Microsoft founder Bill Gates recently accused Tesla’s “technoking” (as stated on its website) Elon Musk of “killing the world’s poorest children” as the latter shuttered the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) in February. Gates’ comments are put into perspective when USAID’s contributions are taken into account — in 2023, it amounted to $60 billion. One can argue that the steep figure owes to the US’ continuous support to war-torn Ukraine and warmongering Israel. But even without the war machinery, the US has been supporting many initiatives — started by Presidents over the years and ranging from AIDS prevention to eradicating malnutrition in children — via USAID since its inception in 1961.
Stop-work orders were issued in February by the Musk-led Department of Government Efficiency (or DOGE), which was formed to cut wasteful spending. However, while the US remains the largest contributor of foreign aid, that amount is a mere 1% of the federal budget and does not do much to help the “ailing” US administration.
The world’s most needy communities are simply another group caught in the cross hairs of Musk’s efficiency laser gun. As the world’s richest man, his exploits are well-known, and his foray into governance through a department named after a cryptocurrency issued by him has his stamp all over it. From ordering employees to mail their supervisors their work accomplishments of the week before to advocating for the dismantling of the Department of Education (Donald Trump signed an executive order to that effect in February), it would be an understatement to say that DOGE has shaken up the US government’s functioning to the core, or is at least attempting to. It has claimed to cut $160 billion in government spending, eliminated 200,000 federal positions, and terminated contracts and leases across departments. To cap it off, Musk has announced his intent to step away from DOGE, claiming that his work in Washington is “nearly done” on an earnings call with Tesla investors after a low first quarter.
This appears to be a modus operandi for Musk, as the series of moves are not a new pattern. When he took over Twitter in 2022, he started off his tenure as CEO by firing top management, and then cutting the workforce by approximately 80% haphazardly and all of a sudden. Within a year, as the company bled, he decided to step away, leaving behind current CEO Linda Yaccarino to steer a sinking ship — Fidelity estimated that since Musk’s acquisition the value of X shares had declined by 79% until September 2024.
In contrast, there is Gates who has, through his Gates Foundation (established in 2000), given away $60.2 billion to development projects till date. The foundation itself has spent $83.3 billion in grants and $102.3 billion in overall charitable aid, focusing on healthcare, gender equality, and global development. Its notable contributions include a $750-million grant to the Gavi alliance (aimed at increasing vaccination in developing countries) and a total of $287 million towards HIV-AIDS research, notwithstanding grants and donations towards sanitation and financial inclusion. Tellingly, in his interview to Financial Times, he said he intended to accelerate his charity road map and donate 99% of his wealth in the next 20 years, claiming that he did not want “he died rich” to be one of the things said about him upon his demise.
One can argue that charitable donations are a means to maintain reputations. USAID is a very real example of this paradox, as it has contributed to the US’ image of being the biggest economy globally, and the Gates Foundation has often faced criticism labelling it a tax shelter and a PR machine. However, for all its shortcomings, this (allegedly) token philanthropy is any day better than annihilating programmes that have demonstratively aided millions around the globe. If it has come down to an advocate for colonising Mars calling the shots on essentially what the most prosperous government in the world should (not) allocate its funds to, one can only hope that other individuals and organisations with financial muscle retain an interest in planet Earth and shield the vulnerable. Progress is built bit by bit, not carved up — and it should certainly not come at the cost of the world’s most deprived communities.