The Role of NGOs and Deep State in Government Overthrows Across Countries

Opinion

This semester, I am teaching a course in MBA titled Health Care Funding and Resource Allocation. The course primarily explores how Canada’s healthcare system operates, the roles of hospitals, doctors, nurses, and healthcare workers, private sector involvement, business operational costs, and methods of recouping those costs, along with the role of insurance companies and their business models. While teaching, I often compare these aspects with the U.S. healthcare system and occasionally draw parallels with G8 and OECD countries. The course requires an extensive analysis of data and information, which makes teaching it immensely enjoyable for me as it combines the practical aspects of both public health and economics.

Today’s piece briefly highlights how NGOs are used by developed countries to influence political changes. At the end of this article, I will also discuss the state of countries like Egypt and others in the Middle East over the last 14 years following similar movements, incorporating insights from the experiences of people from those regions.

While preparing this course, I realized that I hadn’t delved deeply into the role of NGOs and international organizations in healthcare. One of the biggest spenders in global healthcare is the Gates Foundation. So, I adjusted the course outline slightly to include a lecture titled Healthcare Funding and International Agencies. In this lecture, I extensively discussed the roles of NGOs, INGOs, UN agencies, philanthropists, and their political influence in healthcare financing.

Every donor agency, philanthropist, and international development organization has some agenda tied to their funding. For instance, the U.S. State Department prioritizes democracy, human rights, and economic development when determining foreign aid, a role previously played by USAID. Meanwhile, Canada focuses on human dignity, economic growth, climate change, peace and security, and gender equality in its aid priorities. The focus areas of these two wealthy nations differ significantly.

When Republican governments are in power in the U.S., projects on abortion, women’s rights, gender equality, maternal and child care, and population control often lose priority and funding. For example, in 2018, the Trump administration explicitly told Mexico that the U.S. would not fund any projects involving abortion. Furthermore, if Mexico funded such projects through its government or external sources, the U.S. could halt all its aid. This policy was widely discussed as the Global Gag Rule.

In 2023, the U.S. State Department allocated approximately 22% of its development assistance budget—about $16 billion—to a peculiar category labeled Macroeconomic Foundation for Growth. While the title suggests macroeconomic investments, in reality, $14.5 billion of this was provided directly to Ukraine to support its war against Russia. This was separate from U.S. military aid and was allocated under foreign assistance.

Foreign aid often plays a significant role in political shifts and ideological positioning. For example, in 2012, Russia enacted the Foreign Agents Law, banning any foreign-funded NGOs from working on democracy or human rights issues. Similarly, in 2020, India strengthened its Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act (FCRA) to prevent NGOs opposing the government from operating freely. Under this policy, Amnesty International India was forced to cease its operations.

Recently, former U.S. President Donald Trump publicly claimed that USAID had provided $29 million to two individuals in Bangladesh for a program titled Political Landscape Change in Bangladesh. However, what many do not know is that over the previous four years, the U.S. State Department had spent $1.8 billion in Bangladesh under the same program. While much attention is paid to the recent $29 million, little discussion has occurred regarding the $1.8 billion that had already been spent. For context, when Bangladesh received $29 million, India—a much larger country—received only $21 million for similar programs, raising questions about U.S. intentions in Bangladesh.

Developed countries often finance civil society organizations to achieve their geopolitical ambitions. For instance, after the U.S. withdrew from Afghanistan in 2021, many NGOs ceased operations due to funding cuts by the U.S. and U.K., despite the increasing need for humanitarian aid in Afghanistan under Taliban rule.

Another example of politically motivated funding decisions is the allocation of aid to geopolitically significant regions while ignoring areas of greater humanitarian need. For instance, following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022, the U.S. and the European Union diverted significant development funds to Ukraine—$17 billion from the EU—while reducing aid to crisis-hit countries like Yemen and Ethiopia.

We’ve also seen how the U.S. and Israel stopped funding the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA), accusing it of aiding Hamas. Following their lead, the U.K., Germany, and Canada also ceased funding this agency, collectively withdrawing $450 million that would have otherwise supported food, housing, and healthcare for Palestinian refugees in Gaza.

Corporations also engage in such practices. In 2020, ExxonMobil and Chevron spent $116 million on NGO campaigns to prevent environmentally friendly policies in certain countries. Similarly, in Bangladesh, Coca-Cola and Nestlé influenced officials and organizations to avoid scrutiny over water extraction issues. Coca-Cola’s water bottling plant in Meherpur extracted 1.5 million liters of groundwater daily, severely impacting local agriculture and drinking water supplies.

In my class, we discussed the political role of organizations like USAID in toppling governments in various countries. One of my students, a Canadian-Egyptian physician, shared insights from Egypt’s experience during the 2011 Arab Spring.

The Arab Spring movements, which began in 2010 across the Middle East, were primarily student-led protests against corruption and economic downturns. While these movements resulted in the overthrow of several governments, subsequent regimes also became corrupt, perpetuating the same issues. In many cases, the U.S. deep state financed these movements through local NGOs and civil society organizations.

My Egyptian student remarked that even 14 years after Hosni Mubarak’s fall, Egypt has not regained its economic progress or peace. Similarly, another student from BRAC University in Bangladesh shared her experience. She said she actively participated in July’s protests but now advises her family to avoid going outside due to the rise in violence and insecurity.

The Egyptian student offered a grim warning: “Your country will face prolonged difficulties, as ours did. But you must continue your protests against conspiracies and the rise of extremism.”

This discussion is not an attack on NGOs but a critique of how political interests often dictate development aid. I remain hopeful that organizations like USAID will expand their work in the future but urge them to abandon activities aimed at overthrowing governments.

-Dr. Shamim Ahmed
March 12, 2025
Ontario, Canada