Submit your Article

US Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asian Affairs, Samir Paul Kapur, concluded a three-day visit to Nepal on April 22, marking the highest-level US visit since the new government took office. Ahead of Nepal’s March 5 election, Kapur had expressed confidence that the vote would be peaceful and said the US was prepared to work with the incoming government. Briefing the US House Foreign Affairs Committee in February, he stated: “With Nepal, we trust there will be a secure and peaceful electoral process, and we are prepared to work with whoever wins.”

In his testimony, Kapur placed Nepal within a broader US strategic outlook for South Asia, alongside developments in countries such as Bangladesh, where political transitions have recently drawn international attention. His subsequent visit to Dhaka in early March reflects continued US engagement across the region during periods of political transition.

A key underlying theme in his remarks was the strategic importance of Nepal’s geographic position between India and China. US lawmakers have increasingly emphasized that South Asia’s balance of power matters for global economic stability. Kapur explicitly noted that preventing dominance by any single power in the region remains a central US objective.

He warned that the emergence of a “hostile power dominating South Asia” could translate into broader coercive leverage over the global economy—underscoring how regional geopolitics is now directly tied to global economic security. Kapur also highlighted that smaller South Asian states—including Nepal, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Maldives, and Sri Lanka—are strategically significant but structurally vulnerable to external pressures, particularly through what he described as debt-driven influence mechanisms.

Against this backdrop, he outlined US priorities in the region: expanding trade and economic connectivity, strengthening defence and security cooperation, and supporting partners through diplomacy, investment, and institutional engagement.

The underlying message is clear: the US is increasingly framing South Asia not just as a development region, but as a strategic balance zone—where economic tools, connectivity, and institutional partnerships are deployed alongside traditional diplomacy.

This presents an opportunity for Nepal. The pattern of engagements matters, and this visit reflects a shift in how external actors—particularly the US—are approaching the country. Kapur’s visit appeared mission-driven rather than ceremonial, suggesting a targeted effort rather than symbolic diplomacy. His engagement with Rabi Lamichhane, chairperson of the Rastriya Swatantra Party, signals attention to Nepal’s evolving political landscape and the rise of non-traditional actors. It reflects an interest in governance narratives centered on anti-corruption, technocratic leadership, and service delivery.

Equally notable was the absence of meetings with top state leadership such as the president, prime minister, or army chief. This suggests a deliberate shift from conventional protocol—an exploratory approach that keeps distance from established power structures while focusing more on political economy than security.

The emphasis on engagements with foreign and finance ministries indicates that economic diplomacy is at the core of US priorities. This aligns with a broader approach that competes through capital, regulatory standards, and governance frameworks rather than solely through security partnerships. Key areas of focus include the investment climate, regulatory predictability, infrastructure, energy, and governance-linked economic systems.

Outreach to business leaders further signals that engagement is increasingly being built through markets, not just ministries. It reflects recognition of Nepal’s underutilized private sector and an interest in identifying credible local partners for international capital. Kapur also visited Patan Durbar Square and Boudhanath Stupa, highlighting Nepal’s Newari and Tibetan cultural heritage. He noted that US support for preserving such sites contributes to economic growth while safeguarding shared cultural values. His interaction with the Tibetan community in Kathmandu—and his call for attention to their concerns—signals continued US engagement on Tibet-related issues, a sensitive area given Nepal’s adherence to the One-China policy.

Unlike traditional diplomatic visits, this one appeared less ceremonial and more strategic—politically exploratory, economically focused, selective in protocol, and multi-channel in outreach. The visit can be interpreted as a calibration mission rather than a courtesy call. Its likely objectives include mapping Nepal’s evolving political landscape, re-anchoring US influence in the economic domain, diversifying engagement beyond state actors, and testing Nepal’s strategic flexibility amid intensifying regional competition.

At its core, the approach reflects economic statecraft as a substitute for overt political alignment—shaping the environment in which outcomes emerge rather than attempting to directly control them. The visit also unfolds against intensifying geopolitical competition in South Asia, where India has traditionally held significant influence. New Delhi appears to view increased US engagement with a mix of strategic alignment and cautious watchfulness.

On one hand, there is convergence with Washington on balancing China’s expanding regional role. On the other, India remains sensitive to any external presence that could dilute its influence in what it has long considered its immediate sphere. This reflects both opportunity and concern.

Indian analysts have also pointed to internal political developments in Nepal—particularly the consolidation of major communist parties—as a factor that could expand China’s leverage. This has prompted some within India’s strategic circles to call for closer coordination with the US, even as there is growing recognition that India’s traditional influence is evolving and requires a more deliberate, strategy-driven approach.

At the same time, China has signaled concern over the intensifying US presence. In the lead-up to the visit, Beijing’s representatives in Kathmandu cautioned against activities linked to Tibet and Taiwan, underscoring China’s priority that Nepal not become a platform for anti-China political or security agendas.

China continues to advance its economic footprint through initiatives such as the Belt and Road Initiative, framing development cooperation as the central pillar of its engagement. The broader picture is one of intensifying strategic signaling, with both Washington and Beijing testing the boundaries of influence.

For Kathmandu, the message is clear: the opportunity is significant. External actors are engaging despite political fluidity, not waiting for stability. Nepal is seen as strategically relevant even in transition. Future partnerships will depend less on ideology and more on governance quality, regulatory credibility, and economic openness.

The bottom line is that this was not a routine visit—it was a quiet strategic probe. The absence of top-level meetings is not a gap; it is the signal. The US appears to be looking beyond the current state structure—toward the next phase of Nepal’s political economy.

The government has decided not to transfer more than 114 ropanis of land belonging to the National Police Training Academy in Maharajgunj to the name of the President's Office.

A Cabinet meeting held on Thursday made the decision to this effect, government spokesperson Sasmit Pokharel said.

According to him, as per the decision of the Council of Ministers made on August 17, 2018, the land was to be transferred to the name of the Office of the President.

From April 19 to 22, US Assistant Secretary for South and Central Asian Affairs Paul Kapur visited Nepal. Although it was a routine visit, it carried significance for two main reasons. First, it was his first visit to Nepal after assuming office at the State Department last year. Second, the visit came on the heels of the Rastriya Swatantra Party’s stunning victory in Nepal’s landmark March 5 elections and the appointment of Balendra Shah as prime minister on March 27.

The visit provided an opportunity for Kapur to outline the new priorities of the Donald Trump administration and to understand the priorities of Nepal’s new government. For Nepal, it was a chance to communicate its priorities to the United States, a major development partner since the 1950s. Since Trump’s second inauguration, there has been no substantial high-level engagement between the two countries. It was only after nine months that Kapur was appointed to oversee the region. Meanwhile, Nepal was preoccupied with internal issues such as the GenZ protests and the March 5 vote. That is why Kapur’s Nepal visit got delayed.

Kapur’s meetings this week with political leaders, business representatives and members of the cultural community indicate both continuity and change in the Trump administration’s Nepal policy.

During his stay in Kathmandu, he met RSP Chairperson Rabi Lamichhane, Foreign Minister Shishir Khanal and Finance Minister Swarnim Wagle. He also held discussions with members of the business community and representatives of the Tibetan community in Nepal.

 Unlike previous assistant secretaries, who typically met opposition leaders, former prime ministers, civil society representatives, and media figures, Kapur’s engagements in Kathmandu were relatively limited.

Now, turning to the key issues discussed with Nepali officials: as the Trump administration has dismantled USAID—which previously supported Nepal’s health, education, agriculture, and energy sectors—Kapur emphasized deepening and expanding commercial ties during his meetings with government ministers and business leaders. This signals that the US is shifting away from aid (except in a few areas) and focusing more on investment.

 The dismantlement of USAID created a stress on Nepal’s health, education and agriculture sector. The Trump administration has been prioritizing trade over aid and investment assistance which puts Washington in a stronger position to counter China.

In his meeting with Finance Minister Wagle, Kapur stressed improving the business climate to attract US companies. He noted that more American private firms would invest in Nepal if a more investment-friendly environment were created. Even during the Joe Biden administration, both sides had discussed increasing American investment in Nepal. The Trump administration has also continued projects under the Millennium Challenge Corporation, which the US views not as aid but as investment.

Speaking before the House Committee in February, Kapur said that carefully targeted investment can provide South Asian countries with high-quality, transparent and non-coercive support for critical infrastructure such as ports, telecommunications networks, and energy systems—helping them avoid the risks of “debt-trap diplomacy,” a veiled reference to China.

He made similar remarks during a recent meeting with Bangladesh’s finance minister in Washington, emphasizing expanded trade and investment, improved market access, energy cooperation and opportunities in infrastructure development.

Collaboration in digital infrastructure is another major US priority in Nepal. In discussions with business representatives, Kapur highlighted opportunities in Nepal’s ICT sector, including strengthening digital infrastructure, promoting artificial intelligence adoption, enhancing cybersecurity and sharing US technological expertise. Interestingly, the Chinese ambassador to Nepal recently made similar proposals in talks with Finance Minister Wagle.

Immigration policy has also become a major priority under Trump’s second term. Kapur raised concerns about illegal immigration and human trafficking in his meeting with Foreign Minister Khanal. Over the past year, the US  has deported hundreds of Nepali nationals residing illegally in the country, and this issue has been discussed in prior engagements in Washington.

Enhanced defense cooperation is another priority for the US, representing continuity with past policy but with greater emphasis under the Trump administration. Although Kapur did not meet security officials during this visit, earlier engagements suggest this focus. For instance, Admiral Samuel J. Paparo, commander of the US Indo-Pacific Command (INDOPACOM), highlighted expanded defense cooperation during his visit to Nepal.

In previous statements, Kapur has emphasized that countries like Nepal, Bangladesh, the Maldives, Sri Lanka and Bhutan hold strategic importance due to their geographic positions but are also vulnerable to external pressure. Defense cooperation with the US, he argued, can help these nations safeguard their borders and waterways. The US continues to promote the State Partnership Program (SPP), although Nepal decided in 2022 not to join it.

Through INDOPACOM, the US has supported Nepal in strengthening disaster response capabilities via joint exercises, technical assistance, and non-combat equipment such as helicopters, vehicles and communication systems. Additional training and logistical support aim to enhance Nepal’s capacity for peacekeeping and humanitarian operations, aligning with broader goals of self-reliance and regional resilience.

Countering Chinese influence in Nepal remains a longstanding US priority, and the Trump administration appears to be placing renewed emphasis on it, even if it was not explicitly stated during this visit. Notably, issues such as democracy, climate change cooperation, human rights, media freedom, and minority rights—often highlighted in previous US engagements—were not prominently raised during this visit.

Home Minister Sudhan Gurung resigned from his post on Wednesday.

Gurung, who was appointed as Home Minister on March 27, resigned just after 26 days in office.

Gurung was under pressure from all sides to resign after being embroiled in the share-related controversy.

He submitted his resignation to Prime Minister Balen Shah on Wednesday, urging authorities to conduct a fair investigation into the matter.

Following his resignation, he stated that morality is greater than position for him.

“I have resigned from the post of Home Minister effective from today itself with the aim of ensuring  that there is an impartial investigation into the matters related to me, there should be no 'conflict of interest' and  impact on it," he wrote, announcing his resignation on the social site.

He said, "I, from my side, have fulfilled my moral responsibility. Now my appeal is --dear journalist friends, Nepali brothers, sisters and youths, if we truly want change, we all should stand on the path of truth, honesty and self- righteousness."