For four years, one classified document sat at the center of the biggest political controversy in Pakistan’s recent history. Imran Khan called it proof that Washington engineered his removal. His opponents called it a fabrication, or at least a wild exaggeration. The word “cypher” became a battle cry at rallies, a court case, and a national argument that never really ended.
And through all of it, almost nobody had actually seen the document itself.
That changed on May 17, 2026, when Drop Site News, an independent investigative outlet, published the full PDF of the cable. Reference number C.C. No. I-0678, three pages, stamped SECRET, marked “No Circulation.” The document Pakistanis argued about for years is now sitting on the public internet where anyone can read it.
So let’s read it. Calmly, without the rally slogans from either side.
First, what is a cypher anyway?
In Pakistani diplomatic language, a cypher is a classified telegram sent between our embassies abroad and the Foreign Ministry in Islamabad. These cables record sensitive conversations between our diplomats and foreign officials, and they’re among the most protected communications the state has. “No Circulation” means exactly what it sounds like. This one was never supposed to leave the Foreign Ministry.
The cable in question was written by Pakistan’s then ambassador to Washington, Asad Majeed Khan, on March 7, 2022. It documents a lunch meeting that day with Donald Lu, the US Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asia.
The timing matters enormously. Eleven days earlier, Russia had invaded Ukraine. And on that very day, February 24, Prime Minister Imran Khan had been in Moscow shaking hands with Vladimir Putin on a long-planned visit. For Washington, busy building a global front against Russia, the optics were terrible.
What the cable says, in plain language
The full document is more blunt than most of us expected. Here’s the summary, paragraph by paragraph.
The complaint. Lu opened by saying people in Washington and Europe were quite concerned about Pakistan’s “aggressively neutral” position on Ukraine. He said the National Security Council believed this was Khan’s personal policy. Our ambassador pushed back, pointing out that Khan’s public statements were a response to an open letter from European ambassadors, which any political leader would have to answer.
The famous line. When the ambassador asked whether America was angry about Pakistan’s UN abstention, Lu said no. The real issue was the Moscow visit. Then came the sentence Pakistan has been arguing about ever since. According to the cable, Lu said that if the no-confidence vote against the Prime Minister succeeded, all would be forgiven in Washington, because the Russia visit was seen as Khan’s personal decision. Remember, this was said two days before the no-confidence motion was even formally tabled in our parliament.
Pakistan’s defense. The ambassador insisted the Moscow trip had been planned for years through an institutional process, that the invasion hadn’t started when Khan boarded the plane, and that European leaders were visiting Moscow around the same time. Lu’s reply was that those leaders went to resolve the Ukraine crisis, while Khan went for bilateral economic reasons.
The grievances. In the most candid part, our ambassador told Lu directly that Pakistan had spent a year sensing reluctance from US leadership to engage, feeling ignored and taken for granted. He noted that America expects Pakistan’s support on everything but gives nothing back on issues that matter to us, naming Kashmir specifically. He also pointed out the double standard: the US was publicly defending India’s identical abstention on the same UN vote. Lu’s response, according to the cable, was that Washington sees India through the lens of China.
The warning. Lu said the Moscow visit had already created a dent in the relationship. If the political situation changed quickly, the matter could be resolved. Otherwise, the US would have to confront the issue head on.
The ambassador’s own verdict. This part deserves attention. In his closing assessment, Asad Majeed Khan wrote that Lu could not have delivered such a strong message without the express approval of the White House, which Lu had referred to repeatedly, and that Lu had clearly spoken out of turn about Pakistan’s internal political process. This wasn’t Imran Khan’s interpretation. This was Pakistan’s own senior-most diplomat in Washington, writing privately to his own ministry.
The cable’s distribution list included the Prime Minister’s office, the Foreign Secretary, the Army Chief, and the DG ISI. Thirty-three days after this meeting, Imran Khan was removed from office through the no-confidence vote.
What the cable proves, and what it doesn’t
Now the part where I’ll probably annoy both sides, because honesty requires it.
What it confirms: a senior US diplomat, in an official meeting, explicitly connected the political survival of a sitting Pakistani prime minister to the future of US-Pakistan relations, weeks before that prime minister was removed. Khan said this for years, was mocked for it, and was even charged with leaking state secrets over it. On this core point, the published document backs what he claimed. That’s simply what the text says.
What it doesn’t prove: the cable records what Donald Lu said. It cannot tell us whether he was carrying out official White House policy or speaking beyond his brief. The ambassador inferred White House approval; that was his professional judgment, not documentary proof. The US has consistently denied any involvement in Khan’s removal, and the State Department has not commented on the document’s contents. And the no-confidence vote itself ran through Pakistan’s own parliament, with Pakistan’s own political parties and, as most analysts believe, our own military establishment playing the decisive role. A foreign wish, even a strongly expressed one, still needed local hands to become reality.
Both of these things can be true at once. That’s the uncomfortable space where this story actually lives.
The bigger picture Drop Site is painting
The cable is only one document in Drop Site’s larger May 2026 investigation into how US-Pakistan relations transformed after Khan’s exit. Their reporting describes a chain of events: the military lobbying Washington independently of the civilian government as early as 2021, Pakistan quietly becoming a supplier of artillery ammunition for Ukraine after Khan’s removal, American support for the 2023 IMF bailout, CPEC cooling down, a defense pact with Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan’s new role as a mediator between the US and Iran.
I’d encourage you to read their full investigation and judge the evidence for each claim yourself, because some parts are more firmly documented than others. But the overall arc is hard to miss: the things Khan’s government refused to give Washington were, one by one, delivered after he left.
Meanwhile, as of 2026, Khan remains in prison, his party’s mandate from the 2024 elections remains disputed, and the document at the heart of his story is finally public.
Why this matters for ordinary Pakistanis
Strip away the party flags for a moment. Whatever you think of Imran Khan as a leader, this episode raises questions every Pakistani should sit with.
How much of our politics is decided in Islamabad, and how much in other capitals? Why does our establishment’s relationship with foreign powers keep outweighing the votes of our own people? And why did it take a foreign, reader-funded news outlet to put a Pakistani document about Pakistan’s own history in front of Pakistanis?
The cypher is no longer a mystery or a slogan. It’s a three-page PDF anyone can read. I’d genuinely suggest you read it yourself rather than letting any politician, anchor, or blogger (including me) tell you what to think about it.
That, more than anything, is what has changed.
Sources: This analysis is based on the cypher cable C.C. No. I-0678 and the investigation “From Mutual Suspicion to Political Embrace” published by Drop Site News (Waqas Ahmed, Murtaza Hussain, and Ryan Grim, May 17, 2026). The interpretations of contested claims are attributed accordingly. The US State Department has not confirmed or denied the cable’s contents.