In the ever-shifting terrain of global politics, few figures have stirred as much controversy as Muhammad Yunus. Once celebrated as a champion of microfinance, he has now emerged as the de facto ruler of Bangladesh under an interim regime backed by military power and Islamist factions. His alliances with the Democratic party in the USA—particularly Hillary Clinton and George Soros—have further entangled Bangladesh in a web of geopolitical intrigues. Now, by defiantly opposing Donald Trump, Yunus has embarked on a dangerous confrontation that could have severe repercussions for his nation.
Yunus’s political rise is inextricably linked to powerful Western figures. His association with the Clinton family dates back years, strengthened by his $300,000 donation to the Clinton Foundation. Leaked documents suggest that in return, Hillary Clinton, during her tenure as Secretary of State, ensured that Yunus received $13 million in USAID grants—even after he was removed from Grameen Bank in 2011 over corruption allegations.
This mutually beneficial relationship extended further when Bill Clinton, funded by corporate donors like UBS, embarked on lucrative speaking tours. The Swiss bank later contributed $600,000 to the Clinton Foundation, raising serious questions about the intertwining of financial interests and political influence.
Adding to the intrigue, George Soros’s Open Society Foundations (OSF) has bolstered Yunus’s standing. A high-level meeting in January 2025, led by Alex Soros—fiancé of Hillary Clinton’s close aide Huma Abedin—pledged support for Yunus’s so-called economic reforms and efforts against “misinformation.” Yet, Yunus’s regime has ironically suppressed free speech and opposition voices, much like the authoritarian regimes he claims to oppose.
Yunus’s alignment with Soros and Clinton has not gone unnoticed by Donald Trump or the other global leaders including Indian government. His past remarks dismissing Trump’s 2016 election victory as a “solar eclipse” hinted at his disdain for the former U.S. president. More recently, when Trump criticized Bangladesh’s persecution of Hindus and Christians during Diwali 2024, Yunus’s administration dismissed it as “lobbyist propaganda” allegedly spread by Indian media and political opponents.
India, a regional powerhouse, views Yunus’s Islamist-backed leadership as a destabilizing force. His reluctance to curb anti-India activities and his ambiguous stance on religious extremism have strained relations between Dhaka and New Delhi. Trump, meanwhile, sees Yunus as part of the Clinton-Soros “deep state,” a political relic that represents the very system he seeks to dismantle.
A major concern is Yunus’s attempt to enlist Soros’s help in silencing critics. Through OSF, he seeks to curb investigations into his administration’s financial dealings and to push back against accusations of corruption. This approach directly contradicts Trump’s 2025 speech at Davos, where he vowed to uphold free speech and prevent the misuse of misinformation laws to suppress political opponents.
The controversy deepens with revelations about Yunus’s daughter, Monica Yunus, who held a position in the Biden administration. The deletion of the PCAH.gov website—where records of her role were kept—suggests an effort to conceal politically sensitive links between the Yunus family and Washington elites.
Yunus’s alignment with Soros and his hostility toward Trump may lead to severe economic and diplomatic consequences. Trump’s administration, known for taking decisive action against political adversaries, could target Yunus’s regime with sanctions. Bangladesh risks losing preferential U.S. trade benefits and could face asset freezes under the Global Magnitsky Act, which penalizes human rights violators and corrupt officials.
India, too, might retaliate by tightening border controls, restricting aid, and re-evaluating its strategic ties with Bangladesh. This would further isolate the country, making it more vulnerable to economic downturns. Foreign investors, already wary of instability, may withdraw, while remittances—Bangladesh’s economic lifeline—could decline if expatriates lose confidence in their homeland’s stability.
Adding to this precarious situation is Yunus’s apparent courtship of China. By deepening ties with Beijing and Islamist factions, he risks following a path similar to Pakistan’s—one that has often led to economic dependence and geopolitical marginalization.
Muhammad Yunus’s battle against Trump is not about ideology but about survival. By aligning himself with Clinton and Soros, he hopes to shield his administration from scrutiny and prolong his grip on power. However, this strategy is fraught with risks. Trump will likely expose Yunus’s financial irregularities, impose sanctions, and hold his regime accountable for its Islamist affiliations.
India, though currently on the sidelines, is watching closely. If Bangladesh continues to drift into extremist and anti-India politics, New Delhi may rethink its regional strategy, further isolating the country. It is believed that Modi would play his friendship card with Trump for getting political influence over Bangladesh. Because Bangladesh holds a strategically significant position for India in maintaining its territorial integrity.
Under Yunus’s leadership, Bangladesh is experiencing a severe breakdown in law and order across the country. Economic recovery seems increasingly unlikely, and the cost of living has become unbearable for ordinary citizens. This is not the future for which thousands sacrificed their lives during the July uprising. While the demand for justice is valid, it should not come at the cost of national stability. His government is fostering division within the nation and straying from Bangladesh’s established foreign policy by aligning with polarized blocs—a move that could have serious consequences for the country’s future.
The Yunus administration appears to be orchestrating a significant conspiracy against the Bangladesh Army. In a controversial move, the current government has granted bail to approximately 200 convicted BDR( now BGB) members, while its affiliated media outlets are portraying them as heroes. This deliberate narrative shift is deeply concerning and poses a direct challenge to the integrity of the armed forces.
It is crucial to recognize that all individuals granted bail were legally convicted criminals. Presenting them as heroes sends a misleading and dangerous message to society. While we empathize with the hardship endured by their families, such suffering does not justify further distress for the victims’ families.
At the time of the BDR mutiny, every convicted individual was an adult, fully aware of the gravity of taking up arms against their own forces. Yet, the Yunus government appears to be leveraging this issue as a strategic move to undermine the morale of the Bangladesh Army. This is a matter of national security, and such actions must be critically examined.
Once hailed for his work in microfinance, Yunus now faces the possibility of being remembered as a leader who led Bangladesh into economic and political turmoil. His pursuit of power at the cost of diplomatic prudence has placed the country on a dangerous trajectory. As the world watches, one question remains: will Bangladesh navigate this crisis, or will it become yet another cautionary tale of political ambition spiraling into disaster?
Leave a Reply