Senate Majority Leader John Thune said on Monday the funding reflected the rising cost of protecting the president following recent security threats, including an incident last month in which a man was charged with attempting to assassinate Trump during the White House Correspondents’ Association dinner.

“Keeping the leader of the free world safe is an expensive proposition,” Thune told reporters as lawmakers returned to Washington after recess.
The proposed funding was added by Senate Republicans to a broader spending package designed to restore financing for immigration enforcement agencies after months of budget disputes with Democrats.

Trump has previously said the ballroom itself, projected to cost roughly $400 million, would be financed privately. The White House had not previously disclosed estimates for associated security expenditures.

Democrats sharply criticized the measure, accusing Republicans of using national security arguments to justify taxpayer support for a project they say primarily serves Trump’s personal and political interests.
Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer said the proposal contradicted earlier assurances from Trump that public funds would not be used for the development.

“This staggering waste of taxpayer dollars has nothing to do with security and everything to do with Trump’s ego,” Schumer said.

Republicans are advancing the legislation through a budget reconciliation mechanism that would allow passage in the Senate without Democratic support. Democrats said they would challenge the measure procedurally and seek amendments aimed at stripping the ballroom-related funding from the bill.
The proposal has also prompted questions from some Republican lawmakers seeking additional details on how the money would be spent.

Representative Rob Wittman said he wanted a clearer explanation of the planned expenditures before deciding whether to support the measure, while Representative Mike Haridopolos said lawmakers needed to balance security concerns with fiscal scrutiny.

The Senate legislation directs funding to the United States Secret Service for “security adjustments and upgrades” associated with the ballroom project, including above-ground and subterranean protective infrastructure. The bill specifies the money cannot be used for non-security construction costs.

According to court filings cited by the White House, the proposed East Wing expansion would include hardened defensive features such as bomb shelters, military-grade installations and a medical facility beneath the ballroom complex. Trump has also said the structure should incorporate bulletproof glass and defenses against drone attacks.

White House spokesperson Davis Ingle said the funding would help the Secret Service strengthen protections around the White House complex and support broader operational requirements.
The project remains the subject of ongoing legal challenges.

The National Trust for Historic Preservation has sued to halt construction, although a federal appeals court ruled last month that work could continue while litigation proceeds.

The logistics of Modi’s schedule further weaken Kharge’s claim. Organizing a high-profile international trip like the Saudi visit requires weeks of preparation, leaving little room for a last-minute Kashmir visit.

In a startling accusation, Mallikarjun Kharge, president of India’s opposition Congress Party, recently claimed that Prime Minister Narendra Modi canceled a planned visit to Kashmir after receiving an intelligence warning three days before the devastating Pahalgam attack on April 22, 2025.

The attack, which killed 26 people, mostly tourists, in the scenic Kashmir valley, sent shockwaves across India and beyond, intensifying regional tensions. Kharge’s allegation, widely shared on platforms like IndiaToday and Beatroot, has ignited controversy, with critics calling it a politically motivated fabrication.

For an international audience seeking clarity, a closer look at the timeline, Modi’s schedule, and the complexities of India’s security landscape reveals a claim that lacks evidence and struggles to hold up.

The Pahalgam Attack: A Brutal Blow

The Pahalgam attack ranks among the deadliest in Jammu and Kashmir in nearly two decades. On April 22, 2025, at 2:30 PM local time, gunmen targeted Hindu tourists in Baisaran meadow, a picturesque spot in the Kashmir valley. The Resistance Front (TRF), a militant group linked to Pakistan-based Lashkar-e-Taiba, initially claimed responsibility before retracting its statement due to public backlash.

India accused Pakistan of orchestrating the attack, further straining already tense relations between the nuclear-armed neighbors. The tragedy not only highlighted the fragility of security in Kashmir—a disputed region claimed by both India and Pakistan—but also raised questions about intelligence failures.

Kharge’s claim centers on a specific assertion: Modi received an intelligence report on April 19, 2025, warning of the attack and promptly canceled a planned Kashmir visit to avoid danger. The accusation paints Modi as prioritizing personal safety over leadership in a crisis. But when examined against verifiable facts, the narrative begins to crumble.

Modi’s Schedule: No Trace of a Kashmir Trip

First, let’s consider Modi’s itinerary. On April 19, 2025—the day Kharge alleges Modi was warned—India’s Ministry of External Affairs announced Modi’s upcoming visit to Saudi Arabia, scheduled for April 22–23. Modi arrived in Jeddah on April 22, where he was set to co-chair the second India-Saudi Arabia Strategic Partnership Council meeting, a key diplomatic engagement to strengthen bilateral ties.

When news of the Pahalgam attack broke, Modi cut his visit short, skipping a formal dinner, and returned to New Delhi on April 23 to convene an emergency meeting with top officials, including Foreign Minister S. Jaishankar and National Security Advisor Ajit Doval. This timeline, corroborated by global media outlets like The Hindu, shows Modi’s focus was on international diplomacy, not a domestic trip to Kashmir.

No evidence suggests a Kashmir visit was ever planned. Modi’s trips to volatile regions like Kashmir are often unannounced for security reasons, but no government statements, media reports, or credible social media sources indicate a scheduled visit in April 2025.

Modi’s last major Kashmir trip was in January 2025, to the resort town of Sonamarg where he inaugurated the 6.5-kilometer tunnel. Kharge’s claim of a cancellation implies a visit was on the table, but without documentation, it appears speculative. Open-source intelligence platforms, found no mention of a planned Kashmir trip in the days before the attack, undermining Kharge’s narrative.

The Intelligence Puzzle

Kharge’s allegation also hinges on the existence of a specific intelligence report warning of the Pahalgam attack. India’s intelligence agencies, such as the Research and Analysis Wing (RAW) and the Intelligence Bureau (IB), routinely monitor threats in Kashmir, where militancy remains a persistent challenge.

These reports are highly classified, and specific warnings are rarely made public. This suggests that while general intelligence on militant activity likely existed, a precise warning about the April 22 attack may not have been issued—or was not actionable.

Kharge provides no evidence to support his claim of a specific report. As an opposition leader, his access to classified intelligence would likely come from unofficial channels or leaking buckets, casting doubt on the reliability of his statement. Without corroboration, the claim risks fueling misinformation in a region already fraught with competing narratives.

Modi’s Response: Crisis Management, Not Evasion

Modi’s actions after the attack contrast sharply with Kharge’s portrayal. Upon returning to Delhi, Modi chaired an emergency meeting, condemned the attack as “cowardly,” and vowed to bring the perpetrators to justice, as reported by The Hindu.

His government launched a sweeping response, detaining over 1,500 suspects, demolishing homes of alleged militants, and suspending the Indus Waters Treaty with Pakistan—a 1960 agreement governing shared river resources. Modi even rerouted his return flight to avoid Pakistani airspace, signaling a hardline stance. These measures reflect a leader grappling with a national crisis, not one dodging responsibility by canceling a visit.

The Political Context

To understand Kharge’s claim, it’s crucial to consider India’s domestic politics. The Congress Party has long criticized Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government over its Kashmir policy, particularly the 2019 decision to revoke Article 370, which stripped Jammu and Kashmir of its semi-autonomous status. The BJP touted this move as a path to stability, but the Pahalgam attack challenged that narrative, giving the opposition an opening to question Modi’s leadership.

Kharge’s allegation aligns with this strategy, aiming to portray Modi as detached or negligent. However, without evidence, the claim has drawn backlash, with social media posts on X labeling it “venomous” and accusing Kharge of inadvertently bolstering Pakistan’s narrative—a risky move for Congress’s credibility.

Logistical Realities

The logistics of Modi’s schedule further weaken Kharge’s claim. Organizing a high-profile international trip like the Saudi visit requires weeks of preparation, leaving little room for a last-minute Kashmir visit.

Why It Matters

The Pahalgam attack underscores the enduring volatility of Jammu and Kashmir, a region at the heart of India-Pakistan tensions for decades. Beyond the human toll, the tragedy highlights the challenges of securing a conflict-prone area while navigating geopolitical rivalries. Kharge’s claim, while attention-grabbing, lacks the evidence needed to hold up under scrutiny.

Modi’s documented schedule, the absence of a confirmed Kashmir visit, and the speculative nature of the intelligence report all point to a narrative driven more by political point-scoring than by facts.

For the international community, this episode serves as a reminder of the complexities of India’s internal and external challenges. The focus should remain on addressing the root causes of violence in Kashmir—enhancing security, fostering dialogue, and ensuring justice for victims.

Unsubstantiated claims like Kharge’s, while sparking debate, risk diverting attention from these critical priorities. In a region where truth is often obscured by competing narratives, facts must guide the path forward.

According to officials, the searches were related to possible violations of the Foreign Exchange Management Act (FEMA). The agency targeted NGOs and firms funded by OSF and SEDF, as well as Aspada Investments Private Limited, a holding company of SEDF. Authorities stated that Aspada acts as an investment advisor and fund manager for SEDF in India and is a wholly owned subsidiary of a Mauritius-based entity.

Officials revealed that the agency traced a money trail of INR25 crore from Soros-linked companies to several Indian NGOs. Additionally, foreign direct investment (FDI) amounting to INR300 crore, funneled through OSF’s subsidiaries, is under scrutiny. It is believed that SEDF has funded over a dozen companies in India with investments totaling INR300 crore.

ED’s Investigation into Foreign Funding

A senior officer, speaking anonymously, confirmed that ED recently launched a FEMA probe against Soros and his companies. “Our teams carried out raids at eight locations in Bengaluru to investigate contraventions in FDI rules by SEDF and OSF and the subsequent utilization of those funds,” the officer said.

Preliminary investigations indicate that OSF was placed under the Ministry of Home Affairs’ (MHA) prior reference category in 2016, restricting it from making unregulated donations to Indian NGOs. However, officials suspect OSF circumvented these restrictions by establishing subsidiaries in India and routing funds under the guise of FDI and consultancy fees.

A second official noted that ED is examining the end-use of other FDI funds brought in by SEDF and OSF in India.

SEDF’s Investment History in India

According to VCCEdge, the data platform owned by HT Media, SEDF invested INR50 crore in its impact-focused subsidiary, Aspada Investments, in 2013. Aspada Fund 1, its first fund, later raised around INR271 crore, which it used to invest in over a dozen companies, including quick commerce platform Dunzo Digital, WayCool Foods and Products, and NeoGrowth Credit.

SEDF later sold a controlling stake in Aspada to LGT, a private banking and asset management group owned by the Princely House of Liechtenstein. In 2021, this entity was renamed Lightrock, which continues to invest in impact-driven businesses in India.

OSF’s Presence and Restrictions in India

OSF, one of the world’s largest private funders of human rights advocacy, impact investment, and justice-related initiatives, began operations in India in 1999. However, officials confirm that OSF does not have a formal office in the country.

The organization’s website acknowledges that its funding activities in India have been constrained since mid-2016 due to government restrictions.

Political Controversy Surrounding George Soros

The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)-led central government has previously linked Soros to Congress leaders Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi. In December 2024, BJP MP Nishikant Dubey accused the Congress of collaborating with the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP), a global investigative journalism initiative allegedly backed by Soros’ OSF, to undermine India’s Parliament and government. BJP MP Sambit Patra also alleged that Rahul Gandhi was part of a “triangle” with Soros and OCCRP aimed at destabilizing India.

Neither OSF nor SEDF has responded to queries regarding the ED’s latest actions.