Kamdhenu—the divine cow—and nursed her with its milk. Thus Janaki was nurtured. It is said that the Dugdhamati River was born from the overflow of milk from Kamdhenu’s countless udders. Even today, its waters are milky, sweet, and tasteful. Many saints and sages meditated on its sacred banks, chanting the name of Lord Rama. Among them were King Sutichhan, Rambaba, Premdas, and Vimala Sharan—renowned saints of their time.

Even today, despite disturbances from thieves and robbers, many saints continue to chant and meditate along the banks of this sacred river. Dugdhamati remains a renowned center of religious and spiritual devotion.

Yamuni

The Yamuni River flows about five miles from Janakpur. It should not be confused with the famous Yamuna of Gokul and Vrindavan, associated with Lord Krishna and the Gopinis. This Yamuni is distinct but equally revered. Today, sisters worship their brothers on its banks during Bhai Tika (the second day of Kartik’s bright fortnight), a day of familial devotion. Traditionally, families also share meals here on this auspicious occasion.

Jibachha 

Located near Kanchanvan (the golden forest), the Jibachha River is believed to bless those who bathe in it with the boon of sons and daughters and a life of happiness and longevity.

Geruka 

The Geruka River flows about four miles west of Janakpur. It is considered as meritorious and spiritually fruitful as Rajgriha in Bihar, where pilgrims seek salvation. Geruka is a famous pilgrimage site in Mithila, and a grand fair is held here during Malmas (an extra month in the Hindu lunar calendar, considered auspicious for religious observances).

President Vladimir Putin has extended an official invitation to North Korean leader Kim Jong-un to attend a military parade in Moscow on May 9, a day marking the Soviet Union’s victory over Nazi Germany in World War II. The diplomatic reward offered by Russia for North Korea’s military involvement in the war in Ukraine has far surpassed expectations. 

North Korea’s military and diplomatic standing has changed significantly compared to its position prior to the war, before its arms transfers and troop support. In addition to receiving favorable treatment from Russia, North Korea is now capturing the attention of key European nations backing Ukraine. South Korea, Japan and China are increasingly anxious about the potential regional impact of North Korea’s growing leverage with Russia. 

Since the start of the second Trump administration—which this year has begun prioritizing short-term economic interests without distinguishing between allies and adversaries—North Korea’s leverage with Russia is inevitably set to grow even stronger. Notably, in contrast to the previous Biden administration, the Trump administration has remained silent on Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and is pushing for an end-of-war settlement that favors Russia. 

Trump has launched the most basic and straightforward realist strategy of balance of power—that is, an attempt to detach Russia from China, which is the United States’ primary hegemonic rival, and align it with the US. Whether this strategy will succeed remains uncertain, but Trump is now trying to draw Russia away from China in much the same way that former President Nixon had pulled China away from the Soviet Union in the 1970s. 

Putin, who combines authoritarian rule at home with a reckless yet experienced command of international politics, clearly understands Trump’s intentions and is looking to exploit them as much as possible in end-of-war negotiations. Trump is reportedly invited to the May 9 military parade, and naturally, Chinese President Xi Jinping has been invited too. We may even witness a surreal scene where Trump and Xi are seated on either side of Putin, with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un standing beside Trump, smiling, as they all watch the procession of Russia’s latest weapons. 

The prospect of the leader of North Korea—the world’s most internationally isolated pariah state—standing shoulder to shoulder with the heads of the US, China and Russia is extraordinary. Though unlikely, should it come to pass, it would deliver a profound shock not only to America’s allies in Europe and East Asia, but also to China. The mere discussion of such a scenario underscores that North Korea’s leverage over Russia has emerged as a key variable in the security dynamics of Europe and East Asia.

If Kim attends Russia’s Victory Day parade and stands alongside Xi on either side of Putin, it is worth thinking about what that would mean for China. Most importantly, it would mark China’s entry into a trilateral military and comprehensive alliance framework with Russia and North Korea—an alignment it has long avoided. The formation of such a trilateral structure would push established Western powers to increase their vigilance, containment efforts and pressure on China. 

Together with Russia and North Korea, China would undeniably be seen as a threat to the military, economic and technological security—that is, the converging securities—of the leading Western nations. While the Global South—developing countries—may not respond strongly, China would suffer a serious reputational blow by being branded a security threat to the developed world. 

China would also, in effect, be officially acknowledging North Korea’s leverage over Russia. In terms of international political and security dynamics, China and North Korea have long had aligned strategic interests, with North Korea lacking any viable patron state other than China—leaving it in a position of absolute disadvantage to China. 

However, Russia has now emerged, at least partially, as an alternative backer, introducing a significant new variable into the Sino-North Korean relationship that cannot be ignored. As part of its military cooperation with Russia, North Korea has been acquiring a range of advanced strategic weapon technologies from Moscow to strengthen its independent military capabilities. Russia has already formally recognized North Korea’s nuclear weapons and their delivery systems. 

For North Korea, this represents a diplomatic triumph—like rain after a long drought. But for China, it marks a serious blow to its national interests, and this new reality is expected to become more deeply entrenched in the coming years. To date, China has refrained from offering explicit support or endorsement of North Korea in the military domain, including its nuclear weapons program. In particular, Beijing has consistently maintained a cautious and reserved position regarding North Korea’s nuclear armament.

Then how should China respond to the deepening rapprochement between North Korea and Russia? Over the past two years, as Russia-North Korea ties have gained momentum, China has largely ignored the situation and remained unresponsive. To some extent, North Korea’s military support for Russia has brought indirect benefits to China, as Beijing itself has avoided providing military aid to Moscow. 

However, the outcome has been an increase in North Korea’s leverage over Russia. One possible course of action for China is to refrain from participating in the Russia–North Korea military cooperation and begin with a passive response, in order to avoid being drawn into a trilateral military alliance framework with Russia and North Korea. Trump is expected to pursue direct negotiations with North Korea this year. North Korea, in turn, will likely seek to make the most of its leverage over Russia during this process. 

Perhaps the first thing to watch is who will attend next month’s Russian military parade. Kim? Trump? Xi? From Japan and South Korea to France, Germany, the United Kingdom and Poland, all eyes are on which direction the shadow of China—looming behind Russia and North Korea—falls. The United States, of course, is watching as well.

The author is a professor of Political Science and International Studies at Yonsei University