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!

Klaus Schwab's sudden departure was on bad terms, coinciding with shocking misconduct allegations



Klaus Schwab announced on April 1 that he was stepping down as chairman of the World Economic Forum.

While the technocratic globalist organization indicated that its founder would complete his departure by January 2027, Schwab revealed Monday that he was stepping down immediately — and did so without providing a reason.

The Wall Street Journal revealed on Tuesday why Schwab left his post 20 months early.

Despite his protest, Schwab's organization initiated an independent investigation Sunday into allegations that he engaged in financial and ethical misconduct.

The WEF's board of trustees received an anonymous whistleblower letter last week detailing alleged "systemic governance failures and abuses of power that have taken place over many years under the unchecked authority of Klaus Schwab."

According to the letter, which was attributed to unnamed current and former WEF employees, Schwab used forum funds to pay for private, in-room massages at hotels; asked junior employees to take thousands of dollars from ATMs out on his behalf; and allowed sexual harassment and other abuses to go unchecked in the workplace.

If the third of these complaints sounds familiar, that's because it has been lodged against the forum multiple times before.

The Journal indicated in a damning June 2024 report that "under Schwab's decades-long oversight, the forum has allowed to fester an atmosphere hostile to women and black people in its own workplace."

The report — deemed "inaccurate" by the forum but based on internal complaints, email exchanges, and interviews with current and past WEF employees — contained allegations that: pregnant workers and returning mothers were mistreated; senior managers sexually harassed female underlings; black employees faced racist commentary and were passed over for promotions; and Schwab "made suggestive comments to [former staffers] that made them uncomfortable."

'He never had a chance to give his side of the story.'

One employee even filed a lawsuit in New York last year claiming the WEF was "hostile to women and black employees," and the WEF settled on undisclosed terms.

The letter sent to the board of trustees last week reportedly also had much to say about the globalist's wife, Hilde Schwab.

Hilde Schwab, a former WEF employee, scheduled "token" WEF-funded meetings abroad so that she could go on luxurious forum-funded trips, said the letter. She also allegedly bogarted a forum-owned 1958 modernist luxury property next to the WEF's Geneva headquarters, which the organization spent $30 million to buy and $20 million to renovate.

A spokesman for the couple claimed that the Schwabs live nearby and have used the modernist mansion only for forum events. As for the other allegations, the spokesman told the Journal that the couple denies them all and intends to sue the authors and "anybody who spreads these mistruths."

The board indicated that its audit and risk committee's Sunday decision to launch a probe into the allegations was unanimous and "made after consultation with external legal counsel."

Schwab tried to impress upon board members that the allegations were bogus, and unsuccessfully sought an opportunity to address the board during its emergency meeting.

"He never had a chance to give his side of the story to the board or the audit committee," said the globalist's spokesman.

When he resigned on Monday, Schwab reportedly forfeited his pension, which was worth over $6 million.

The WEF told the Journal that it takes the new "allegations seriously, but they remain unproven, and will await the outcome of the investigation to comment further."

This will be the second investigation launched into the WEF in recent months.

The organization previously tasked the American firm Covington and Burling and the Swiss firm Homburger with looking into claims of workplace discrimination and harassment.

The external lawyers concluded in a summary of their assessment that they "did not find the forum had committed any legal violations" and "did not substantiate" the misconduct allegations against Schwab.

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

Klaus Schwab abruptly quits as WEF chair weeks after signaling a years-long wind down



Klaus Schwab indicated in an April 1 letter to the World Economic Forum's board of trustees and staff that he was stepping down as chairman of the technocratic globalist organization. The 87-year-old economist did not, however, appear to be in a rush.

The WEF told the Financial Times earlier this month that Schwab — who pushed vigorously in recent years for a "great reset" of capitalism — would complete his departure by January 2027. His exit has, however, come early.

Schwab announced Monday that he was stepping down immediately.

"Following my recent announcement, and as I enter my 88th year, I have decided to step down from the position of Chair and as a member of the Board of Trustees, with immediate effect," the technocrat said in a statement to the WEF's board.

The board unanimously appointed WEF Vice Chairman Peter Brabeck-Letmathe as the interim chairman and established a search committee for the selection of a future chair.

Brabeck-Letmathe is the Austrian business executive who led the Nestlé Group as CEO from 1997 to 2008 and Formula One until 2016. A notable shareholder in the vaccine manufacturer Moderna at least as of 2023, Brabeck-Letmathe has served as a member of the WEF's foundation board as well as on its board of trustees.

"At a time when the world is undergoing rapid transformation, the need for inclusive dialogue to navigate complexity and shape the future has never been more critical," the WEF stated. "The Board of Trustees of the World Economic Forum underlines the importance of remaining steadfast in its mission and values as a facilitator of progress. Building on its trusted role, the Forum will continue to bring together leaders from all sectors and regions to exchange insights and foster collaboration."

'The world must act jointly and swiftly to revamp all aspects of our societies and economies.'

Blaze News previously noted that Schwab's exit, apparently announced on the 55th anniversary of the day he began working on the borrowed concept of a "global village," followed in the wake of a probe into allegations of discrimination at the WEF.

The Wall Street Journal published a damning report alleging — on the basis of internal complaints, email exchanges, and interviews with current and past WEF employees — that "under Schwab's decades-long oversight, the forum has allowed to fester an atmosphere hostile to women and black people in its own workplace."

The report contained allegations that: multiple female employees were "pushed out or otherwise saw their careers suffer" when pregnant or coming back from maternity leave; some women were sexually harassed by senior WEF managers; Schwab "made suggestive comments to [former staffers] that made them uncomfortable"; and some black employees were passed over for promotions and subjected to objectionable racial comments.

The WEF suggested the Journal's report was "inaccurate," stating, "We are an organization that upholds the highest standards of governance, while working to address the most pressing challenges of our time with our high-performance teams, our diverse and global outlook, and an environment that values innovation, inclusion, and well-being."

After the Wall Street Journal's report made waves, the WEF hired a pair of law firms to investigate the claims of workplace discrimination and harassment.

The law firm Covington and Burling — whose members had their security clearances suspended last month by President Donald Trump — conveniently concluded with the Swiss firm Homburger that it "did not find the forum had committed any legal violations" and "did not substantiate" the misconduct allegations against Schwab.

Time will tell if Schwab's replacement will secure the future he long conspired to bring about.

In a June 2020 WEF blog post, Schwab noted that "the world must act jointly and swiftly to revamp all aspects of our societies and economies, from education to social contracts and working conditions. Every country, from the United States to China, must participate, and every industry, from oil and gas to tech, must be transformed. In short, we need a 'Great Reset' of capitalism."

Observing that populations proved willing "to make sacrifices" during the pandemic, Schwab indicated "the will to build a better society does exist."

"We must use it to secure the Great Reset that we so badly need," continued Schwab. "That will require stronger and more effective governments."

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

Klaus Schwab’s exit: A victory for freedom over globalist control



Nearly a year ago, reports of World Economic Forum founder Klaus Schwab stepping down from his position began to circulate — but now it’s finally happening. Schwab is stepping down as chair of the forum’s board of trustees.

The WEF has said in a statement to the Financial Times that the process of Schwab’s departure should be completed by January 2027.

“You can’t just leave,” Pat Gray of “Pat Gray Unleashed” comments, adding, “No, he’s far too important a man for that.”

“We don’t like your communist movements here, we don’t like what you’re trying to reset, the world’s capitalist situation,” he continues. “But he is stepping down, and apparently it’s partly because of the American-led realization of Schwab’s proposed Great Reset.”


“So we’ve been against it, we’ve fought against it, and thank goodness, we’re apparently winning in the WEF here,” he adds.

There have also reportedly been allegations of discrimination at the WEF under Schwab’s leadership.

“The Wall Street Journal published a damning report, claiming on the basis of internal complaints, email exchanges, and interviews with current and past WEF employees that under Schwab’s decades-long oversight, the forum has allowed to fester an atmosphere hostile to women and black people,” Gray explains.

“He’s probably got some women to discriminate against before he leaves,” he adds.

Want more from Pat Gray?

To enjoy more of Pat's biting analysis and signature wit as he restores common sense to a senseless world, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

World Health Organization reports adverse effects following US withdrawal



On his first day back in office, President Donald Trump resumed America's withdrawal from the scandal-plagued World Health Organization — a departure Trump initiated in his first term that was delayed for four years by the Biden administration. Days later, the administration ordered U.S. public health officials to stop working with the WHO.

Since American taxpayers will no longer be on the hook for funding over 15% of the organization's annual budget, the WHO is scrambling to adapt, laying off workers, closing clinics, and killing programs.

According to an internal WHO memo seen by Reuters, the organization — facing an income gap of $600 million in 2026 when the withdrawal takes effect — is looking to slash its budget for 2026-27 by 21%, from $5.3 billion to $4.2 billion.

"The United States' announcement, combined with recent reductions in official development assistance by some countries to fund increased defence spending, has made our situation much more acute," said the memo, which was signed by WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus.

"Despite our best efforts, we are now at the point where we have no choice but to reduce the scale of our work and workforce," added the memo.

'WHO continues to demand unfairly onerous payments from the United States.'

In his Jan. 21 executive order, Trump recalled his initial reasons for leaving the organization, namely "the organization's mishandling of the COVID-19 pandemic that arose out of Wuhan, China, and other global health crises, its failure to adopt urgently needed reforms, and its inability to demonstrate independence from the inappropriate political influence of WHO member states."

Trump noted further that the "WHO continues to demand unfairly onerous payments from the United States, far out of proportion with other countries' assessed payments. China, with a population of 1.4 billion, has 300 percent of the population of the United States, yet contributes nearly 90 percent less to the WHO."

In early February, Ghebreyesus begged the Trump administration to reconsider, stating he would welcome the opportunity "to preserve and strengthen the historic relationship between WHO and the US."

Ghebreyesus suggested that contrary to Trump's characterization, the WHO was a reformed organization whose heavy financial reliance on the U.S. was short-term. The director-general also suggested that the WHO was not politically compromised by China and had not mishandled the COVID-19 pandemic.

'Drastic cuts to development aid by the U.S. and other countries represent a huge disruption.'

Growing increasingly desperate, Ghebreyesus pleaded again for a reversal of fortunes on Feb. 11, stating, "We regret the announcement by the United States, of its intention to withdraw, and it was also sad to see them participating less this week. I think we all felt their absence."

"We very much hope they would reconsider, and we would welcome the opportunity to engage in constructive dialogue," added Ghebreyesus.

It appears the WHO — which Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. recently called a "very nefarious organization" — has since accepted the fact that the U.S. and its money are not making a return.

According to the Brussels Times, the WHO is executing a hiring freeze, a ban on nonessential travel, and renegotiations of supply contracts.

Ghebreyesus noted in the internal memo, "Drastic cuts to development aid by the U.S. and other countries represent a huge disruption for countries, NGOs, and U.N. organisations, including the WHO."

The organization's executive board, composed of 34 member states, recently recommended a 20% member fee hike to cover half of the WHO's budget by 2030, reported Agence France-Presse.

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

A green card is not a ‘get-out-of-deportation-free’ card



“Free Mahmoud Khalil” is quickly becoming the left’s new George Floyd rallying cry, as radicals once again champion criminals, thugs, and terrorist sympathizers. But their argument has a major flaw — Khalil is already free. He is free to return to Syria anytime and continue promoting Hamas. The government is not detaining him indefinitely or seeking to incarcerate him. President Trump is simply enforcing long-standing immigration laws that have been ignored for too long.

Last week, Trump announced that ICE had targeted Khalil, the Syrian national responsible for the pro-Hamas encampment at Columbia University, for deportation. “We will find, apprehend, and deport these terrorist sympathizers from our country — never to return again,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. “If you support terrorism, including the slaughtering of innocent men, women, and children, your presence is contrary to our national and foreign policy interests, and you are not welcome here. We expect every one of America’s colleges and universities to comply. Thank you!”

We don’t need to let 'intifada globalists' in our club.

Last month, I outlined how more than 120 years of uninterrupted case law confirms that deportation is not a punishment but a consequence of enforcing national sovereignty. The United States has the right to set conditions for admitting noncitizens. While the government cannot fine or imprison individuals — citizens or noncitizens — for expressing pro-terrorist or pro-communist views, it can require foreign nationals to leave. Freedom of speech protects against incarceration, but it does not grant immunity from deportation.

Recognizing the strength of this legal distinction, Khalil’s supporters are now arguing that there is a difference between those on immigrant visas and those on nonimmigrant student visas. Khalil arrived in the United States from Syria in December 2022 and became a legal permanent resident in 2024. A federal district judge in New York, disregarding the Supreme Court’s long-standing precedent on plenary power, temporarily halted his removal.

In reality, the Constitution does not distinguish between different visa types for noncitizens. Legal permanent residents do not have greater constitutional protection against removal than foreign students. Due process rights for noncitizens depend on what Congress establishes through legislation. While green-card holders typically have more legal avenues to remain in the country, Section 212 of the Immigration and Nationality Act explicitly grants the president authority to remove any noncitizen who “endorses or espouses terrorist activity or persuades others to endorse or espouse terrorist activity or support a terrorist organization.”

This is precisely what Khalil did. He led the now-banned Columbia University Apartheid Divest group, which occupied the campus and called for a global intifada in America. Like it or not, his actions fit the legal definition of endorsing terrorist activity and persuading others to do the same. Again, we cannot write such a law to detain indefinitely citizens or even aliens based upon such expressions, but we can ask foreigners to leave.

One is free to debate the political merits of these statutes, but the constitutional moorings are solid. As the Supreme Court ruled in Chae Chan Ping v. United States (1889):

That the government of the United States, through the action of the legislative department, can exclude aliens from its territory is a proposition which we do not think open to controversy. Jurisdiction over its own territory to that extent is an incident of every independent nation. It is a part of its independence. If it could not exclude aliens it would be to that extent subject to the control of another power.

Holding a green card increases the likelihood of remaining in the United States and eventually becoming a citizen, but it does not provide a constitutional guarantee. As Justice James Iredell, one of the Supreme Court’s original members, wrote:

Any alien coming to this country must or ought to know, that this being an independent nation, it has all the rights concerning the removal of aliens which belong by the law of nations to any other; that while he remains in the country in the character of an alien, he can claim no other privilege than such as an alien is entitled to, and consequently, whatever [risk] he may incur in that capacity is incurred voluntarily, with the hope that in due time by his unexceptionable conduct, he may become a citizen of the United States.

The risk of removal is not limited to committing a specific crime that must be proven through due process. It also applies to behavior deemed harmful to national interests, which falls under the discretion of the political branches to enforce.

Emer de Vattel, the Swiss scholar on international law frequently cited by America’s founders and in early American case law, made it clear that removal does not require criminal activity to be justified. He wrote:

Every nation has the right to refuse to admit a foreigner into the country, when he cannot enter without putting the nation in evident danger, or doing it a manifest injury. ... Thus, also, it has a right to send them elsewhere, if it has just cause to fear that they will corrupt the manners of the citizens; that they will create religious disturbances, or occasion any other disorder, contrary to the public safety. In a word, it has a right, and is even obliged, in this respect, to follow the rules which prudence dictates.

A judge has no authority to interfere with immigration officers' decisions. Aliens are not entitled to due process through courts to determine whether they meet the statutory definition of an excluded alien. As the Supreme Court ruled in Knauff v. Shaughnessy (1950):

The decision to admit or to exclude an alien may be lawfully placed with the [p]resident, who may in turn delegate the carrying out of this function to a responsible executive officer. ... The action of the executive officer under such authority is final and conclusive. Whatever the rule may be concerning deportation of persons who have gained entry into the United States, it is not within the province of any court, unless expressly authorized by law, to review the determination of the political branch of the Government to exclude a given alien.

Some may object to the sight of individuals being handcuffed for expressing anti-American views, but such actions are only taken to enforce removal. As the court stated in Turner v. Williams, “Detention or temporary confinement as part of the means necessary to give effect to the exclusion or expulsion was held valid.”

Unlike in criminal cases, federal law allows an alien facing removal who wishes to avoid detention to leave the country voluntarily.

From a political standpoint, a foreigner who holds a green card while calling for jihad provides even more reason for swift removal. If he naturalizes, the country will be left with a self-hating American citizen. As Gouverneur Morris stated at the Constitutional Convention, “Every society from a great nation down to a club had the right of declaring the conditions on which new members should be admitted, there can be room for no complaint.”

We don’t need to let “intifada globalists” in our club.

Did Trump just stop the Great Reset?



The elite-driven Great Reset has been moving along with little resistance under the Biden administration, but Donald Trump’s election may be throwing a wrench in their plans.

“There’s been this massive movement amongst global elites to seize increasingly more power, to centralize power and ownership and wealth. That’s what the Great Reset is all about,” Justin Haskins, director of the Socialism Research Center at the Heartland Institute, tells Allie Beth Stuckey of “Relatable.”

“The Biden administration is all for it, they’ve been actively involved in it, they’ve been supportive in a variety of different ways,” Haskins continues, noting the Biden admin’s been working with the World Economic Forum, which he calls “the Great Reset people.”


“The Biden administration is actively working against us, never mind fighting in our favor. So the Trump administration is our only hope of solving that problem. We’re not going to be able to fix it without someone aggressively pushing back against the European Union and the U.N. and the World Economic Forum,” he explains.

This is why it was so essential that Donald Trump win this election, because what would happen to not just American citizens, but the world, had Harris continued Biden’s reign — it would have changed everything.

“A lot of the American elites, John Kerry’s been involved in this, Al Gore’s been involved in this, the Clintons, the Obamas, who have pushed this climate change agenda that they are hoping is part of what you’re calling a reset,” Stuckey responds, noting that the “reset” part is what’s most concerning.

“By a reset, kind of like starting from zero. Rebuilding a society where progressive elites are in charge. But how they’re selling it is an equitable society, an equal society where there’s no difference in income, no one is oppressed, no one is a victim of injustice,” she continues.

“So a lot of this has critical race theory tenets, even gender ideology, abortion plays a role in this. Like their vision of a kind of utopia or heaven on Earth where they have all the power and all of us underlings are just doing what we’re told,” she says.

Trump, who Stuckey calls a “disruptor,” is one of the major obstacles standing in their way.

“It’s not just that he’s not going to go along with it, it’s that his policies have been very proactive in trying to stop that sort of thing from occurring,” Haskins agrees. “There’s no question about it, what Trump wants to do is put individual liberty at the forefront of this.”

Want more from Allie Beth Stuckey?

To enjoy more of Allie’s upbeat and in-depth coverage of culture, news, and theology from a Christian, conservative perspective, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Argentina's 'chainsaw' president tells the UN to shove its 'socialist' 'Pact for the Future'



Javier Milei, Argentina's self-proclaimed "anarcho-capitalist" president, took office in December 2023. In the months since, he has taken a "chainsaw" to his predecessors' failed leftist policies as well as to some critics' doubts.

This week, he shredded globalist hopes that the Argentine Republic would be party to the United Nations' "Pact for the Future," telling the General Assembly, "Argentina will not back any policy that implies the restriction of individual freedoms or trade, nor the violation of the natural rights of individuals."

Milei — whose debut address to the U.N. took place within hours of reports indicating that Argentina's economic activity beat estimates, growing 1.7% in July — invited other nations to join him not only in "opposing this pact, but in the creation of a new agenda for this noble institution: the freedom agenda."

After noting that the U.N. served a noble purpose in the wake of World War II, Milei stated it has since "stopped upholding the principles outlined in its founding declaration and begun to mutate" — from an organization that once defended human rights to "one of the main drivers of the systematic violation of freedom."

Milei dragged the U.N. for its support of "global quarantines during the year 2020," which he suggested qualify as crimes against humanity, as well as its appeasement of "bloody dictatorships," such as Venezuela, and criticism of Israel.

According to the Argentine president, the U.N. was created "as a shield to protect the realm of men" but has "transformed into a multi-tentacled leviathan that seeks to decide not only what each nation-state should do but also how all the citizens of the world should live."

'It is basically an attempt to build a totalitarian system of conformity across the business sector.'

Milei suggested that instead of seeking peace, the U.N. now seeks to impose an ideology on its members.

Distinguishing himself from a great many onlookers as a "libertarian liberal economist" rather than a politician, Milei warned of the threat posed by "collectivist policies" baked into the U.N.'s doomed 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.

The U.N.'s 2030 agenda includes 17 interlinked global goals designed to "transform the world."

Paul Tice, an adjunct professor of finance at the Leonard N. Stern School of Business at New York University, indicated in his recent book, "The Race to Zero: How ESG Investing Will Crater the Global Financial System," that:

Climate action (SDG #13) provides the intersectional glue for the entire progressive agenda embedded in the UN's sustainability program, with each individual cause drawing strength and further validation from the moral imperative of saving the planet from fossil fuels because, in the UN's telling, climate change also affects global health, poverty, hunger, and national security, and 'its adverse impacts undermine the ability of all countries to achieve sustainable development.

Tice emphasized that sustainability is part of a broader anti-capitalist campaign that "borrows elements from both the totalitarian and reformist approaches of the past."

"It is basically an attempt to build a totalitarian system of conformity across the business sector based on moral suasion, thereby avoiding the administrative cost and public sector responsibility associated with outright state ownership or direct government intervention," wrote Tice.

'[The sustainability agenda] is nothing more than a super-national socialist government program.'

The professor noted further that "it embraces both state and progressive priorities but is mainly the fabrication of a permanent supranational bureaucracy of technocrats residing at multilateral agencies led by the UN and international NGOS such as the WEF, which effectively insulates it from accountability at the ballot box."

Sharing similar concerns about the U.N. agenda and its broader sustainability push, Milei suggested that the U.N. is now effectively a model of "super-national governance by international bureaucrats who intend to impose a certain way of life on the citizens of the world."

According to Milei, the "Pact for the Future," which 143 countries approved Sunday, is par for the course.

The pact overlaps with the 2030 sustainability agenda, laying out objectives for a multilateral approach to addressing changing weather patterns, so-called reproductive rights, and digital cooperation.

"Although well-intentioned in its goals, [the pact] is nothing more than a super-national socialist government program that aims to solve the problems of modernity with solutions that undermine the sovereignty of nation-states and violate the right to life, liberty, and property of individuals," said the Argentine president. "It is an agenda that aims to solve poverty, inequality, and discrimination with legislation that only deepens these issues."

Milei suggested that the pact is another poorly conceived utopian program that will not withstand or tolerate humans' incompatible nature and choices.

"We want to officially express our dissent regarding the 'Pact of the Future' signed on Sunday," said Milei, concluding with a version of a quote from Thomas Paine: "Those who wish to reap the blessings of freedom must, as men, endure the fatigue of defending it."

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

Leftists CRUSHED in European Elections | What You NEED to Know
play icon

Leftists CRUSHED in European Elections | What You NEED to Know

Globalists’ 3-pronged attack plan to END our sovereignty



Under the direction of the World Health Organization, the United Nations, and the European Union, the largest globalist power grab in history is currently underway.

“We have threats on multiple fronts,” Glenn Beck warns, adding, “The stakes couldn’t be any higher. Everything is under attack. Free-speech, private property, faith, liberty, children, our families, everything is at stake.”

And the time has never been more ripe, as over 60 countries are facing elections this year.

“So, what does that mean for the New World Order? Well, they have to win. They have to make their major moves now. The time to seize control or at least to have the building blocks in place is right now,” Glenn says.

Glenn believes that if you reflect on the trends of the past decade, there are “three main events” that the globalists could invoke as a crisis in order to seize the control they want — and need.

“One, a major geopolitical risk. These are things like, oh I don’t know, war with Russia, or an economic disruption. Both of those are very likely to happen,” Glenn says.

“The next one is a health emergency. This one can be several things: a pandemic, the threat of a possible pandemic, guns, the climate, you use your imagination on this, but they already have a plan in place for all of them,” he warns.

“Climate change. This is how a government will seize control of food, energy, and water. They will also force private businesses into partnerships through mechanisms like ESG, and they can pull this trigger for almost anything. Forest fires, hurricanes, tornadoes, high temperatures in the summer.”

After these crises have been set in motion, that’s when the global institutions step in to declare their power by imposing mandates.

“What we saw with COVID,” Glenn recalls, “the World Health Organization takes the leading role. We all remember how that went.”


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.