Bangladesh’s political crisis continues to ripple internationally as Sajeeb Wazed Joy, son of exiled Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, accused the previous United States administration of funneling “millions of dollars” into a covert regime-change operation that contributed to the violent overthrow of his mother’s elected government in 2024.
In an interview with India’s ANI news agency, Joy said the U.S. posture has shifted “very distinctly” under President Donald Trump, who publicly acknowledged earlier this year that Washington’s earlier leadership had used USAID funds to promote unrest in Bangladesh. Joy—who now lives in the United States—said Trump’s administration appears more concerned about the rise of Islamist extremism in Bangladesh than its predecessor.
“US attitude has definitely changed”
Joy told ANI that the shift in Washington’s tone is unmistakable.
“President Trump himself announced… that the previous administration, through USAID, spent millions of dollars on regime change in Bangladesh. He was referring to the protests last year,” he said.
“The US attitude has definitely changed, and they’re more concerned about the threat of terrorism and the rise of Islamism in Bangladesh than the previous administration.”
He dismissed suggestions that Sheikh Hasina’s government had faced direct threats from Washington during the 2024 election cycle. The United States was the only country to issue a critical statement about the election—which the opposition boycotted—but otherwise did not pressure Dhaka, he claimed.
India’s role in saving Sheikh Hasina
Joy expressed deep gratitude to New Delhi, saying India played a decisive role in preventing “a planned assassination” during the violent uprising that toppled the Awami League government.
“India has essentially saved my mother’s life,” he said. “If she hadn’t left Bangladesh, the militants had planned on killing her. So, I am eternally grateful to Prime Minister Modi’s government.”
Sheikh Hasina has remained in India since August 2024, after a wave of unrest—initially described as student protests—morphed into widespread violence, looting and an assault on her official residence. Over the months that followed, several analysts concluded that Islamist groups and long-banned political networks, including Jamaat-e-Islami, had played a central role in the protests that forced her out.
A tribunal “without legitimacy,” says Joy
The Yunus-led interim administration has asked India to extradite Hasina following the International Crimes Tribunal’s November 17 verdict that sentenced her to death in absentia.
But Joy said the trial was “unconstitutional, illegal and entirely politically driven,” arguing that no extradition request can move forward without a legitimate judicial process.
“To convict my mother, they amended laws to fast-track her trial… These laws were amended illegally,” he said.
“My mother was not allowed to hire her defense attorneys. Her attorneys weren’t even allowed into the courts. Seventeen judges were terminated before the trial, and new, politically connected judges were appointed. There was no due process whatsoever.”
The ICT convicted Hasina, now 78, of “crimes against humanity” connected to the July–August 2024 uprising. Local media reported that the verdict was read out in absentia, with many observers noting that the proceedings resembled a political spectacle rather than a judicial exercise.
Concerns about radicalization and political interference
Joy argued that the rise of Islamist influence in the country—and in the interim administration—has reshaped the international response. Washington, he said, is now more alert to the threat of terrorism in Bangladesh, especially after the open involvement of extremist elements in the 2024 uprising and subsequent political takeover.
The Awami League has long warned that the Yunus administration, supported by Islamist factions, is systematically dismantling Bangladesh’s secular institutions and using the judiciary as a weapon to erase opponents. The tribunal verdict, the party argues, is the culmination of these efforts.
Analysts note that the death sentence has placed India in a sensitive diplomatic position: New Delhi maintains long-standing ties with Hasina, views her as a stabilizing force in the region, and is deeply wary of rising Islamist clout in Dhaka. The Yunus administration’s demand for extradition has been met with hesitation and silence from the Indian government.
Looking ahead
While the tribunal’s decision sharply polarized Bangladesh, Hasina’s legal and political future now rests largely in India’s hands. With international human rights organizations condemning the fast-tracked trial and raising concerns about due process, the pressure on the interim administration continues to intensify.
For Joy, the direction is clear: the judgment cannot stand international scrutiny. “For extradition to happen, there has to be due process,” he said. “And in Bangladesh right now, there is none.”
