PAKPAC {🇺🇸🔗🇵🇰} at a Crossroads:

Navigating Diaspora Politics, U.S. Interests, and a Divided Homeland

Oct 05, 2025

The PAC Framework and the Pakistani-American Aspiration:

In the intricate tapestry of American democracy, Political Action Committees (PACs) serve as critical conduits for collective political voice. By pooling resources and coordinating advocacy, PACs allow specific communities to influence the legislative process, support candidates aligned with their interests, and shape public policy. The most iconic example is AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee), which has demonstrated the profound impact a well-organized diaspora can have on U.S. foreign policy, setting a high bar for other ethnic advocacy groups.

Emerging from this same aspiration is the Pakistani American Public Affairs Committee (PAKPAC). Founded in 1989, PAKPAC’s stated mission is to empower Pakistani-Americans and advance a positive U.S.-Pakistan relationship. As the only Pakistani-American group registered with the Federal Election Commission (FEC), it holds a unique and formal position. However, PAKPAC’s journey has been far from straightforward, shaped by geopolitical shocks, internal diaspora divisions, and the complex shadow of its homeland’s government.

The Pressler Catalyst and Ambiguous Origins:

PAKPAC’s birth was inextricably linked to a pivotal moment in U.S.-Pakistan relations: the Pressler Amendment. Enforced in 1990, this legislation cut off all U.S. military and economic aid to Pakistan, citing its nuclear program. A key symbolic casualty was the withholding of F-16 fighter jets for which Pakistan had already paid. This was perceived as a profound betrayal in Pakistan and within the burgeoning Pakistani diaspora.

The widespread narrative is that PAKPAC was formed organically by Pakistani-Americans enraged by this policy, seeking a formal channel to prevent such diplomatic ruptures in the future. However, a more nuanced, persistent report within diaspora circles suggests the Pakistani government, through its embassy in Washington D.C., was instrumental in PAKPAC’s creation. This alleged genesis creates an enduring tension: is PAKPAC a genuine grassroots voice for Pakistani-Americans, or does it function, at least in part, as an extension of the Pakistani state’s lobbying efforts? This foundational ambiguity continues to influence perceptions of the organization’s independence.

The Diaspora Divide: Democracy Advocacy vs. Embassy Influence:

PAKPAC’s activities have consistently been impacted by the political evolution of Pakistan and the sentiments of the Pakistani diaspora. A significant portion of this diaspora is highly educated, politically engaged, and vocally supportive of democratic norms and human rights in Pakistan. This was evident in April 2023, when PAKPAC successfully mobilized over 90 U.S. lawmakers to sign a letter to Secretary of State Antony Blinken, urging him to address democratic backsliding and the arrest of former Prime Minister Imran Khan.

Yet, this pro-democracy advocacy often exists in tension with the influence wielded by the Pakistani establishment. The “hybrid” regime in Pakistan—a civil-military nexus that has solidified its control over the past four years—maintains deep channels of influence within diaspora communities, including through its diplomatic missions. Reports and allegations frequently surface that the PAKPAC board and its strategic direction are susceptible to influence from the Pakistani embassy, which seeks to steer the narrative in favor of the sitting government in Islamabad.

This creates a fundamental conflict. While the diaspora majority may rally behind calls for free elections and civilian supremacy, the PAKPAC leadership, under perceived embassy pressure, may find itself navigating a precarious line, at times softening its criticism of the hybrid regime to maintain access and avoid confrontation with the powerful establishment it is meant to lobby.

Navigating Present-Day Dichotomies and Scattered Missions:

This internal tension has been thrown into sharp relief by recent U.S. and Pakistani politics. The Trump administration, and now his 2024 campaign, has indicated full support and cooperation with Pakistan’s hybrid regime, aligning with a history of U.S. engagement with the Pakistani military as a stable partner. Conversely, a vast segment of the Pakistani diaspora, particularly those supporting opposition parties like Imran Khan’s PTI, is in direct loggerheads with this same regime.

PAKPAC’s attempts to navigate this dichotomy have led to actions that appear scattered and ambiguous, pulled apart by centrifugal forces. The most glaring example is its endorsement strategy. In October 2024, PAKPAC endorsed Donald Trump for the U.S. presidency, criticizing the Biden-Harris administration for a supposed “legislative coup” against Imran Khan. This move was justified by praising Trump’s past engagement with Pakistan. However, this creates a profound ambiguity: how does an organization simultaneously lobby Democratic members of Congress to “protect democracy in Pakistan” while endorsing a presidential candidate whose administration is perceived as fully supportive of the very regime undermining that democracy?

This strategic confusion reflects the deep polarization within both U.S. society and the Pakistani diaspora. PAKPAC’s mission seems scattered, trying to be all things to all people—a grassroots democracy advocate for one audience, and a pragmatic lobby aligned with de facto power for another. This ambiguity risks alienating its core constituency and diluting its political effectiveness.

The Irrelevance to the Masses and an Uncertain Future:

Amidst these internal and external struggles, the most poignant reality is that the 250 million citizens of Pakistan remain largely impervious to the dynamics of PAKPAC and the diplomatic machinations of the Pakistani government in Washington. For the average Pakistani grappling with a severe economic crisis, energy shortages, and political instability, the lobbying efforts on Capitol Hill are a distant abstraction. Their immediate concerns are inflation, unemployment, and security, not the nuanced endorsements or policy papers issued by a diaspora group thousands of miles away.

The impact of PAKPAC and the embassy’s work is confined to the corridors of power in Washington—a vital, but ultimately elite, theater of operation. It does not trickle down to affect the daily lives or political consciousness of the masses in Pakistan.

Conclusion: A Precarious Balancing Act

PAKPAC stands at a critical juncture. Born from a geopolitical crisis and potentially nurtured by state interests, it now faces an existential test of its identity. The organization is caught between a diaspora demanding robust pro-democracy advocacy and a Pakistani establishment that expects loyalty. It is torn between the pragmatic need to engage with a U.S. political establishment that often partners with the military, and the moral imperative to champion the democratic aspirations of the people it represents.

Its recent actions, particularly the contradictory stances of lobbying Democrats while endorsing Trump, signal an organization struggling to find a coherent center. To regain its credibility and purpose, PAKPAC must resolve its core ambiguity: is it the independent voice of the Pakistani-American people, or an instrument of the Pakistani state? Until it answers this question, its mission will remain scattered, its impact diluted, and its relevance to both the diaspora and the homeland it seeks to influence will remain in question. The centrifugal forces pulling it apart may well define its future more than any single endorsement or lobbying success.