Elon Musk’s DOGE Cuts Draw Criticism from Bill Gates
Elon Musk’s cuts to the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), orchestrated by the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), have drawn criticism from Bill Gates.
Gates emphasized the potentially severe consequences of these actions, particularly the increased risk of disease outbreaks like HIV, measles, and polio in regions dependent on this aid.
Gates argued that cutting USAID funds could accelerate the resurgence of these diseases. He expressed concern about geographical misunderstandings leading to the halting of essential supplies, such as contraceptives and HIV prevention materials meant for Mozambique.
These changes implemented by Musk and DOGE may have larger repercussions than initially anticipated, potentially leaving vulnerable populations exposed to an increased spread of infectious diseases.
The USAID Cuts Engage Core Constitutional Issues
Article I Spending Power: Congress holds authority over federal budgets under Article I, Section 8. DOGE’s unilateral slashing of USAID, a congressionally funded agency, without legislative approval, violates this power, per INS v. Chadha (1983).
A February 2025 federal judge’s order partially halted the cuts, citing illegal layoffs, but 83% of contracts were still terminated.
Article II Executive Scope: Trump’s DOGE order, leveraging Article II’s executive authority, exceeds its bounds by dismantling USAID, per Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (1952).
Gates’ call for restoration highlights this overreach, as aid aligns with Article II’s foreign affairs role but requires congressional consent.
Fifth Amendment Due Process: Redirecting $40 billion from aid to domestic priorities like tax cuts could be deemed arbitrary, violating due process if it harms reliant populations without justification, especially as 71% of Americans support humanitarian aid, per a 2025 Pew poll.
Far-Reaching Effects of USAID Shutdown
The effects of the USAID shutdown extend beyond the immediate cessation of programs, affecting nations like Mozambique and Zambia that relied heavily on these funds. The Lancet projects an increase of up to a million new HIV infections in children over the next five years due to reduced support for HIV prevention and treatment.
“They cut the money to Gaza Province in Mozambique. That is really for drugs, so mothers don’t give their babies HIV,” Gates said. “But the people doing the cutting are so geographically illiterate, they think it’s Gaza and condoms.
Will they go meet those babies who got HIV because that money was cut? Probably not.”
The Misunderstanding and Its Implications
The confusion arose when officials reportedly conflated Gaza Province in Mozambique with the Gaza Strip in the Middle East, leading to the erroneous belief that U.S. funds were being used to supply condoms to Hamas. This misunderstanding prompted the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), led by Elon Musk, to cut approximately $50 million in funding designated for HIV prevention programs in Mozambique .
In Zambia, USAID-funded clinics that played a crucial role in curbing HIV transmission now face significant challenges. Facilities once bustling with activity now stand largely empty, unable to offer life-saving medications or support.
Nature’s study forecasts that the premature termination of PEPFAR could result in numerous preventable deaths as countries withdraw from coordinated HIV/AIDS interventions.
The Gates Foundation has reaffirmed its commitment to bridge the gaps left by USAID's exit, aiming to increase efforts to rescue lost ground.
The foundation emphasizes that international aid must persist as a fundamental pillar of global health security.
As these challenges unfold, the consequences of reshaping foreign aid policy are under scrutiny. The situation calls for a renewed dialogue about sustainable solutions to prevent a backslide into health crises that robust support networks had previously managed to avert.
Gates vs. Musk: Contrasting Approaches to Global Challenges
The ideological clash between Bill Gates and Elon Musk over the future of philanthropy reflects a division in their worldviews. Gates believes philanthropic efforts are crucial for addressing global issues that often lack profitable solutions. His Gates Foundation has worked to eradicate diseases and invest in public health initiatives.
“The world’s richest man has been involved in the deaths of the world’s poorest children.”
Musk, on the other hand, advocates for commercial solutions, often criticizing traditional philanthropy as ineffective or misaligned with market principles. His involvement with DOGE reflects his approach, where efficiency drives major decisions, even at the expense of established humanitarian efforts like USAID.
- Gates: Emphasizes global cooperation and systemic health interventions
- Musk: Questions the structure and efficacy of traditional aid, advocating for more privatized and innovative methods
Gates’ recent announcement about donating his remaining wealth to his foundation underscores his dedication to philanthropy’s potential to tackle global challenges. He argues that significant financial resources, strategically deployed, can address issues that markets alone may neglect or exacerbate.
This dichotomy raises an important question: Should society rely more heavily on commercial enterprises to drive social change, or should charitable institutions continue playing a central role? Despite the appeal of market efficiency, Gates’ stance suggests that the necessity of philanthropy remains significant.