In early September 2025, the Nepalese government set off a political earthquake through a sweeping ban on numerous social media and messaging platforms. Officials reported that the platforms were “unregistered” and thereby allowed false identities, but the ban was widely interpreted as a raw tactic in censorship. For Nepal’s Generation Z, which has grown up digitally, the ban struck at the heart of freedoms concerning personal identity, communications and activism.
From Social Media Ban to Nationwide Revolt
What transpired was truly remarkable. There were thousands of students, young professionals, and urban youth joining together in the streets of Kathmandu, Pokhara, Biratnagar, and beyond. Yet this was not simply a protest against TikTok, Instagram, or encrypted messaging. Rather, it quickly became an expansive rebellion against the deep seeded corruption in the nation, decades of patronage politics, and increasing wealth disparities.
Slogans of “End Corruption Now” and “No More Nepobabies.” echoed across university campuses and city squares. The latter referred to the privileged children of politicians and business leaders, who had unfair access to opportunities in education, jobs, and politics. For Nepal’s frustrated youth, the ban represented not only censorship, but also the arrogance of a political class who utterly disconnected from the everyday challenges. The Gen Z protests became a full-scale generational revolt, shaking the political establishment in ways unseen since the Maoist insurgency two decades ago.
Collapse of the Government and the Rise of an Interim Leadership
As protests continued to grow, confrontations between protesters and authorities escalated. Dozens of government buildings, including portions of parliament and multiple ministries, were destroyed and burnt. As the scale of destruction expanded, the death toll rose quickly: official reports indicate more than 70 people dead and over 2,000 people injured. The degree of violence and the remarkable mobilization of young people led Prime Minister K. P. Sharma Oli and multiple cabinet members to resign on 9 September. On the very same day, in desperation to subdue the anger of the public, the government lifted the social media ban. But it didn’t matter, K.P. Sharma Oli’s personal credibility was thoroughly irrevocably damaged.
To restore legitimacy to the state, the government decided to appoint an interim caretaker government on September 12 under Sushila Karki, a highly respected former Chief Justice of Nepal. Sushila Karki was considered a variation from the past, as an outsider with no evidence of corruption who seemed capable of restoring trust from the public. Among her earliest initiatives was a plan to investigate thoroughly the violence that took place during protests, establishing safeguards for restoring digital freedoms, and committing to new elections in March 2026.
For many protesters, this was a partial victory. Yet as the new government appointed ministers, questions arose: Were these reformist technocrats truly independent, or were foreign actors, particularly the United States, shaping Nepal’s political transition?
Traces of Washington: U.S.-Funded Networks in Nepal’s New Cabinet
The most controversial development was the appointment of new ministers with connections to organizations funded by the United States through NED and USAID.
- One of the appointees, Prasad Pariyar, is associated with the Samata Foundation, a think tank that actively indicates NED as a partner in their work. The foundation also works with the Alliance for Social Dialogue, providing further ties to Western institutions.
- Mahabir (Manabir) Pun, a significant addition to the cabinet, is the Chief Executive Officer of the National Innovation Center (NIC), which has previously been awarded USAID grants for work related to COVID-19 advocacy and critical care partnerships with the America Nepal Medical Foundation.
- Other figures, like Rameshore Khanal (Finance) and Kulman Ghising (Energy), were presented as reformist technocrats, but their institutional affiliations also intersect with Western donor networks.
This sequence of events ignited allegations of the U.S. utilizing civil society funding channels to install allies in Nepal’s transitional government. To the skeptical commentators, it falls within a wider narrative of the U.S. transferring resources originally from Ukraine to Asia to counter China’s influence in South Asia.
Is Nepal Experiencing a U.S. “Soft Coup”?
There is nothing new about claims of U.S. influence. In several Asian countries, the NED and USAID have provided funding for NGOs, think tanks, and activist organizations, largely under the guise of supporting democracy. Washington calls it capacity-building and support for civil society. But the reality is that, in practice, this funding has often been viewed as attempting to promote “regime change,” from Hong Kong to Myanmar.
In Nepal, there are two interpretations of the event:
- Supporters of the U.S. involvement theory contend that the sudden rise of people associated with NED and USAID approached people arose too quickly to accept that it was coincidental. They think that this is a strategy to pivot Nepal back away from the Chinese Sphere, particularly after the BRI made inroads in regards to infrastructure.
- Detractors of the U.S. involvement theory assert that Gen Z protests were clearly domestic, resulting from frustration that has lasted over decades. Further, to them, U.S. ties of certain Ministers are more reflective of the nature of Western donor support for the NGO ecosystem in Nepal, and not evidence of a hidden hand in the formation of any government.
It is significant to point out that no strong evidence has been demonstrated regarding any direct U.S. organization of the protests. The youth movement has itself made it clear that it is independent. Nevertheless, the optics of individuals associated with the US rising to power at this point have only added to the distrust felt by analysts in China and India.
Geopolitical Implications:
The broader stakes of this episode extend beyond Nepal’s borders. Situated between India and China, Nepal has long been a site of geopolitical contest. The Gen Z revolt may have begun as a domestic uprising, but its aftermath risks entangling the country in the strategic maneuvering of great powers.
- For the United States, a more U.S.-aligned interim government in Kathmandu could serve as a counterbalance to China’s growing influence in the Himalayas. U.S. support for civil society actors can be viewed as laying the groundwork for sympathetic leadership in times of crisis.
- For China, any whiff of U.S. orchestration is unacceptable. Beijing has invested heavily in Nepal under the BRI, and instability in Kathmandu threatens both its projects and its strategic corridor into South Asia.
- For India, Nepal’s traditional buffer role is once again under strain. New Delhi remains wary of both U.S. and Chinese encroachment in what it considers its near neighborhood.
Conclusion:
In the end, the Generation Z revolution speaks to two realities: a local demand for real accountability and an external quest for influence. Whether the interim government of Nepal becomes a vehicle for reform or merely another pawn in the great game of geopolitics will depend on Karki’s ability to balance expectations from the youth, old elites, and competing foreign interests.
Nepal’s September 2025 uprising was a generational uprising and political earthquake. In about two weeks, youth anger toppled a government, reversed a digital crackdown, and forced a caretaker administration. But this moment isn’t just about protests. The composition of the new interim government produces hard questions: is this a win for grassroots democracy or is Nepal drifting into the orbit of U.S. influence via donor networks? The answer could be both. Domestic frustration was the spark, but foreign actors might be jockeying for position in the hazy aftermath. As Nepal approaches elections in 2026, the youth will be calling the shots on accountability, while Washington, Beijing, and New Delhi are closely watching, not merely because they see a nation in chaos, but also witnessing a frontline in the battle for Asia’s future.
