Same Game, Different Name: 'Radioactive' Arabella Advisors Announces Rebrand to 'Sunflower Services' as Prominent Donors Flee

Arabella Advisors, the shadowy for-profit consulting firm that managed a multibillion-dollar network of liberal dark money groups, is now Sunflower Services. The company announced Monday it has rebranded and sold off its fiscal sponsorship business to a new firm amid a series of high-profile investigations into its finances and billionaire Bill Gates's decision to end a longstanding partnership with the organization.

The post Same Game, Different Name: 'Radioactive' Arabella Advisors Announces Rebrand to 'Sunflower Services' as Prominent Donors Flee appeared first on .

CNN data analyst dumps cold water on climate alarmism: It 'has not really worked'



Although elites like Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates have been pushing climate alarmism on the masses for decades, most people have never bought what they were selling. In fact, data shows that climate change has not been a defining issue for many people for a long time, one CNN analyst argued.

CNN data analyst Harry Enten demonstrated that the American people's concern about climate change has remained surprisingly consistent for decades and has even possibly declined in more recent years.

"What are we talking about? Greatly worried about climate. You go all the way back to 1989, it was 35%. 2000, 40%. 2020, 46%. And in 2025, look at that — it's 40%, the same number as we had 25 years ago back in 2000, and then only just five points higher than we had back in 1989. Really we've just seen consistency on this issue," Enten explained.

'It will not lead to humanity's demise.'

Enten showed that the number of Americans who see climate change as a top issue is and has been negligible for roughly the past four years. One 2025 poll indicated that just 17% of Democrats believe climate change will make staying in their home area "harder," Enten revealed.

Noting Gates' recent tone shift on the issue, Enten said most people would "agree" with Gates' new assessment that climate change won't be the end of humanity.

RELATED: Bill Gates quietly retires climate terror as AI takes the throne

Photo by Patrick van Katwijk/Getty Images

"The bottom line is that the climate change message that folks who, of course, believe that climate change is real and is quite worrisome, simply put, has not really worked with the American people,” Enten said.

Just this week, Gates altered his approach to climate change, one of his trademark issues.

"Although climate change will have serious consequences — particularly for people in the poorest countries — it will not lead to humanity's demise. People will be able to live and thrive in most places on Earth for the foreseeable future," Gates wrote in his October 28 essay, "Three tough truths about climate."

"The biggest problems are poverty and disease, just as they always have been," Gates continued.

While Gates did not completely dismiss his emphasis on climate change, this shift comes after at least 20 years of efforts to raise concern in the public consciousness about an existential threat. Gates famously warned that the climate was a bigger issue than COVID in the midst of the pandemic in 2020.

"Whether or not he's following the science or public opinion, there does seem to be a shift here," CNN anchor John Berman told Enten.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Bill Gates, Who Spent a Fortune Warning About 'Climate Disaster,' Now Says It 'Will Not Be the End of Civilization'

Billionaire philanthropist Bill Gates, who spent tens of millions of dollars funding far-left climate initiatives and authored a book warning of "climate disaster," is now changing his tune on global warming and urging activists to divert their attention to other progressive causes.

The post Bill Gates, Who Spent a Fortune Warning About 'Climate Disaster,' Now Says It 'Will Not Be the End of Civilization' appeared first on .

Bill Gates does stunning about-face on climate 'doomsday' claims: 'This view is wrong'



Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates alleged in a 2021 work of climate alarmist agitprop that if humanity failed to eliminate so-called greenhouse gas emissions, "climate change will keep getting worse, and the impact on humans will in all likelihood be catastrophic."

In addition to championing a radical upheaval of modern life — advocating for major changes to the way people travel, grow their food, and manufacture goods — in the interest of staving off some prophesied disaster, the billionaire backed the development of an aerosol technology that would dim the sun and trigger a global cooling effect.

'Using more energy is a good thing.'

After spending years fear-mongering about the calamities that would supposedly visit humanity unless governments kneecapped certain industries, regulated into extinction certain behaviors, and redistributed wealth to the right places, Gates has acknowledged that climate change "will not lead to humanity's demise."

In a Monday memo titled "Three tough truths about climate," Gates rejected the "doomsday view of climate change that goes like this: In a few decades, cataclysmic climate change will decimate civilization. The evidence is all around us — just look at all the heat waves and storms caused by rising global temperatures. Nothing matters more than limiting the rise in temperature."

"Fortunately for all of us, this view is wrong," Gates wrote just weeks ahead of the 2025 U.N. Climate Change Conference in Brazil, where participants will enjoy easy access to the venue thanks to the government's decision to flatten over 8 miles of rainforest.

Gates suggested that if the world takes "moderate action" to curb climate change — doing what it's presently doing or just slightly more — the Earth's average temperature 75 years from now will be only 2-3 degrees higher than it was in 1850.

RELATED: Al Gore wrong again: Study delivers good news for Arctic ice trends, bad news for climate hucksters

Photo by BAY ISMOYO/AFP via Getty Images

During a 2021 online Harvard Science Book Talk, Gates spoke of dying corals, acidifying oceans, forest fires, and disappearing beaches. He further claimed that unless various changes in global practices were undertaken, "It's going to be essentially unlivable at the Equator by the end of the century."

He has since adopted a more optimistic outlook, suggesting that warming might make Iowa eventually feel more like Texas, and Texas more like northern Mexico, and that life in countries near the equator may require governments "to invest in cooling centers and better early warning systems for extreme heat and weather events" — but that "people will be able to live and thrive in most places on Earth for the foreseeable future."

In addition to admitting that climate doomsday isn't coming and that the global temperature that radicals frequently cite as a metric for universal well-being "doesn't tell us anything about the quality of people's lives," the billionaire stated that "using more energy is a good thing," as "more energy use is a key part of prosperity."

Gates indicated that his newfound optimism about so-called climate change is the result, in part, of recent policy changes, innovation-driven emission cuts, and corresponding readjustments in emissions projections, but his change in tune appears to primarily come down to priorities.

"The doomsday outlook is causing much of the climate community to focus too much on near-term emissions goals, and it's diverting resources from the most effective things we should be doing to improve life in a warming world," Gates wrote, stressing later in the document that "the biggest problems are poverty and disease, just as they always have been."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Glenn Beck exposes the specific billionaires who funded the No Kings protests



Last weekend, thousands of people across the United States gathered to march under the banner of No Kings — a slogan coined to capture progressives’ resistance to the so-called authoritarian tendencies in President Donald Trump's second administration.

One major issue for No Kings protesters as well as politicians who joined the events, like Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), is the influence of billionaires, particularly in politics and media, which is why they criticize figures like Elon Musk.

But there’s an irony to their complaints.

“If this movement is truly against billionaires and the powerful, why is it funded by billionaires and the powerful?” asks Glenn Beck.

The No Kings movement was intentionally orchestrated to look like grassroots resistance, but the deeper you dive into its inner workings, the more it becomes clear: “This isn't a rebellion. This is strategy,” says Glenn. “This is not grassroots. This is astroturf.”

If the movement was really about keeping kings out of America, then these same marchers would have taken serious issue with Joe Biden, who forced an experimental vaccine on the American people under the threat of job loss and hospital restrictions.

“You would think no kings would mean all of that was wrong, but it doesn't. This is not about dismantling power. This is about rearranging power,” Glenn reiterates.

Those powerful billionaires who protesters claim to oppose were the very people who designed and funded this entire movement.

Reports from multiple media outlets, including Fox News and Breitbart News’ Peter Schweizer, George Soros via his Open Society Action Fund granted $3 million to Indivisible — a progressive nonprofit founded in 2016 for the sole purpose of resisting Trump policies — to help orchestrate the No Kings protests.

“But it goes on. Soros' larger network, the Open Society Foundation, gave over $7.6 million to the same operation. So now we're almost at $11 million,” says Glenn.

But Soros is just where the funding trail begins. Follow the money, and it will lead you to the Arabella Advisors Network — “a billion-dollar-a-year dark money empire that launders donations from the uber wealthy donors to grassroots activism.”

Keep going down the trail and you’ll find that the Bill Gates Foundation, the Ford Foundation, and Rockefeller Foundation all provided significant funding to networks supporting the No Kings protests.

But it keeps going. The Tides Foundation also made significant contributions, as did Neville Roy Singham, a U.S.-born billionaire with ties to the Chinese Communist Party who’s known for funding radical leftist groups.

“You have a small club of financial elites that are bankrolling what investigative journalist Peter Schweizer calls ‘Riot Inc.,”’ says Glenn.

“It is the permanent protest industrial complex. This is not just conjecture; this is not opinion. This is now documented fact,” he adds.

IRS filings, annual reports, and public statements all paint the same picture: “Billionaires are funding the outrage machine.”

To hear more, watch the video above.

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn’s masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis, and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

How Bill Gates and friends turned global health into a profit machine — at your expense



Since the COVID-19 pandemic, a growing network of nongovernmental organizations, politicians, and corporations have pushed for sweeping global health initiatives. They lobby for massive funding, insisting it will prevent the next international health crisis.

Groups such as the World Health Organization, the Gates Foundation, and the U.S. government have saturated the media with calls for “equity” and “preparedness.” Together, they established the Pandemic Fund — a financial pool designed to channel money into their shared vision of global health management.

It takes little imagination to see how a fund directed by Gates-linked institutions could steer money — intentionally or not — toward companies in which he holds a stake.

According to its website, the Pandemic Fund “finances critical investments to strengthen pandemic prevention, preparedness, and response capacities at national, regional, and global levels, with a focus on low- and middle-income countries.” In practice, it serves as a central clearinghouse for governments, NGOs, and business coalitions to move money under the banner of “health security.”

The funds flow to “implementing entities” such as the World Bank; the WHO; Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance; and UNICEF. These organizations, in turn, decide how the investments are distributed — and to whom. Each claims to act on behalf of public health, but their reach and influence often extend far beyond medicine into politics, surveillance, and control.

Convenient ambiguity

Who actually gets paid to implement these objectives? What do “surveillance” and “prevention” mean in practice? How is “preparedness” measured? Which corporations manage the process, and whose services are contracted for the lab upgrades? None of these questions has a straight answer. The fund’s language reads like a bureaucratic fog — dense, opaque, and unaccountable.

What the Pandemic Fund does provide is a clear list of donors: the United States, the Gates Foundation, and several European governments. It also highlights 47 active projects spanning 75 countries.

What it doesn’t provide is equally telling. The site omits the names of officials who manage the money in each country, the ownership of the laboratories, and the companies installing the surveillance systems. Even the identities of those delivering “medical support” remain concealed behind the veil of “global cooperation.”

Conflicts of interest

Beyond its opacity, the Pandemic Fund is riddled with conflicts of interest. The Gates Foundation ranks among its largest institutional donors, while Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, acts as an “implementing entity” responsible for distributing those same funds.

Gavi’s own website acknowledges that the Gates Foundation was both a founding partner and a seed donor, contributing $750 million at its launch in 2000. That relationship alone should raise questions. Gavi now helps allocate the Pandemic Fund’s grants, meaning one of its original funders plays a direct role in deciding where new money goes.

The potential conflicts run deeper. Bill Gates has invested heavily in Moderna and BioNTech, two of the world’s leading mRNA vaccine manufacturers. The Gates Foundation funded Moderna’s early mRNA work, and public records show that Gates himself owns more than 1 million shares of BioNTech, which partnered with Pfizer to produce the COVID-19 vaccine.

It takes little imagination to see how a fund directed by Gates-linked institutions could steer money — intentionally or not — toward companies in which he holds a stake.

The web of influence extends into policy enforcement. The World Health Organization’s director-general oversees the International Health Regulations, a global framework that allows governments to impose quarantine, testing, or vaccination requirements during declared health emergencies. The United States accepted the IHR in 2005 but rejected the most recent amendments adopted in 2024, formally withdrawing from those obligations in July of this year.

Even so, the structure remains in place. If Washington — or any other government — adopted tighter compliance measures, it could channel money from the Pandemic Fund to purchase vaccines and “countermeasures.” Pharmaceutical companies would profit handsomely from policies that treat mass vaccination as the first and only line of defense. The more the world relies on vaccines as a universal solution, the more secure the profits for investors like Gates.

The Gates Foundation’s influence doesn’t stop at funding or investment. It appears on the WHO’s list of official “non-state actors,” a category that allows direct collaboration on projects and participation in committee meetings. In other words, the foundation helps set global health standards and then funds the programs that enforce them.

RELATED: Researchers tied to Fauci’s COVID cover-up still scoring big NIH grants

Photo by JIM WATSON/AFP via Getty Images

American taxpayers foot the bill

At the end of the chain, American taxpayers pay for it all. Washington’s seemingly benevolent $700 million “donation” to the Pandemic Fund comes straight from the U.S. Treasury. Every dollar funneled into this global health consortium began as someone’s paycheck.

In practice, the fund operates less like a charity and more like a taxpayer-financed slush fund for international health bureaucrats and private interests. The U.S. government collects money from citizens, passes it through the fund, and watches as the Gates Foundation, the WHO, and their network of NGOs redirect it to vaccine manufacturers, foreign governments, and organizations with which they maintain deep financial and institutional ties.

This system of influence moves wealth in one direction — up and out. Money leaves the hands of American workers and flows to a global health elite that hides behind the language of “pandemic prevention.” The slogans of safety and preparedness disguise a network that rewards insiders and deepens the dependence it claims to end.

Congress and federal auditors need to dig into where this money actually goes and who profits from it. Americans deserve to know whether their taxes support genuine public health or line the pockets of the same institutions that cashed in during the last pandemic.

Bill Gates Reportedly Turns Off Money Spigot For Left-Wing Dark Money Network

'reinforce the kind of legacy we want to leave behind'

As DEI collapses, billionaires fund radical woke math



Jim Simons’ mathematical skills helped transform him from a prize-winning academic at Harvard and MIT into a legendary financier whose algorithmic models made Renaissance Technologies one of the most successful hedge funds in history. After his death last year, one of his consequential bequests went to his daughter, Liz, who oversees the Heising-Simons Foundation and its nearly billion-dollar endowment.

What Liz Simons has chosen to do with that inheritance might have surprised her father. Jim Simons devoted much of his charitable giving to basic research in mathematics and science, but his daughter’s foundation is moving in a very different direction. The Heising-Simons Foundation and similar organizations are supercharging a movement to remake K-12 mathematics education according to social justice principles.

Students are placed at a disadvantage when mathematical instruction is embedded in critical theory.

The revamp is profound. They reject well-established practices of math instruction while infusing lessons with racial and gender themes. The goal is to motivate disadvantaged students while dispensing with the traditional features of math — like numerical computation, which they struggle with on standardized tests — considered an oppressive feature of white supremacist culture.

Philanthropy-funded ‘anti-racist’ math

In many quarters, including corporations and universities, diversity, equity, and inclusion programs are in retreat due to pressure from the Trump administration and the courts. Not so in public education, with curricula that are locally controlled and largely insulated from the dictates of Washington.

That allows progressive foundations and like-minded charitable trusts to continue to pour millions of dollars into reshaping math education for black and Latino kids — including an $800,000 grant this year from the Heising-Simons Foundation — even though no credible research exists showing that the social justice approach improves their performance.

“Politicians and legislatures, even school boards,” are often too “hamstrung” to get things done, Bob Hughes, the director of K-12 education at the Gates Foundation, said at an online symposium on the need for racial equity policies in America's classrooms. Philanthropy, he added, faces fewer barriers in making rapid changes.

The Gates Foundation has been a leader in the promotion of anti-racist math instruction. It supported a project called “A Pathway to Equitable Math Instruction.” The project discards basic tenets of learning, like asking students to “show their work” and find the “right” answer as vestiges of “white supremacy culture.” The pathway is promoted by EdTrust West, which also receives support from the Spencer Foundation, the Heising-Simons Foundation, and other major donors.

The Gates and Heising-Simons foundations have both supported TODOS Mathematics for All, an Arizona-based organization that calls for elevating diversity, equity, and inclusion practices and anti-racist activism into all math instruction, with over $553,750 in grants in recent years. “We can no longer believe that a focus on curriculum, instruction, and assessment alone will be enough to prepare our children for survival in the world. We need anti-racist conversations for ourselves and for our children,” TODOS President Linda Fulmore announced in 2020.

Last year, the group hosted an hour-long webinar on “2SLGBTQIA+ identity in mathematics education.” During the event, a speaker expounded at length on various queer and indigenous identity groups while spending virtually no time on math-related curriculum or instruction.

At one point, the presenter erroneously claimed that there are “15.3 billion students in U.S. high schools” — a figure that would require the entire global population to be enrolled in American secondary education twice over. The speaker likely meant to say million.

‘Race-centered’ math

The foundations similarly fund practical lessons that put race at the center of math instruction. In Alexandria, Virginia, for example, the Heising-Simons Foundation supported a public-school program that encouraged kindergartners through second-graders to count the characters in picture books by race. At the end of each session, teachers guided students in creating racial scorecards for each book, then voting to select those with the fewest white characters. The exercise was presented as mathematics education.

Jo Boaler, a controversial professor of education at Stanford University who championed the push to remove eighth-grade algebra from San Francisco’s public schools in the name of equity, traces her support to this network of foundations. The Gates Foundation and Valhalla Foundation, which was founded by Scott Cook, the co-founder of tech firm Intuit, have long funded her math education project called YouCubed.

These deep-pocket donors also fund Danny Bernard Martin, a professor of math education at the University of Illinois at Chicago and a leading voice of what critics call “woke math.”

Over the past six years, the Racial Justice in Early Mathematics Project, which Martin co-leads at the Erikson Institute in Chicago, has received nearly $2.5 million from the Heising-Simons Foundation. This year, the foundation announced an additional $800,000 grant to help the project develop tool kits for wider implementation among teachers, administrators, and researchers.

Martin’s views extend far beyond typical calls for educational equity. He regards mathematics instruction as fundamentally a “white supremacist construct” that inflicts “epistemological violence” on black students. In his estimation, even DEI programs are too conservative — mere accommodations “rooted in the fictions of white imaginaries” and designed to appease “white logics and sensibilities.”

The solution Martin proposes is radical: Black students should seek instruction exclusively from black teachers at “independent black institutions.” They should resist the temptation of “advanced coursework and mathematics-related employment” and instead engage in “walkouts and boycotts” to protest against mathematics education as it currently exists.

RELATED: Test scores drop at SF elementary school that spent $250K on 'Woke Kindergarten' program to teach anti-police lessons, 'disrupt whiteness'

Photo by georgeclerk via Getty Images

The very structure of math instruction, Martin contends, has dehumanized black students through low test scores and failing grades.

The ideas of the Racial Justice in Early Mathematics Project and its leaders have reverberated through America’s classrooms. California’s new mathematics curriculum framework, which guides K-12 education statewide, repeatedly cites Martin.

Educators have sharply criticized the framework for leaning heavily on politicized concepts of math. The document suggests, for instance, that teachers “take a justice-oriented perspective” when providing instruction and discourages the use of “tracking” — or the practice of separating students into different classrooms based on their abilities.

Educators push back

Williamson Evers, a former assistant secretary of education and a fellow at the conservative-leaning Independent Institute, has been monitoring what he calls the “woke math” movement for years. “It’s very important to have math skills,” he told RealClearInvestigations.

Evers rejects the identity-based claims made by Martin and others who have called for minority students to abandon math education over alleged racism. “There are mathematicians and scientists on every continent from every background, and this idea of boycotting education would harm black schoolchildren.”

Elizabeth Statmore, a math teacher at the elite Lowell High School in San Francisco and a critic of social justice math, says the way to improve the performance of black and Latino students lies in the nitty-gritty, such as better teaching, holding students accountable, and providing them with more academic and emotional support.

Critics say the emphasis on prose over calculation will exacerbate the very disparities that social justice advocates claim to address.

“But it’s not sexy; they’re not on the keynote circuit like Danny Bernard Martin and Jo Boaler,” Statmore said. “They’re building a brand, not doing the kind of math education research that is helping to improve outcomes for disadvantaged children.”

Representatives of the Heising-Simons Foundation, the Erikson Institute, and Martin did not respond to requests for comment.

The Heising-Simons Foundation’s focus on racializing math education reflects its broader ideological commitments. Like many progressive foundations, it uses its significant funds to advance a range of left-wing policies that might have a hard time establishing themselves without billionaire support.

The foundation has also donated to PolicyLink, the organization behind DefundPolice.org, and to the Anti-Police Terror Project, which advocates for abolishing police departments in high-crime cities like Oakland, California. Liz Simons was also among a small clique of California megadonors behind the push to elect progressive prosecutors such as George Gascón in Los Angeles and Chesa Boudin in San Francisco. They declined to pursue felony charges against a range of violent offenders over concerns about racial equity.

The attempt to reimagine mathematics through the lens of critical race theory isn’t new — scholars have been working along these lines since the 1980s. They argue that historical racial oppression continues to influence everything from geometry curricula to standardized testing. Traditional emphases on objectivity, rigorous standards, and subject-matter mastery should be replaced, the scholars argue, with ideological exercises designed to promote racial and social consciousness.

What is new is the scale and speed of adoption. As America has grappled with questions of racial justice in recent years, billionaire foundations have provided the resources to implement these ideas widely in both public and private schools.

The donors appear motivated by a deep sense of ideological commitment to righting past wrongs related to racial injustice.

At the 2020 education donor symposium, Liz Simons recalled her experience working briefly as a Spanish bilingual teacher in an impoverished community in Oakland. “The much larger systemic problems,” she witnessed, Simons said, guided her to the goal of shaping early childhood education.

Na’ilah Suad Nasir, president of the Spencer Foundation, noted that she previously worked as the vice chancellor of “equity and inclusion” at the University of California, Berkeley. Expanding racial equity in education, she said, has been her “life’s work.”

Widening disparities

When it comes to math instruction, social justice means stripping it of basic features like numbers. In workshops hosted by the Racial Justice in Early Mathematics Project in 2023, the group promoted “numberless word problems” — mathematical exercises stripped of numerical computation. The method, instructors explain, is designed to counter “European ways of knowing and doing.”

Sisa Pon Renie, one presenter, spoke of wanting to challenge the “persistent myth that math is just abstract and without any cultural relevance.” The project champions this numberless approach as essential for “helping children understand how mathematics might be an important tool to understand social issues and promote justice.”

But critics say the emphasis on prose over calculation will exacerbate the very disparities that social justice advocates claim to address.

“Imagine you’re a Cambodian refugee, and you get some math problem that’s loaded with prose,” Evers, of the Independent Institute, said. “Maybe you’re very good at the figures part, the calculating part, the mathematical part.”

Such students, he argued, are placed at a disadvantage when mathematical instruction is embedded in critical-theory frameworks and dense with English text. “They unnecessarily load these things down, make it harder, and it’s not even math. It’s an inadequate mode of teaching.”

The real-world consequences of these approaches have played out most dramatically in San Francisco. A decade ago, officials removed Algebra 1 from middle schools, arguing that the change would give black and Latino students, who were underrepresented in the math class, more time to prepare while avoiding placing them in lower-level tracks.

David Margulies, a parent involved with the San Francisco community, observed that families wanting their children to take Algebra 1 in eighth grade shifted away from public to private schools, online learning, and homeschooling. Students who don’t take the math class in middle school find it more difficult to take calculus in high school.

RELATED: Major university caught in new DEI cover-up

Photo by via Getty Images

“Families figured out how important this is, and they are looking elsewhere,” he noted.

A 2023 Stanford study found that San Francisco’s Algebra 1 experiment did little to close racial achievement gaps. Black enrollment in Advanced Placement math classes remained unchanged, while Latino participation increased by 1%.

Meanwhile, education systems that have increased rather than decreased academic rigor have seen notable improvements in black student performance. In 2019, Dallas public schools began automatically enrolling students who performed well on state exams in middle-school algebra. The program increased black participation in advanced mathematics from 17% in 2018 to 43% in 2023.

Walking it back

Last year, during a Racial Justice in Early Mathematics Project webinar titled “Who Is Labeled Smart?” Martin addressed the backlash against San Francisco’s push for educational equity. He toned down his scathing critique of merit-based advanced education programs that he believes harm black and Latino students and made a surprising statement about his own son’s schooling.

“I’m guilty, I’m guilty,” Martin said, almost sheepishly. “My son is, quote unquote, in one of those tracks.”

Editor’s note: This article was originally published by RealClearInvestigations and made available via RealClearWire.

Bill Gates accuses Musk of killing children, destabilizing foreign nations with USAID cuts



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:

  • $45 million on DEI scholarships in Burma;
  • $1.5 million "to advance diversity, equity and inclusion in Serbia's workplaces and business communities";
  • $6 million to "transform digital spaces to reflect feminist democratic principles";
  • $19 million for two separate "inclusion" programs in Vietnam;
  • $2 million on sex-change activism in Guatemala;
  • $20 million for a "Sesame Street" show in Iraq;
  • $2 million for "activity to strengthen trans-led organizations to deliver gender-affirming health care" in Guatemala;
  • $37.7 million to study HIV among "sex workers (SWS), their clients, and transgender (TG) people" in South Africa; and
  • $1 million to assist disabled people in Tajikistan to become "climate leaders."

"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!

Billions go in, billions come out — guess who benefits?



Investigations by the Department of Government Efficiency have uncovered widespread waste and misappropriation of public funds at the U.S. Agency for International Development, with money being funneled into woke propaganda and other questionable initiatives. In response, Bill Gates and the Gates Foundation have aggressively defended USAID and its $50 billion annual budget, which continues with little oversight despite opposition from most American voters.

Gates appeared on “The View” to emphasize USAID’s importance, highlight his foundation’s frequent partnerships with the agency, and express concern over the DOGE’s audit of USAID spending. He also criticized the Trump administration’s freeze on funding during the investigation, claiming the pause could endanger “millions of lives.”

One of the key revelations from the DOGE’s investigation is the extent to which USAID is the Gates Foundation and the Gates Foundation is USAID.

Framing financial accountability as a life-or-death issue is a classic rhetorical dodge. Declaring that “millions will die unless we keep getting money” is the kind of argument a protection racket might use — or a Bond villain. Yet, Gates made this claim without hesitation, and Gates Foundation CEO Mark Suzman echoed the same warning.

One of the key revelations from the DOGE’s investigation is the extent to which USAID is the Gates Foundation and the Gates Foundation is USAID. Gates presents their relationship as a public-private partnership dedicated to saving lives. In reality, it functions more like 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. These funds are redirected by uniparty operatives, who, of course, also benefit from the system.

A quick search of the Gates Foundation website reveals 14 separate grants from the foundation to USAID, totaling millions of dollars. A deeper dive shows that since the Gates Foundation was established, as much as $4 billion has flowed from the foundation into projects directly controlled by USAID or USAID-Gates Foundation partnerships. This might sound like Gates generously funding lifesaving initiatives out of the kindness of his heart — but that’s not the whole story.

At the same time the Gates Foundation directs money to USAID, USAID sends money back to the foundation or to organizations like GAVI, the vaccine alliance Gates founded with an initial $750 million investment. Gates maintains significant influence over GAVI and other recipients, ensuring the money circulates between these entities before a significant portion ultimately returns to him.

When the funds are in the Gates Foundation, GAVI, or a USAID-affiliated project, Gates can claim he has given his share away. But these same organizations then make purchases from pharmaceutical, agribusiness, and green energy companies — many of which Gates holds private investments in.

Gates has directed $4 billion in so-called charitable giving toward USAID-controlled programs over the past two decades. Yet in just one year, GAVI received $4 billion back from USAID. Jon Fleetwood describes this vast money circulation as a system that transforms Gates’ private interests into “noble philanthropy” while triggering a fresh cycle of USAID funding. Public funds spent by the federal government match and eventually surpass the original donations, fueling an ever-expanding financial loop.

USAID is frequently involved in laundering taxpayer money through projects that support globalist strategic interests, which might not always align with the stated goals of development or poverty alleviation ... Gates’ GAVI was one of the top recipients of USAID grants in 2024, according to the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons. The association shared a screenshot indicating USAID awarded GAVI $4 billion for that year alone.

GAVI then uses that USAID money to buy vaccines from companies in which Gates has private investments or redirects the funds back to the Gates Foundation. Whether the money directly profits Gates or strengthens his financial network, the transactions remain largely concealed beneath the claim that this circular flow of funds is “saving lives.”

Even without absurd expenditures like funding transgender opera performances in the third world or more insidious activities such as sponsoring regime change under CIA direction, USAID spending remains deeply problematic. Powerful organizations and individuals like Bill Gates benefit from these funds while claiming to donate money, creating a fraudulent money-laundering scheme. Taxpayers, who never had the opportunity to consent to their dollars being used this way, are ultimately the ones footing the bill.