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.
