On January 24, 2025, Representative Rashida Tlaib, a Democratic Congresswoman from Michigan, called for conditioning — if not outright banning — U.S. military aid to Pakistan during a Congressional briefing. Her concerns, she claimed, stemmed from Pakistan’s alleged human rights violations, including military trials of civilians and political suppression of PTI (Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf) supporters. While such issues warrant scrutiny and debate, Tlaib’s approach reflects a troubling trend: diaspora-driven political lobbying shaping foreign policy, often in ways that lack nuance, objectivity, and strategic foresight.

Pakistan, like any sovereign state, manages its internal political and judicial affairs through its constitutional framework. The country has faced complex civil-military dynamics, political instability, and threats from extremist violence for decades. Yet, these challenges are fundamentally national in character. They demand solutions through domestic processes, not external interference.

Rep. Tlaib’s call to weaponize U.S. military aid — a key lever of bilateral cooperation — to pressure Pakistan on matters that are, in essence, internal and judicial, sets a dangerous precedent. Conditionality tied not to broad human rights benchmarks, but to specific political narratives advanced by diaspora factions, risks converting foreign aid into a tool of political engineering. It undermines the principles of state-to-state diplomacy and non-intervention — cornerstones of international relations and responsible U.S. foreign policy.

Moreover, it is no secret that Tlaib has long engaged with PAKPAC (Pakistan American Public Affairs Committee), a diaspora lobbying group that increasingly echoes narratives aligned with the PTI and its vocal overseas supporters. While community engagement is an important role for any elected official, using Congressional platforms to amplify factional narratives — particularly those critical of Pakistan’s current civil-military balance — invites perceptions of bias. It also raises valid concerns about the erosion of objectivity in matters of international diplomacy.

This diaspora-driven lobbying effort, while emotionally compelling to some segments of the Pakistani-American population, overlooks the broader implications for U.S.-Pakistan relations. Pakistan remains a vital regional partner in the fight against terrorism, a strategic player in South Asia, and a country grappling with immense internal political, economic, and security pressures. Reducing complex realities into slogans about “civilian suppression” or “military trials” without a full understanding of the legal, constitutional, and national security context can distort policy discussions and mislead the American public.

It is also worth noting that U.S. aid to Pakistan — particularly military assistance — has already declined significantly over the years. What remains is focused largely on counterterrorism cooperation, border security, and military education programs. Calls to cut even this cooperation in the name of “supporting democracy” are ironically counterproductive. If anything, weakening ties with Pakistan’s institutions — including its military — risks pushing the country further into isolation or into the strategic orbit of rivals like China and Russia.

Washington must also be wary of a broader pattern emerging: diaspora factions, often deeply polarized and emotionally invested in homeland politics, attempting to hijack U.S. foreign policy through lobbying, fundraising, and political pressure campaigns. This not only skews the policymaking process but also risks alienating key allies by projecting American lawmakers as proxies for foreign political movements. Indeed, no U.S. lawmaker should allow themselves to become an unwitting instrument of factional interests abroad. By amplifying PTI-aligned grievances and framing Pakistan’s internal political developments as justification for aid cuts, Tlaib’s remarks risk undermining long-term U.S. engagement with a country that continues to face multiple challenges, from terrorism and economic fragility to regional instability.

Further, her statements could embolden hardliners in Pakistan who already accuse the United States of meddling in domestic affairs. Such perceptions, whether valid or not, damage trust and hamper diplomatic efforts at a time when global geopolitics demand more cooperation, not less. As the U.S. recalibrates its role in Asia amid great-power competition, alienating Pakistan — a nuclear power with a strategic geographic position — would be shortsighted and diplomatically costly. There is also the moral hazard of selective outrage. Why is U.S. military aid not similarly conditioned on the human rights records of other allies and partners across the globe? If the standard is fair and universal, then fine — but if it’s driven by emotionally charged diaspora advocacy linked to specific political personalities, then it becomes difficult to defend as principled foreign policy.

In conclusion, Representative Rashida Tlaib’s call to ban U.S. military aid to Pakistan may be well-intentioned, but it reflects a flawed and factionalized approach to international relations. Human rights and democracy matter, no doubt — but they must be pursued through diplomacy, dialogue, and institutional partnerships, not through coercion, aid threats, or one-sided pressure campaigns. U.S. foreign policy must remain rooted in national interests, not diaspora grievances. Congressional voices should promote engagement, balance, and respect for sovereignty — not echo partisan chants from across the ocean. Pakistan’s democratic evolution, like that of any country, is best supported through constructive cooperation, not politicized ultimatums.