Connect with us

Business

Bill Gates was right to defend USAID amid Elon Musk’s attacks—take it from someone who experienced its impact

Published

5 months ago

on



Butch Meily is president of the Philippine Disaster Resilience Foundation, IdeaSpace, and QBO Innovation. He is the author of the new memoir From Manila to Wall Street: An Immigrant’s Journey with America’s First Black Tycoon.

In 1961, U.S. President John F. Kennedy created a new federal agency, the United States International Agency for Development (USAID). Its purpose was “to extend assistance to countries recovering from disaster, trying to escape poverty, and engaging in democratic reforms.” Among the 100-plus countries USAID helped around the world over the next 64 years was my own, the Philippines.

Last week, USAID officially ceased operations. Only the day before, the distinguished British medical journal the Lancet published a study warning about the potential consequences now looming. The elimination of USAID, the study found, could contribute to 14 million additional deaths over the next five years. The researchers described the impact for some countries as being “similar in scale to a global pandemic or a major armed conflict,” based on “a conscious and avoidable policy choice.”

I was born in the Philippines, once a U.S. colony, shortly after World War II. But even from afar, I always felt a kinship with the United States. So in 1977, I decided to pursue my ambitions—and a master’s degree—in America. The day I swore the oath of allegiance at the federal courthouse in Manhattan and became an American citizen will always rank among the proudest of my life.

Back then, I had no idea of how much USAID was accomplishing in the Philippines, much less that I would be personally involved with it.

The battle over USAID

In February on Truth Social, President Donald Trump declared that USAID spending “is totally unexplainable…close it down.” He claimed the agency was run by “radical left lunatics.” Tesla CEO Elon Musk—appointed by Trump to head the newly minted Department of Government Efficiency and slash federal fraud, waste, and abuse—had previously called the agency, variously, “beyond repair,” “corrupt,” and “a criminal organization.” “Time for it to die,” Musk posted on X.

In short order, Microsoft cofounder and philanthropist Bill Gates intervened and met with President Trump at the White House to defend—and advocate support for—extended funding for USAID. Gates called USAID “the best” of all the development agencies around the world. In May, he accused Musk of “killing the world’s poorest children.” But by then the die was cast as Trump triumphantly characterized the budget and personnel cuts already inflicted on USAID as “devastating.”

Even so, other prominent opponents of the controversial cuts stepped into the breach. In a private videoconference beamed to USAID staffers worldwide in late June, Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama, along with U2 singer Bono, delivered a heartfelt farewell to the agency. “Gutting USAID is a travesty,” Obama said, “and it’s a tragedy.” Bush asked the USAID staffers in attendance, “Is it in our national interests that 25 million people who would have died now live? I think it is, and so do you.”

USAID accomplishments

As I’ve learned since returning in 2000 to live in the Philippines, USAID has done, by any measure, an absolutely yeoman job. Food from American farmers fed hungry families and starving refugees. Its staff distributed drugs for malaria, HIV, and other infectious diseases that saved lives. It enabled communities to combat poverty and develop economically, in the process establishing new consumer markets for American goods.

In the 1960s with the country still recovering from the ravages of World War II, USAID helped establish national government agencies and educational institutions. Later, USAID focused on strengthening democratic institutions. 

In 2012, a major new USAID program to eradicate tuberculosis improved treatment success rates by 92%. 

Hitting home

In my own country, from 1995 to 2013 USAID trained 28,000 former combatants with skills and tools to farm land and otherwise earn a living, helping to reintegrate these civilians back into society, lifting the economy in a Southern Philippines still torn by war. 

Thanks to a hand from USAID, our maternal mortality rate over a 23-year period was cut almost in half, from 209 per 100,000 live births in 1993 to 114 per 100,000 live births in 2015. More than 1.5 million Filipinos benefitted from USAID support of sustainable management for coastal fisheries to stop overfishing and environmental degradation.

But that’s hardly all. USAID trained more than 19,000 Filipino teachers in English, math, and science. As a result, the percentage of students in sites assisted by USAID who met national benchmarks for reading fluency and comprehension almost quadrupled, from 20% in 2013 to 76% in 2016.

In the destructive wake of Typhoon Haiyan in 2013, one of the largest storms ever to make land, USAID rebuilt schools, health clinics, and water systems and helped survivors rehabilitate their stores and businesses. More recently, it embarked on programs that strengthened the economies of cities outside Manila to promote sustainable growth.

Today, the Philippine economy ranks as the world’s 32nd largest in GDP—and the ninth biggest in Asia, according to the International Monetary Fund. This year the World Bank said, “Its economic dynamism reflects increasing urbanization, a large and young population, and strong consumer demand, supported by a vibrant labor market and robust remittances, which have raised the incomes of the most vulnerable.” The case can be made that USAID’s funds and on-the-ground volunteerism contributed substantially to the Philippines’ current socioeconomic stature.

As head of a private-sector disaster management organization, I collaborated with USAID on numerous projects over the last 10 years. Together, we helped communities and municipalities prepare for calamities, enabled the Department of Energy to upgrade the power sector during the frequent storms, strengthened the resilience of key provinces, and guided the Office of Civil Defense in partnering with private companies to furnish relief to areas stricken by disaster.

I also had the opportunity to go shoulder to shoulder with USAID as the lead for two startup enablers. We joined forces in the STRIDE program that bolstered entrepreneurship and innovation.

‘From the American People’

The upshot is that USAID embodied for us the very best ideals of America, It created an aura of goodwill between our countries. More tangibly, it helped the most vulnerable of the vulnerable, all while building demand for American knowhow and products.

All of these programs abruptly ended this year, and almost everyone I knew at USAID packed up and headed home. Some 1,600 USAID employees, as the first step in a “reduction-in-force,” were placed on “administrative leave globally.”

Last month, MaryKay Carlson, U.S. Ambassador to the Philippines, formally brought down the curtain on this long-standing lifeline between our two countries. She hosted a farewell party at her residence with members of USAID’s local staff to celebrate the partnership. I attended what felt less like a divorce than a wake.

After the party and all of its speeches, someone handed me a bag filled with mementoes of USAID’s role in the Philippines—a pen, a mug, a calendar, a book that captured its many achievements, all inscribed with the USAID motto, “From the American People.” As I walked out into the humid tropical night, I clutched the bag with a tight grip feeling the utmost gratitude to America and all Americans.

Even in the face of this disappointment, as someone with a bilateral perspective whose life has straddled both countries, I’m still hopeful that the U.S. and the Philippines will remain on friendly terms—and more tangibly, that the U.S. State Department will resume USAID’s heroic crusade.

In an address to Congress about foreign aid, President Kennedy said, “We have not only obligations to fulfill, we have great opportunities to realize.” Months later, as he launched USAID, he echoed those words with a message we would do well to heed today. He said, “The people who are opposed to aid should realize that this is a very powerful source of strength for us…It permits us to exert influence for the maintenance of freedom…As we do not want to send American troops to many areas, we send you.”

The opinions expressed in Fortune.com commentary pieces are solely the views of their authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and beliefs of Fortune.



Source link

Related Topics:
Continue Reading

Business

Senate Dems’ plan to fix Obamacare premiums adds nearly $300 billion to deficit, CRFB says

Published

14 minutes ago

on

December 5, 2025

By



The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB) is a nonpartisan watchdog that regularly estimates how much the U.S. Congress is adding to the $38 trillion national debt.

With enhanced Affordable Care Act (ACA) subsidies due to expire within days, some Senate Democrats are scrambling to protect millions of Americans from getting the unpleasant holiday gift of spiking health insurance premiums. The CRFB says there’s just one problem with the plan: It’s not funded.

“With the national debt as large as the economy and interest payments costing $1 trillion annually, it is absurd to suggest adding hundreds of billions more to the debt,” CRFB President Maya MacGuineas wrote in a statement on Friday afternoon.

The proposal, backed by members of the Senate Democratic caucus, would fully extend the enhanced ACA subsidies for three years, from 2026 through 2028, with no additional income limits on who can qualify. Those subsidies, originally boosted during the pandemic and later renewed, were designed to lower premiums and prevent coverage losses for middle‑ and lower‑income households purchasing insurance on the ACA exchanges.

CRFB estimated that even this three‑year extension alone would add roughly $300 billion to federal deficits over the next decade, largely because the federal government would continue to shoulder a larger share of premium costs while enrollment and subsidy amounts remain elevated. If Congress ultimately moves to make the enhanced subsidies permanent—as many advocates have urged—the total cost could swell to nearly $550 billion in additional borrowing over the next decade.

Reversing recent guardrails

MacGuineas called the Senate bill “far worse than even a debt-financed extension” as it would roll back several “program integrity” measures that were enacted as part of a 2025 reconciliation law and were intended to tighten oversight of ACA subsidies. On top of that, it would be funded by borrowing even more. “This is a bad idea made worse,” MacGuineas added.

The watchdog group’s central critique is that the new Senate plan does not attempt to offset its costs through spending cuts or new revenue and, in their view, goes beyond a simple extension by expanding the underlying subsidy structure.

The legislation would permanently repeal restrictions that eliminated subsidies for certain groups enrolling during special enrollment periods and would scrap rules requiring full repayment of excess advance subsidies and stricter verification of eligibility and tax reconciliation. The bill would also nullify portions of a 2025 federal regulation that loosened limits on the actuarial value of exchange plans and altered how subsidies are calculated, effectively reshaping how generous plans can be and how federal support is determined. CRFB warned these reversals would increase costs further while weakening safeguards designed to reduce misuse and error in the subsidy system.

MacGuineas said that any subsidy extension should be paired with broader reforms to curb health spending and reduce overall borrowing. In her view, lawmakers are missing a chance to redesign ACA support in a way that lowers premiums while also improving the long‑term budget outlook.

The debate over ACA subsidies recently contributed to a government funding standoff, and CRFB argued that the new Senate bill reflects a political compromise that prioritizes short‑term relief over long‑term fiscal responsibility.

“After a pointless government shutdown over this issue, it is beyond disappointing that this is the preferred solution to such an important issue,” MacGuineas wrote.

The off-year elections cast the government shutdown and cost-of-living arguments in a different light. Democrats made stunning gains and almost flipped a deep-red district in Tennessee as politicians from the far left and center coalesced around “affordability.”

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer is reportedly smelling blood in the water and doubling down on the theme heading into the pivotal midterm elections of 2026. President Donald Trump is scheduled to visit Pennsylvania soon to discuss pocketbook anxieties. But he is repeating predecessor Joe Biden’s habit of dismissing inflation, despite widespread evidence to the contrary.

“We fixed inflation, and we fixed almost everything,” Trump said in a Tuesday cabinet meeting, in which he also dismissed affordability as a “hoax” pushed by Democrats.​

Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle now face a politically fraught choice: allow premiums to jump sharply—including in swing states like Pennsylvania where ACA enrollees face double‑digit increases—or pass an expensive subsidy extension that would, as CRFB calculates, explode the deficit without addressing underlying health care costs.



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

Netflix–Warner Bros. deal sets up $72 billion antitrust test

Published

45 minutes ago

on

December 5, 2025

By



Netflix Inc. has won the heated takeover battle for Warner Bros. Discovery Inc. Now it must convince global antitrust regulators that the deal won’t give it an illegal advantage in the streaming market. 

The $72 billion tie-up joins the world’s dominant paid streaming service with one of Hollywood’s most iconic movie studios. It would reshape the market for online video content by combining the No. 1 streaming player with the No. 4 service HBO Max and its blockbuster hits such as Game Of Thrones, Friends, and the DC Universe comics characters franchise.  

That could raise red flags for global antitrust regulators over concerns that Netflix would have too much control over the streaming market. The company faces a lengthy Justice Department review and a possible US lawsuit seeking to block the deal if it doesn’t adopt some remedies to get it cleared, analysts said.

“Netflix will have an uphill climb unless it agrees to divest HBO Max as well as additional behavioral commitments — particularly on licensing content,” said Bloomberg Intelligence analyst Jennifer Rie. “The streaming overlap is significant,” she added, saying the argument that “the market should be viewed more broadly is a tough one to win.”

By choosing Netflix, Warner Bros. has jilted another bidder, Paramount Skydance Corp., a move that risks touching off a political battle in Washington. Paramount is backed by the world’s second-richest man, Larry Ellison, and his son, David Ellison, and the company has touted their longstanding close ties to President Donald Trump. Their acquisition of Paramount, which closed in August, has won public praise from Trump. 

Comcast Corp. also made a bid for Warner Bros., looking to merge it with its NBCUniversal division.

The Justice Department’s antitrust division, which would review the transaction in the US, could argue that the deal is illegal on its face because the combined market share would put Netflix well over a 30% threshold.

The White House, the Justice Department and Comcast didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment. 

US lawmakers from both parties, including Republican Representative Darrell Issa and Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren have already faulted the transaction — which would create a global streaming giant with 450 million users — as harmful to consumers.

“This deal looks like an anti-monopoly nightmare,” Warren said after the Netflix announcement. Utah Senator Mike Lee, a Republican, said in a social media post earlier this week that a Warner Bros.-Netflix tie-up would raise more serious competition questions “than any transaction I’ve seen in about a decade.”

European Union regulators are also likely to subject the Netflix proposal to an intensive review amid pressure from legislators. In the UK, the deal has already drawn scrutiny before the announcement, with House of Lords member Baroness Luciana Berger pressing the government on how the transaction would impact competition and consumer prices.

The combined company could raise prices and broadly impact “culture, film, cinemas and theater releases,”said Andreas Schwab, a leading member of the European Parliament on competition issues, after the announcement.

Paramount has sought to frame the Netflix deal as a non-starter. “The simple truth is that a deal with Netflix as the buyer likely will never close, due to antitrust and regulatory challenges in the United States and in most jurisdictions abroad,” Paramount’s antitrust lawyers wrote to their counterparts at Warner Bros. on Dec. 1.

Appealing directly to Trump could help Netflix avoid intense antitrust scrutiny, New Street Research’s Blair Levin wrote in a note on Friday. Levin said it’s possible that Trump could come to see the benefit of switching from a pro-Paramount position to a pro-Netflix position. “And if he does so, we believe the DOJ will follow suit,” Levin wrote.

Netflix co-Chief Executive Officer Ted Sarandos had dinner with Trump at the president’s Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida last December, a move other CEOs made after the election in order to win over the administration. In a call with investors Friday morning, Sarandos said that he’s “highly confident in the regulatory process,” contending the deal favors consumers, workers and innovation. 

“Our plans here are to work really closely with all the appropriate governments and regulators, but really confident that we’re going to get all the necessary approvals that we need,” he said.

Netflix will likely argue to regulators that other video services such as Google’s YouTube and ByteDance Ltd.’s TikTok should be included in any analysis of the market, which would dramatically shrink the company’s perceived dominance.

The US Federal Communications Commission, which regulates the transfer of broadcast-TV licenses, isn’t expected to play a role in the deal, as neither hold such licenses. Warner Bros. plans to spin off its cable TV division, which includes channels such as CNN, TBS and TNT, before the sale.

Even if antitrust reviews just focus on streaming, Netflix believes it will ultimately prevail, pointing to Amazon.com Inc.’s Prime and Walt Disney Co. as other major competitors, according to people familiar with the company’s thinking. 

Netflix is expected to argue that more than 75% of HBO Max subscribers already subscribe to Netflix, making them complementary offerings rather than competitors, said the people, who asked not to be named discussing confidential deliberations. The company is expected to make the case that reducing its content costs through owning Warner Bros., eliminating redundant back-end technology and bundling Netflix with Max will yield lower prices.



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

The rise of AI reasoning models comes with a big energy tradeoff

Published

1 hour ago

on

December 5, 2025

By



Nearly all leading artificial intelligence developers are focused on building AI models that mimic the way humans reason, but new research shows these cutting-edge systems can be far more energy intensive, adding to concerns about AI’s strain on power grids.

AI reasoning models used 30 times more power on average to respond to 1,000 written prompts than alternatives without this reasoning capability or which had it disabled, according to a study released Thursday. The work was carried out by the AI Energy Score project, led by Hugging Face research scientist Sasha Luccioni and Salesforce Inc. head of AI sustainability Boris Gamazaychikov.

The researchers evaluated 40 open, freely available AI models, including software from OpenAI, Alphabet Inc.’s Google and Microsoft Corp. Some models were found to have a much wider disparity in energy consumption, including one from Chinese upstart DeepSeek. A slimmed-down version of DeepSeek’s R1 model used just 50 watt hours to respond to the prompts when reasoning was turned off, or about as much power as is needed to run a 50 watt lightbulb for an hour. With the reasoning feature enabled, the same model required 7,626 watt hours to complete the tasks.

The soaring energy needs of AI have increasingly come under scrutiny. As tech companies race to build more and bigger data centers to support AI, industry watchers have raised concerns about straining power grids and raising energy costs for consumers. A Bloomberg investigation in September found that wholesale electricity prices rose as much as 267% over the past five years in areas near data centers. There are also environmental drawbacks, as Microsoft, Google and Amazon.com Inc. have previously acknowledged the data center buildout could complicate their long-term climate objectives. 

More than a year ago, OpenAI released its first reasoning model, called o1. Where its prior software replied almost instantly to queries, o1 spent more time computing an answer before responding. Many other AI companies have since released similar systems, with the goal of solving more complex multistep problems for fields like science, math and coding.

Though reasoning systems have quickly become the industry norm for carrying out more complicated tasks, there has been little research into their energy demands. Much of the increase in power consumption is due to reasoning models generating much more text when responding, the researchers said. 

The new report aims to better understand how AI energy needs are evolving, Luccioni said. She also hopes it helps people better understand that there are different types of AI models suited to different actions. Not every query requires tapping the most computationally intensive AI reasoning systems.

“We should be smarter about the way that we use AI,” Luccioni said. “Choosing the right model for the right task is important.”

To test the difference in power use, the researchers ran all the models on the same computer hardware. They used the same prompts for each, ranging from simple questions — such as asking which team won the Super Bowl in a particular year — to more complex math problems. They also used a software tool called CodeCarbon to track how much energy was being consumed in real time.

The results varied considerably. The researchers found one of Microsoft’s Phi 4 reasoning models used 9,462 watt hours with reasoning turned on, compared with about 18 watt hours with it off. OpenAI’s largest gpt-oss model, meanwhile, had a less stark difference. It used 8,504 watt hours with reasoning on the most computationally intensive “high” setting and 5,313 watt hours with the setting turned down to “low.” 

OpenAI, Microsoft, Google and DeepSeek did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Google released internal research in August that estimated the median text prompt for its Gemini AI service used 0.24 watt-hours of energy, roughly equal to watching TV for less than nine seconds. Google said that figure was “substantially lower than many public estimates.” 

Much of the discussion about AI power consumption has focused on large-scale facilities set up to train artificial intelligence systems. Increasingly, however, tech firms are shifting more resources to inference, or the process of running AI systems after they’ve been trained. The push toward reasoning models is a big piece of that as these systems are more reliant on inference.

Recently, some tech leaders have acknowledged that AI’s power draw needs to be reckoned with. Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella said the industry must earn the “social permission to consume energy” for AI data centers in a November interview. To do that, he argued tech must use AI to do good and foster broad economic growth.



Source link

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © Miami Select.