Gates Accuses Musk of Turning His Fortune into a Weapon Against Dying Children

The long-simmering tension between two of the world’s most powerful billionaires took a disturbing turn this week as Bill Gates publicly accused Elon Musk of endangering the lives of children through massive cuts to USAID, the United States Agency for International Development.

In a bold and emotionally charged interview with the Financial Times, Gates claimed that the Tesla founder and former head of DOGE had directly contributed to a health crisis in some of the most vulnerable corners of the globe by gutting billions in humanitarian funding. The accusation adds fuel to a feud that has been unfolding since 2022 and now centers not only on personal animosity but on a fierce disagreement over the very future of global philanthropy.

Gates, known for his decades-long work in fighting disease and poverty through the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, did not hold back. He suggested that Musk’s policies had led to the suspension of critical aid programs, leaving warehouses filled with unused medicine and nutrition packs while diseases such as HIV and polio crept back into regions that had been nearly eradicated.

These are not theoretical consequences, Gates emphasized. They are human tragedies unfolding in real time, with infants and mothers paying the ultimate price. He painted a harrowing picture of a world where the richest man on Earth, with a net worth now exceeding $400 billion, allows the poorest children to die by pulling the financial plug on programs that were keeping them alive.

The claims were not made in passing but during a detailed conversation about the direction of Gates' philanthropic mission over the next two decades. Gates vowed to donate nearly all his remaining wealth to his foundation, with special focus on child health, maternal care, combating infectious diseases, and fighting global hunger.

 He argued that these goals are inseparable from the work USAID was doing, often in coordination with the Gates Foundation and other NGOs. The Trump-era cuts to USAID, which were continued under Musk’s influence on the DOGE initiative, slashed billions of dollars from programs meant to prevent mother-to-child transmission of HIV in places like Gaza and Mozambique. According to Gates, these funds were critical lifelines and their withdrawal has had catastrophic consequences.

What made Gates’ remarks particularly damning was his assertion that Musk’s justification for the cuts was based on misinformation or, worse, deliberate distortion. He pointed to Musk’s prior comments claiming the USAID programs were being used to distribute condoms, a claim Gates fiercely rejected.

Instead, he described them as vital interventions designed to prevent lifelong infections in babies and reduce maternal mortality rates. The billionaire philanthropist went as far as to say he wished Musk would personally visit the children now living with HIV as a direct result of the funding collapse, implying that such an encounter might force a moral reckoning.

The rivalry between Gates and Musk has never been simply about personality or pride. At its core lies a deep ideological divide over the nature of wealth, responsibility, and the mechanisms of global impact. Gates, despite his background as a cutthroat tech executive, has over the last two decades transformed himself into a global advocate for the downtrodden, using his fortune to fight malaria, provide sanitation, and deliver vaccines to the world’s poorest populations.

Musk, by contrast, has focused on high-concept technological ambitions such as space colonization, AI integration, and the transformation of social media through his acquisition of X. While Gates speaks of saving lives, Musk often speaks of saving civilization—two visions that increasingly appear to be at odds.

Their conflict reached a new level of visibility in 2023, with the release of Walter Isaacson’s biography of Elon Musk. In the book, it was revealed that Gates had previously tried to advise Musk on philanthropy, hoping to influence how the then-$200 billion man might use his wealth. Musk reportedly dismissed Gates’ worldview, calling most charitable work “bullshit.”

The statement reverberated through both the philanthropic and tech worlds, crystallizing the belief that Musk saw traditional humanitarian efforts as ineffective or irrelevant in comparison to his futuristic ambitions. In 2024, Musk’s net worth skyrocketed to a staggering $400 billion, further emboldening his autonomy and decreasing the likelihood that he would be swayed by critics like Gates.

But for Gates, the line appears to have been crossed when philanthropy became, in his words, a matter of life and death. USAID has long been one of the largest channels through which American humanitarian aid is distributed, and the Gates Foundation has often partnered with it to maximize the reach and effectiveness of its programs.

The cuts Musk supported—under the justification of trimming inefficiencies and redirecting funds toward tech-driven solutions—resulted in the cancellation or stalling of dozens of initiatives across sub-Saharan Africa, Southeast Asia, and conflict zones in the Middle East. These included nutrition support for malnourished infants, vaccine campaigns, and maternal health centers that had dramatically lowered birth complications and disease transmission in vulnerable populations.

In accusing Musk of “killing children,” Gates did more than launch a rhetorical attack. He laid the foundation for a global debate about the responsibilities of the ultra-wealthy. Can someone who launches rockets and talks about saving humanity on Mars justify dismantling health systems on Earth?

Can an individual with power over billions of dollars of funding make unilateral decisions that override decades of public health progress? Gates clearly believes the answer is no, and he is now willing to say so in terms that are both stark and uncompromising.

The silence from Musk and DOGE in response to Gates’ statements has only intensified the backlash. Activists, NGOs, and global health officials have begun voicing concerns about the shift in philanthropic culture, where traditional humanitarian aid is being replaced by what some call “techno-egoism”—a model where giving is dictated by spectacle, not science.

The abrupt redirection of funds from proven health programs to speculative ventures such as underground hyperloops and humanoid robotics has triggered anxiety among those who see charity as a moral obligation, not an experiment in disruption.

The Gates Foundation, founded 25 years ago with the mission of “improving the quality of life for individuals around the world,” has already contributed tens of billions of dollars to causes ranging from polio eradication to pandemic preparedness.

While it has received criticism for its scale and influence, its impact on global health is undeniable. Gates’ decision to publicly call out Musk may reflect a deep frustration with a new generation of mega-billionaires who, in his view, have abandoned grounded, data-driven aid in favor of ideological posturing and image management.

This conflict is not just a feud between two tech titans—it is a clash between two visions for the future of humanity. One sees progress in the eradication of preventable disease, the lifting of communities out of extreme poverty, and the creation of sustainable health infrastructure.

The other sees advancement through technological transcendence, interplanetary ambition, and the disruption of entrenched systems, even those as established as international aid. The story of Gates versus Musk may be just beginning. With the stakes as high as the lives of newborns and the trajectory of global development itself, the world will be watching not just what these billionaires say, but what they do.

For Gates, the next two decades are already mapped: give nearly everything away, fund the world’s most vulnerable, and hold the powerful accountable. For Musk, the future remains as unpredictable and volatile as ever. But one thing is now certain—their paths are no longer running parallel. They are colliding.