NYT Compares Elon Musk’s Actions to History’s Most Notorious Mass Murderers

In a shocking escalation of public rhetoric surrounding U.S. foreign aid cuts, New York Times columnist David Brooks suggested this week that Elon Musk belongs in the same historical category as mass murderers like Pol Pot, Mao Zedong, and Joseph Stalin. The incendiary comparison was made during an appearance on PBS News Hour, where Brooks lamented the estimated human toll of funding cuts to international aid programs overseen by the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), a Trump-era initiative led by Musk in an attempt to restructure federal spending.

Brooks’ comments followed a growing body of criticism targeting DOGE’s decision to freeze and eliminate a wide swath of contracts under the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), which has long been one of the federal government’s primary tools for distributing humanitarian assistance across the globe.

According to a Boston University digital tracker developed by Professor Brooke Nichols, nearly 300,000 deaths worldwide have been attributed to these sudden funding discontinuations in just the first four months of the new administration. The tool claims to track deaths linked specifically to the withdrawal of health support programs, especially those targeting HIV/AIDS under the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR).

Brooks cited this data directly, asserting that 55,000 adults and 6,000 children had died of AIDS-related complications during that time, with projections pointing to exponentially higher casualties over a four-year term. "There are mass murderers in the world, Pol Pot, Mao Tse Tung, Stalin. We don’t have anybody on the list from America," Brooks said, “but if these numbers continue, we might.”

He did acknowledge that the nature of the deaths differs dramatically from the direct acts of genocide and execution carried out by historical despots, but maintained that Musk’s role in orchestrating the shutdown of USAID made him culpable in a new category of mass death — one borne out of institutional negligence and ideological austerity. The accusation marked a dramatic pivot for Brooks, who has been described as one of the few conservative voices at The New York Times, yet has consistently expressed liberal-leaning views on issues of foreign aid and social responsibility.

In a recent column, Brooks went so far as to describe Trumpism as “a giant attempt to amputate the highest aspirations of the human spirit,” and Musk appears to have become an extension of that critique.

Musk’s leadership of DOGE — the Department of Government Efficiency — was heralded by Trump allies as a bold move to eliminate what they called “fraud, waste, and globalist corruption.” In one of his first official acts, Musk froze all new USAID contracts, citing internal audits that pointed to rampant inefficiencies, cronyism, and what he termed “funding laundromats.” Within weeks, the agency had pulled back 90% of its global operations, shuttered dozens of projects, and sent thousands of field staff home.

By April, the White House announced a complete overhaul of USAID’s strategic mission, reallocating the majority of its $40 billion budget to domestic infrastructure, AI development, and a federal deregulation effort spearheaded by DOGE.

Critics say the cuts were so swift and severe that they left countless medical and nutritional programs in total collapse. According to Nichols’ tracker, 207,680 child deaths have occurred globally this year from what she classifies as “funding discontinuation,” while adult fatalities related to diseases previously addressed by U.S. aid agencies have surpassed 99,000.

These figures remain controversial and unverifiable in some regions, but they’ve fueled a growing media backlash against the Musk-Trump alignment on global disengagement.

Musk, never one to shy away from controversy, dismissed the accusations in typically blunt fashion. Responding to U2 frontman Bono — who echoed Brooks' concerns on Joe Rogan’s podcast, citing the same 300,000 death figure — Musk lashed out on X, formerly Twitter: “He’s such a liar/idiot. Zero people have died!” The post went viral, reigniting fierce debate among Musk’s supporters and critics.

Some hailed him as a reformer unafraid to dismantle bloated bureaucracies, while others warned that the billionaire’s disregard for global humanitarian norms bordered on dangerous fanaticism.

The DOGE initiative itself remains one of the most contested programs of the Trump administration’s second term. Established as a high-level commission with sweeping authority to audit and terminate non-defense federal expenditures, DOGE was placed under Musk’s control in what many saw as a symbolic merging of technocratic libertarianism and America First populism.

The agency’s scope now includes oversight of foreign aid, educational funding, environmental regulations, and research grants — all of which have seen double-digit percentage reductions under Musk’s tenure. According to internal memos leaked earlier this year, Musk has privately expressed skepticism about the efficacy of foreign aid programs, describing them as “moral outsourcing for rich countries.”

For Brooks and other critics, these statements reflect not just bureaucratic ruthlessness, but a deeper philosophical shift that devalues human life outside the U.S. border. The comparison to Pol Pot, Mao, and Stalin is not about method, they argue, but about indifference to the outcomes of systemic neglect. “This isn’t about gas chambers or firing squads,” one former USAID official told Fox News Digital.

“It’s about flipping a switch and letting millions fall through the cracks.”

USAID, founded in 1961 during the Kennedy administration, has long functioned as a cornerstone of American soft power. It operates in over 60 countries and administers a wide array of programs ranging from maternal health and sanitation to disaster relief and democracy promotion. The vast majority of its field work is conducted through third-party contractors and NGOs that depend on multi-year grants and steady federal disbursements.

When DOGE suspended these contracts, entire health networks — especially in sub-Saharan Africa and Southeast Asia — were reportedly left without supplies, personnel, or operational funding.

The Boston University tracker cited by Brooks was built in collaboration with epidemiologists and aid specialists, though it has come under criticism for relying on extrapolated data and speculative modeling. Still, its conclusions — that USAID cuts are linked to hundreds of thousands of excess deaths — have now been echoed by multiple NGOs and even European Union officials, who have urged the U.S. to restore global health funding.

Financial analysts watching the Musk-Trump alliance have noted that public opinion may be turning. While Musk remains a revered figure in tech and business circles, with Tesla, SpaceX, and X still dominating their respective sectors, his foray into politics has triggered a wave of new scrutiny.

Investors have begun to question whether Musk’s growing political entanglements — including his leadership of DOGE — might distract from core operations or damage brand equity. Tesla stock experienced a modest drop following the NYT segment and social media fallout, though the broader market reaction remains uncertain.

As for Brooks, his remarks may signal a new phase in elite media resistance to Trump-era governance and its tech partners. By invoking historical atrocities to critique present-day policy, Brooks risks inflaming the national conversation, but also underscores just how high the stakes have become in the debate over America’s role on the world stage.

Whether Musk is remembered as a reformer or a villain may ultimately depend not on the death tolls now debated in academic journals, but on whether the U.S. public accepts the trade-off between cost-cutting at home and lives lost abroad.

In the meantime, one thing is clear: the war over foreign aid is no longer about spreadsheets and contracts. It’s about morality, legacy, and the shifting definition of American leadership in a post-globalized world. And Elon Musk, willingly or not, is now at the center of it.