While Washington officially denies interference in Nepal’s violent Gen Z protests, the striking parallels in tactics and political outcomes raise serious questions about America’s role behind the scenes in shaping youth uprisings.
In September 2025, Nepal’s Gen Z sparked one of the country’s most violent protests after a government ban on 26 major social media platforms. Frustrated by corruption, nepotism and economic despair, young protesters flooded Kathmandu’s streets, clashing violently with police and forcing Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli to resign. The movement’s rapid rise and digital savvy mirror the 2024 youth-led uprising in Bangladesh against Sheikh Hasina’s government, where the US was widely accused of covertly supporting opposition forces through social media and grassroots mobilisation. While Washington officially denies interference in either case, the striking parallels in tactics and political outcomes raise serious questions about America’s role behind the scenes in shaping youth uprisings. This pattern highlights a troubling trend of external influence complicating South Asia’s fragile democracies, threatening genuine grassroots movements seeking systemic political change. The Nepal government under Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli banned 26 social media platforms, including Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, WhatsApp, LinkedIn and X, primarily because these platforms failed to comply with a Supreme Court order and government directive to register with the Ministry of Communication and Information Technology. The platforms were required to appoint a local grievance officer, compliance officer and establish a representative in Nepal. The government cited the ban as a measure to combat misinformation, hate speech and online fraud, claiming the platforms ignored multiple registration requests.
This ban severely disrupted communication for millions, especially the youth and businesses dependent on social media, with platforms like Facebook having around 13.5 million users in Nepal. The ban triggered massive protests, highlighting not only opposition to the social media restrictions but also longstanding grievances over political corruption and economic hardships. The protests turned violent, resulting in 34 deaths and over 1,368 injuries. The government eventually lifted the ban amid escalating unrest and demands from youth protesters known as “Gen Z.” The government’s move was viewed as authoritarian by many, with critics warning it infringed on freedom of expression and constitutional digital rights.
The Gen Z protests bear noteworthy aspects of both domestic grievance and indirect U.S. influence. While the direct leadership of the protests was local, U.S.-based digital platforms—Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, and Discord— were pivotal in organising, coordinating, and amplifying the movement, enabling rapid mobilisation nationwide, especially among youth accustomed to social media activism.
Historically, U.S. agencies like USAID have funded extensive civil society programs in Nepal focusing on digital literacy, youth activism and governance reforms. USAID’s support under programs like CSM-STAND has bolstered local NGOs, media watchdogs and youth groups that champion civic freedoms and political accountability. Although USAID funding has recently faced freezes, its legacy of empowering Nepal’s youth civil society has provided the infrastructural foundation for digitally enabled protests that challenge corruption and nepotism.
The U.S. Global Engagement Centre (GEC) and related initiatives have promoted digital rights and counter-repression strategies globally, indirectly shaping political movements by equipping citizens with tools for information dissemination beyond state-controlled narratives. Critics argue these U.S. efforts constitute a form of geopolitical digital intervention, where infrastructure ostensibly promoting democracy also serves as an enabler for unrest that weakens governments problematic for U.S. interests.
The parallels with the 2024 Bangladesh protests- also digitally coordinated via U.S.-based platforms and with USAID involvement- strengthen claims of a pattern of indirect U.S. facilitation. The Nepal Gen Z protests’ use of hashtags exposing elite corruption (notably the “Nepo Kid” theme) and decentralised online tactics mirror digital activism trends associated with prior U.S.-supported movements in South Asia.
While Washington officially denies direct involvement in Nepal’s protest dynamics, the strategic deployment of digital tools and prior funding for civic activism reveal a nuanced, indirect influence. U.S. digital infrastructure and funded programs provide an enabling ecosystem for youth-led demands for accountability, but also expose national sovereignty to external digital influences that can catalyse political destabilisation under the guise of digital empowerment.
The United States has increasingly exploited digital platforms to control political narratives and suppress dissent globally, advancing its agenda under the guise of digital empowerment. Through dominant US-based social media companies like Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and Instagram, Washington wields vast influence over the flow of information, shaping public discourse and deciding which voices rise or fall. This digital dominance enables covert intervention in foreign political landscapes by amplifying favoured movements or muting opposition. When governments resist, the US has shown readiness to escalate pressure, often supporting opposition groups or promoting digital activism to undermine regimes non-compliant with its strategic goals.
This form of digital oppression stifles genuine grassroots voices and sovereignty, turning social media into a geopolitical battleground. The Nepal Gen Z protests, mirroring earlier instances in Bangladesh, reveal how digital diplomacy can be weaponised, threatening democracy by spreading external agendas disguised as liberation, thereby eroding true democratic self-determination in vulnerable nations.
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed are solely those of the author and do not reflect the views or stance of the organization. The organization assumes no responsibility for the content shared.