Rubio Rejects Gates Plea To Reverse Musk's Foreign Aid Cuts
On June 6, 2025, billionaire philanthropist Bill Gates made a discreet stop at the White House to press Secretary of State Marco Rubio to roll back steep reductions to foreign aid instituted by Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). The cuts—totaling $8–9 billion—hit hard at USAID programs focused on HIV, AIDS, malaria, and other critical health initiatives in Africa.
The visit, first reported by veteran political journalist Tara Palmeri in her Red Letter newsletter, came just hours after former President Trump departed for Bedminster. Palmeri noted that Gates was seen entering the Eisenhower Executive Office Building around 4 p.m., reportedly in a last-ditch effort to capitalize on the Trump–Musk political rift, which had spilled into public view days earlier.
'With Musk on the outs, Gates clearly saw an opportunity to argue for the reversal of the DOGE cuts,' Palmeri reported.
What did Rubio say?
Despite the high-level ask, Rubio held the line. According to Palmeri's sources, Rubio told Gates plainly: 'The country is insolvent. We can't pay back our debts.' A senior State Department official confirmed the meeting and emphasized that Rubio sees no justification for restoring the aid programs Musk dismantled.
'The Secretary's position on making important and necessary cuts to foreign aid has not changed,' the official told the New York Post. 'He does not believe U.S. taxpayers should be burdened with covering the costs for progressive projects abroad, including funding contraceptives, electric buses, and DEI.'
Rubio's view reflects the broader Trump-era stance that foreign aid should only fund 'true lifesaving programs' that align with direct U.S. interests.
Why it matters now
USAID—which once managed over $40 billion and employed more than 10,000 people—has undergone dramatic restructuring. On March 28, the State Department officially shuttered the agency following a court ruling upholding the DOGE-led cuts. As of June 10, Rubio ordered the termination of all remaining overseas USAID staff, fully consolidating aid efforts under State Department control.
Humanitarian fallout
An analysis from The Times of London estimated that the DOGE cuts could contribute to as many as 300,000 global deaths, with over 200,000 children potentially affected by disruptions to malaria, HIV, and maternal health programs. The figure, based on modeling by Boston University's Brook Nichols, has been widely circulated by global health advocates and activists.
But the number remains highly disputed.
In testimony before the House Foreign Affairs Committee on May 21, Secretary of State Marco Rubio flatly rejected the claim:
'No one has died because of USAID [cuts],' he said, dismissing the figure as misleading and unsupported by evidence.
Rubio and others in the administration argue that much of the spending eliminated had little to do with urgent, lifesaving care and was instead tied to ideological or bureaucratic programs that failed to serve core U.S. interests.
Despite the warnings from aid groups, the administration contends that strategic reductions are both fiscally necessary and morally responsible in the context of record federal debt and public skepticism about global spending.
What's next?
Legal pushback: Multiple lawsuits are challenging the legality of DOGE's actions, including one from a coalition of NGOs and USAID staff arguing the agency's dismantling violates Congressional authority.
Legislative efforts: Quiet efforts are underway in the Senate to reauthorize a scaled-down version of USAID's health division, possibly under new branding.
Public pressure: Gates is expected to increase visibility around the issue, and has already hinted at launching a global campaign to restore bipartisan support for foreign aid.
Bill Gates' private appeal to Secretary Rubio was a high-stakes intervention aimed at stopping what many global health leaders are calling a humanitarian disaster. But the Trump administration, bolstered by Musk's cost-cutting playbook and Rubio's ideological resolve, is signaling no intention to reverse course.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
35 minutes ago
- Yahoo
US Senate Republicans seek to limit judges' power via Trump's tax-cut bill
By Nate Raymond (Reuters) -U.S. Senate Republicans have added language to President Donald Trump's massive tax and spending bill that would restrict the ability of judges to block government policies they conclude are unlawful. Text of the Republican-led U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee's contribution to the bill released by its chair, Senator Chuck Grassley, late on Thursday would limit the ability of judges to issue preliminary injunctions blocking federal policies unless the party suing posts a bond to cover the government's costs if the ruling is later overturned. The bond requirement in the Senate's version of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act is different from the provision the Republican-controlled House of Representatives included when it passed the bill last month that would curb courts' power in a different way. The House version curtails the ability of judges to enforce orders holding officials in contempt if they violate injunctions. Judges use contempt orders to bring parties into compliance, usually by ratcheting up measures from fines to jail time. Some judges who have blocked Trump administration actions have said officials are at risk of being held in contempt for not complying with their orders. Congressional Republicans have called for banning or curtailing nationwide injunctions blocking government policies after key parts of Trump's agenda have been stymied by such court rulings. The House in April voted 219-213 along largely party lines in favor of the No Rogue Rulings Act to do so, but the Senate has not yet taken up the measure. A White House memo in March directed heads of government agencies to request that plaintiffs post bonds if they are seeking an injunction against an agency policy. Such bonds can make obtaining an injunction a cost-prohibitive option in cases concerning multi-billion-dollar agenda items. Grassley's office said in a statement the language the Judiciary Committee proposed would ensure judges enforce an existing requirement that they make a party seeking a preliminary injunction provide a security bond to cover costs incurred by a defendant if a judge's ruling is later overturned. Judges rarely require such bonds when a lawsuit is not pitting two private parties against each other but instead challenging an alleged unlawful or unconstitutional government action. Several judges have denied the Trump administration's requests for bonds or issued nominal ones. Republicans, who control the Senate 53-47, are using complex budget rules to pass the One Big Beautiful Bill Act with a simple majority vote, rather than the 60 votes needed to advance most legislation in the 100-seat chamber. The Senate Judiciary Committee's piece of the bill would also provide the judiciary funding to study the costs to taxpayers associated with such injunctions and provide training for judges about the problems associated with them. A spokesperson for Senator Dick Durbin, the Senate Judiciary Committee's top Democrat, criticized the Republican-drafted legislative text, saying "Republicans are targeting nationwide injunctions because they're beholden to a president who is breaking the law — but the courts are not."
CNBC
41 minutes ago
- CNBC
U.S. judge blocks State Department's planned overhaul, mass layoffs
A federal judge in California on Friday temporarily blocked the U.S. State Department from implementing an agency-wide reorganization plan that includes 2,000 layoffs. U.S. District Judge Susan Illston in San Francisco during a virtual hearing said her May ruling barring federal agencies from laying off tens of thousands of employees at the direction of President Donald Trump applies to the planned overhaul announced by the State Department last month. U.S. Department of Justice lawyer Alexander Resar said in response that the State Department would not issue layoff notices that were scheduled to go out on Saturday. The State Department had argued that its reorganization plan submitted to Congress last month predated a February executive order and subsequent White House memo directing mass layoffs, placing it outside the scope of Illston's decision. The ruling came in a lawsuit by a group of unions, nonprofits and municipalities. The State Department and lawyers for the plaintiffs did not immediately respond to requests for comment. The Trump administration has already asked the U.S. Supreme Court to pause Illston's May decision while it appeals. Illston blocked about 20 federal agencies, including the State Department, from carrying out plans to downsize and restructure at Trump's direction, pending the outcome of the lawsuit. But the department told Congress in late May that it still planned to notify about 2,000 employees this month that they were being laid off and would reorganize or eliminate more than 300 bureaus and offices. The State Department in May said it would undertake its reorganization plan by July 1, and has not commented about the potential impact of the lawsuit. In a court filing on Friday, Daniel Holler, the deputy chief of staff to Secretary of State Marco Rubio, said the agency's plan was crafted by Rubio and a small group of advisers to streamline operations and not in response to any directive from Trump. Illston, in her May decision, said the White House cannot order the restructuring of federal agencies without authorization from Congress. The ruling was the broadest of its kind against the government overhaul that was spearheaded by Trump ally Elon Musk, the world's richest person, who had a swift and acrimonious falling out with the Republican president last week. Musk on Wednesday said he regretted some of the comments he had made about Trump in social media posts and deleted some of them, including one signaling support for Trump's impeachment.
The Hill
41 minutes ago
- The Hill
Fewer Republicans have ‘very favorable' views of Musk: Survey
Republican attitudes toward tech billionaire Elon Musk appear to have cooled after his bitter public row with President Trump last week, as a new poll found fewer saying they have 'very favorable' views of the former head of the White House's Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) compared to April. About a fourth of Republicans surveyed in the latest Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll said they have 'very favorable' views of Musk — down from 38 percent surveyed in April. But many of them appear to have shifted to a 'somewhat favorable' opinion of Musk, suggesting GOP supporters haven't completely rebuffed the world's wealthiest man. The AP poll found that while 29 percent of Republicans in April voiced mild support for Musk, the number climbed to 38 percent in June. Combined, the 'somewhat' and 'very' favorable opinions remained high and nearly unchanged — 64 percent this month to 67 percent in April. Ten percent of Republicans said they had 'very unfavorable' views of Musk in both polls; and 'somewhat unfavorable' ratings shifted by just three percentage points, from 15 percent in April to 18 percent in June. Musk was a top ally and campaign donor to Trump until a messy falling out rocked the White House, starting with Musk's criticism of the tax and spending megabill that carries much of Trump's domestic policy agenda. Trump and Musk's feud erupted with blistering public digs last Friday. Both have appeared to tone down the tension, with Musk issuing a mea culpa days after their relationship imploded. 'I regret some of my posts about President (Trump) last week. They went too far,' Musk wrote on on his social media platform X on Wednesday. Similar to Republicans, overall and Democratic views of Musk also showed little change, with majorities continuing to view him unfavorably. About a third of all adults surveyed this month said they have 'very' or 'somewhat' favorable opinions of Musk, while 32 percent held favorable opinions in April. Ten percent of Democrats surveyed said they had 'very' or 'somewhat' favorable views of Musk in June, compared to 9 percent in April. The AP poll was conducted June 5-9 and included results from 1,158 adults across all 50 states and Washington, D.C. The margin of error is 4 percentage points.
