The Gates Foundation and its partners announced the launch of NextLadder Ventures on Thursday, signaling their combined philanthropic investment effort to develop technologies for “frontline workers.” The group will invest $1 billion over the next 15 years, though the targeted group is not what many would expect.
The press release states that the founding group is "combining efforts to catalyze a thriving market that can attract ongoing investment in tools that ensure life’s pivotal moments don't become permanent barriers to upward mobility."
NextLadder Ventures will purportedly focus on helping nearly one-third of the US population ‘as well as the more than 1.6 million helpers like social workers, legal aid attorneys, and other frontline professionals.’
The Ballmer Group; the Gates Foundation; Stand Together, a nonprofit started by Kansas-based billionaire Charles Koch; the Valhalla Foundation, a group funded by Intuit billionaire Scott Cook; and John Overdeck are listed as founding members of the group.
RELATED: Would you let Bill Gates hack your DNA?
NextLadder Ventures will purportedly focus on helping nearly one-third of the U.S. population “as well as the more than 1.6 million helpers like social workers, legal aid attorneys, and other frontline professionals who guide people through critical life moments.”
It is unclear how they plan to reach over 90 million people through this program or why NextLadder Ventures considers social workers and lawyers to be “frontline professionals.”
NextLadder Ventures will initially be partnering with the AI group Anthropic to seek solutions for these "frontline workers." The group's AI is called Claude.
"Core to our mission is helping AI benefit humanity,” said Elizabeth Kelly, head of beneficial deployments at Anthropic. “This is exactly the kind of real-world impact we want to see — AI making essential services work better for the people who need them most."
Ryan Rippel, who previously directed the Gates Foundation's economic mobility and opportunity program, will serve as the CEO of NextLadder Ventures.
“To better serve those in need, we need new, practical pathways to opportunity that helps the helpers and the people they serve," Rippel said in the press release.
This latest Gates initiative may raise some eyebrows given his own group’s questionable investments in the past.
Gates and his affiliates played a major role in funding the effort behind the COVID vaccines during the pandemic, partnering with GAVI, the Vaccine Alliance, and the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations.
Gates has also invested heavily in African agriculture. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation reportedly bought 500,000 shares of Monsanto stock, which equated to roughly $23 million. Monsanto is known for developing genetically modified seeds.
The foundation also invested in Cargill, another agricultural giant that was widely criticized by small farmers.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
The Trump administration, to its credit, is prioritizing the development of mining and critical minerals to protect U.S. economic and defense interests and secure a reliable domestic supply.
At the center of this effort is President Trump’s recent executive order “Immediate Measures to Increase American Mineral Production.” The Federal Permitting Improvement Steering Council, now known as the Permitting Council, spearheads these administration efforts.
America needs to get real about sourcing its domestic critical mineral supply and supporting reliable mining partners in their operations abroad.
Thankfully, it’s now increasing “transparency, accountability, and predictability for the permitting review process for ... critical mineral production projects.”
Abroad, the administration is also pursuing strategic deals, particularly by supporting mining operators in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. A newly signed minerals agreement between the Congo and Rwanda — brokered as part of the U.S.-backed peace treaty — marks “a success for Trump against the backdrop of U.S.-China competition over critical minerals.”
With all this activity in the global mining sector, it’s essential that the U.S. government adhere to the following principle: Support and partner with real — and reliable — mining operators.
America can’t afford to gamble with startups backed by tech billionaires with no mining experience nor mining companies that are backed by China. We need to be realistic about supporting the mineral needs of “USA Inc.” Moreover, policymakers must not fall for the slick PR and flashy AI claims currently inundating the industry.
It’s time to stop the madness.
So who are the culprits driving this frenzy? The first is KoBold Metals, a California-based startup backed by Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, and Michael Bloomberg. The company’s trio of green activist billionaire backers should raise significant concerns within the administration. Gates, for instance, was in Singapore recently touting the ill-advised return of support for “climate reform.”
A deeper problem lies in KoBold’s misleading image. The company calls itself a mining firm, but it has never run a mine.
Its strength lies in artificial intelligence and data harvesting, not excavation, logistics, or engineering. KoBold claims to lead “the world’s largest exploration R&D effort” using AI and novel hardware. The language sounds impressive. The reality is far less so.
KoBold lacks the infrastructure, operational know-how, and supply chain muscle needed for serious mineral exploration and production. At its core, it’s an AI platform masquerading as a mining company.
Even more troubling, the administration appears to be assisting KoBold in advancing a lithium mine in the DRC. According to Bloomberg, the announcement came after the DRC’s President Felix Tshisekedi met with Massad Boulos, Trump’s senior adviser for African affairs, to discuss potential American investment and security assistance in the DRC's fight against a rebel group in the east, which is backed by neighboring Rwanda.
I am confident Boulos, who also happens to be the father-in-law of President Trump’s youngest daughter, will soon come around and realize what’s real and what’s not.
Given the stakes, the administration must weigh reliability when deciding which mining companies to back. Rio Tinto doesn’t make the cut.
Yes, Rio Tinto is a real mining company. It’s been around since 1873 and operates on a global scale. But it doesn’t serve U.S. interests.
The Aluminum Corporation of China Ltd., or Chinalco, holds a 14.56% stake in Rio Tinto. Chinalco is a Chinese state-owned enterprise. That makes Beijing the company’s largest shareholder — and that alone should disqualify Rio Tinto as a potential partner.
Propping up Rio Tinto would only tighten China’s grip on the world’s critical minerals supply — at America’s expense. As international policy and trade analyst Dewardric McNeal recently wrote:
The United States must now treat critical minerals not as commodities but as instruments of geopolitical power. China already does. Escaping its grip will require more than mine permits and short-term funding. It demands a coherent, long-term strategy to build a complete supply chain that includes not only domestic capabilities but also reliable allies and partners.
Exactly right. The U.S. needs a strategic, grounded approach — not one riddled with internal contradictions.
America needs to get real about sourcing its domestic critical mineral supply and supporting reliable mining partners in their operations abroad. The clock is ticking, and neither flashy startups nor Chinese-backed companies are the keys to solving this puzzle.
Many of us on the political right once held a principled aversion to telling the ultra-wealthy how to spend their money. Confiscating private wealth sounded un-American. If billionaires wanted to build libraries, fund symphonies, or throw lavish parties, fine — they were reinvesting in society, directly or indirectly.
But that was before the rise of the modern “philanthropath”: a new breed of sociopathic billionaire using inherited or self-made fortunes to re-engineer civilization from the top down. These aren’t benevolent stewards. They’re ideological crusaders waging war on tradition, prosperity, and truth.
These are not patrons of progress — they’re funders of decline. And their wealth has become a weapon.
George Soros spent millions installing radical, pro-crime prosecutors in cities across the country. Bill Gates bankrolls schemes to block the sun in the name of climate alarmism.
At least Soros and Gates earned their fortunes. Increasingly, the most aggressive philanthropaths are heirs — trust-fund radicals who never worked a day to build the wealth they now use to tear society apart.
Earlier this month, Walmart heiress Christy Walton made headlines for bankrolling the No Kings anti-Trump protests. Hyatt heir and Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker (D) used his $3 billion inheritance — and famous last name — to push transgender surgeries on minors. After President Trump’s 2024 election, Pritzker promised to turn Illinois into a destination for confused parents seeking to chemically sterilize and mutilate their children.
His sibling Jennifer Pritzker (born James) proudly funds transgender medical interventions, calling it “a continuation of my family’s tradition of putting personal philanthropy into service for the public good.”
As I’ve documented before, the eco-vandal group Just Stop Oil — responsible for throwing soup on van Gogh paintings and blocking roads across Europe — draws funding from Abigail Disney, Aileen Getty, and Rory Kennedy. These aren’t anonymous donors. They’re members of America’s closest thing to a royal class. Getty even defended funding the group in the Guardian, writing, “I fund climate activism — and I applaud the van Gogh protest.”
I don’t support an inheritance tax. These taxes hit middle-class families hardest — especially family farms and small businesses. The IRS doesn’t care how long your grandfather worked the land; it just wants a cut.
But the more the ultrarich use their fortunes to fund antihuman ideologies, the harder it becomes to defend that wealth politically. They are making the moral case for confiscation easier by the day.
Market trader and television commentator Jim Iuorio recently wrote, “There is no moral or economic argument in favor of inheritance tax ... it should obviously be zero ... making it more than zero is rooted in petty jealousy.”
Fair enough. But if I had to argue in favor of an inheritance tax on moral grounds, I’d just start naming names: Alex Soros. Melinda Gates. JB Pritzker. Christy Walton. Aileen Getty. It’s not envy — it’s damage control.
RELATED: Billions go in, billions come out — guess who benefits?
We don’t need to confiscate wealth to fight philanthropaths. But we do need a strategy. Here’s a start:
Trustbusting: Break up corporate monopolies. This won’t empty the bank accounts of people like Gates or Zuckerberg, but it could dismantle the ideological machines they built — and send a message: America won’t tolerate ideological empires built on tech monopolies.
Lawfare: Conservatives have long avoided weaponizing the law. But that restraint has allowed the left to prosecute its enemies with impunity. State attorneys general and DAs should investigate tax-exempt foundations. Are these groups funding organized criminal activity? Are they operating as unregistered lobbying arms? If so, they’re fair game.
If the ultra-wealthy refuse to stop using their fortunes to undermine Western civilization, we must treat their fortunes as what they are: weapons.
These billionaires aren’t just funding protests. They’re promoting a post-human future. In the name of “climate justice,” they want to ban meat, take away your car, outlaw carbon-based energy, and impose synthetic food alternatives on working families.
They aren’t asking politely. They’re demanding submission — or else.
World Economic Forum guru Yuval Noah Harari said the quiet part out loud in 2022: “We just don’t need the vast majority of the population.” I assume he doesn’t mean himself. He means you. He means your family.
When elites embrace mass depopulation as policy, don’t expect me to argue over tax brackets. I’m not interested in theory. I’m interested in survival.
So yes, I’m more open to separating sociopathic billionaires from their wealth than I once was. I still believe in economic liberty. But liberty doesn’t mean allowing radicalized aristocrats to fund our destruction.
Because if we don’t stop them now, they won’t just take your gas stove — they’ll take your future.
Bill Gates appears desperate to convince the world of his magnanimity and of his fellow billionaire Elon Musk's maleficence.
Gates, 69, recently went on a liberal media tour, telling late night script-reader Stephen Colbert, the New York Times Magazine, the Financial Times, and other outfits reflexively receptive to his preferred narrative all about his intention to spend $200 billion on philanthropy before closing down the Gates Foundation — which underwent a name change in January in the wake of reporting about Gates' relationship with child sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein and then the billionaire's divorce.
According to the New York Times Magazine, this potential charitable giving is especially important after the Trump administration's termination of programs at the U.S. Agency for International Development that Secretary of State Marco Rubio emphasized "did not serve, (and in some cases even harmed), the core national interests of the United States."
Gates, whose foundation's relationship with USAID has been likened to a "money-laundering scheme — one that 'cleans' both wealth and power for people like Gates while sustaining thousands of projects, employees, and placeholders in organizations that rely entirely on a circular flow of public funds" — suggested to the Financial Times that diseases such as measles, HIV, and polio could see a massive resurgence as a result of the USAID cuts championed by Musk.
Elements of the scientific community have furnished Gates with hypotheticals and estimates to lean on. For instance, a preprint study published by the Lancet and amplified by Nature, despite its lack of peer review, suggested that a:
complete cessation of US funding without replacement by other sources of funding would lead to dramatic increases in deaths from 2025-2040: 15.2 (9.3-20.8) million additional AIDS deaths, 2.2 (1.5-1.9) million additional TB deaths, 7.9 million additional child deaths from other causes, 40-55 million additional unplanned pregnancies and 12-16 million unsafe abortions.
"The picture of the world's richest man killing the world's poorest children is not a pretty one," said Gates.
'They were put in the woodchipper.'
"I'm not even sure the administration understands what is going on in the field because we do have, for the first time in 25 years, we have more children dying," continued Gates. "Instead of it going down, it's now going up. And unless we reverse pretty quickly, that will be over a million additional deaths."
Gates suggested that while his foundation will spend roughly $10 billion a year on global health, with a focus on vaccines and maternal and child health, this private philanthropy would not make up for the American taxpayer dollars saved through USAID cuts.
The Department of Government Efficiency, led by Elon Musk, began exposing in December that USAID had blown taxpayer funds on anti-American, leftist causes and radical initiatives.
The administration discovered, for example, that the USAID previously blew:
"Unfortunately, you know, there was a weekend where it was decided they [USAID] were criminals and they were put in the woodchipper, and so we lost a lot of capacity there. Now, we can get it back," Gates told Colbert. "Eventually, Congress is the one who will have the final word on this."
Gates suggested to the New York Times Magazine that he is counting on Congress to once again undermine the Trump agenda where funding is concerned but realizes "the cuts are so dramatic that even if we get some restored, we're going to have a tough time."
The billionaire also expressed confidence that future administrations will not similarly cut back foreign aid, noting that he sees it "as a four- to six-year interruption."
Elon Musk, responding to another interview where Gates claimed the DOGE would cost two million lives, wrote, "Gates is a huge liar."
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
If you say the word "chemtrails" to any government-trusting American citizen, you’ll be painted as a nutty right-wing conspiracy theorist.
However, there’s good news for those who’ve been sounding the alarm. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has recently confirmed the use of chemtrails over America — and so has an Air Force whistleblower and exposure scientist, Kristen Meghan, who’s been making claims about a secret government chemtrail program for over a decade.
Meghan has worked in occupational environmental safety and health as a senior industrial hygienist and an exposure scientist for 23 years. For nine of those years, she worked on active duty in the Air Force in a field called bioenvironmental engineering.
“So, for people to understand, it’s like the DOD’s equivalent of OSHA, EPA, DOT,” Meghan tells Sara Gonzales on “Sara Gonzales Unfiltered.”
When her brother showed her a documentary on chemtrails, Meghan recalls believing it was “the most ridiculous thing” she’d ever heard.
“In my journey of trying to debunk it and basically tell everyone they’re ridiculous, I realized not only is it real, but it’s coming right through my office,” she explains. “A lot of people that have industrial jobs are familiar with something called a safety data sheet.”
“Basically, there’s certain things that are on those sheets, and it has to have packing group information. Like, if you’re shipping it, is it double-contained, all these things. It was missing so much information, and I always say I’m never going to jail for anybody,” she continues.
“Then later, it hits me,” she says. “These same things that are coming in, like powdered oxide form — these heavy metals are the same metals that people are claiming.”
Before telling anyone, she did tests on her own.
“I started doing soil sampling, air sampling, different types of techniques, and ... I finally went to my supervisors and was like, ‘Is this this?’” she tells Gonzales.
“There’s things that I can’t tell you, but I’m telling you the aircraft was being retrofitted, and that is the earth-shattering moment," Meghan adds.
In 2008, just a few days prior to telling her supervisors, Meghan had won noncommissioned officer of the quarter for her exemplary performance. Right after, she began being treated differently.
“They threw the, ‘Are you okay?’ You know, ‘You’re looking a little depressed. I can put you on a 120-day mental hold. Who would watch your daughter?’” she recalls. “I was actually supposed to re-enlist, and without any warning, with about 10 days left, I was out the door. No job.”
“It scared my higher-ups, and I immediately got an attorney, got whistleblower protection, and I was very vocal for a long time,” she continues, noting that they’ve “admitted” why they do this.
“It’s to dim the sun because of global warming,” she says, adding, “but I wonder, though, if a lot of people that are behind this actually believe in global warming.”
To enjoy more of Sara's no-holds-barred take to news and culture, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.
www.theblaze.com