US President Donald Trump doubled down on his outrage over USAID’s spending Saturday, accusing the agency of funnelling $29 million to prop up a “radical left communist” in Bangladesh. Speaking at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in Washington, Trump fumed, “$29 million goes to strengthen the political landscape and help them vote for a radical left communist in Bangladesh. You’ve got to see who they supported!”  It was the second straight day of blistering attacks on the grant, following his fiery remarks at the White House Governors Working Session on Friday. There, Trump claimed the funds landed with an obscure firm—“a little outfit” with just two employees. “They got $29 million. A cheque! Imagine scraping by with $10,000 here, $10,000 there—and bam, $29 million from the US government,” he said, his tone dripping with disbelief. “Two people! They’re very happy. Very rich. They’ll be on the cover of a top business magazine—for being great scammers.”  Trump’s ire extended to India, too. At CPAC, he questioned an $18 million USAID grant for elections there, asking, “Why the hell? Why don’t we use paper ballots and let them help us with our elections? Voter ID—that’d be nice. We’re giving money to India for elections. They don’t need it. They slap 200% tariffs on us, and we’re handing them cash!”  

The claims stem from a February 16 post by the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), Trump’s cost-cutting task force led by Elon Musk, which axed 11 US-funded projects, including the $29 million Bangladesh initiative and a $21 million India voter effort. “US taxpayer dollars were going to these—all now scrapped,” DOGE declared.  

In Bangladesh, the Strengthening Political Landscape (SPL) programme—backed by USAID and UK’s DFID, and run by Democracy International from 2017 to 2024—aimed to boost political party capacity, strengthen party-constituent ties, and reduce violence. But Trump’s portrayal of it as a shadowy pay-out to a two-person firm lacks evidence, leaving the truth murky amid his fiery rhetoric.