
Climate Group Funded by Bill Gates Slashes Staff in Major Retreat
Breakthrough Energy, an umbrella organization funded by Bill Gates that works on a sprawling range of climate issues, announced deep cuts to its operations in an internal memo on Tuesday.
Dozens of staff were cut, including Breakthrough Energy's unit in Europe, its team in the United States working on public policy issues and most of its employees working on partnerships with other climate organizations, according to three people familiar with the matter who were not authorized to speak publicly.
The change shows how Mr. Gates is retooling his empire for the Trump era. With Republicans controlling both houses of Congress and the White House, Mr. Gates calculated that the Breakthrough policy team in the United States was not likely to have a significant effect in Washington, said the people familiar with his thinking. The U.S. policy team was also one of the largest and most expensive parts of the organization.
'Bill Gates remains as committed as ever to advancing the clean energy innovations needed to address climate change,' a spokeswoman for Mr. Gates said in a statement when asked about the cuts. 'His work in this area will continue and is focused on helping drive reliable affordable, clean energy solutions that will enable people everywhere to thrive.'
Mr. Gates, a co-founder of Microsoft and one of the richest men in the world, has poured billions of dollars from his own fortune into efforts to combat climate change. With books, public appearances and a high-profile campaign to support clean energy entrepreneurs over the past decade, he has established himself as one of the leading voices pushing businesses and government to address the threats of a rapidly warming world.
Winding down much of the Breakthrough Energy team's work is a sharp reversal for Mr. Gates and reflects a rapidly-shifting landscape in politics, philanthropy, climate change and global development.
President Trump is dismantling the federal government's capacity to address climate change, and he is significantly cutting support for clean energy while promoting gas, oil and coal, the burning of which is dangerously heating the planet.
Instead of trying to influence policy, Mr. Gates is now focused on building clean energy companies through the Breakthrough Energy Catalyst program, Breakthrough Energy Ventures and the Breakthrough Energy Fellows, the people familiar with the matter said. Those efforts, which fund start-up companies and entrepreneurs working on a range of renewable technologies, were not affected by the cuts.
The emphasis on clean energy production could be in line with Mr. Trump's interest in 'American energy dominance.' Mr. Trump declared a 'national energy emergency' on his first day in office, and his administration says it wants to expand American energy production at a moment when demand for electricity is rising sharply.
Mr. Gates, who resisted partisan politics for almost his entire career, was deeply concerned about the 2024 election and how a victory by Mr. Trump could set back progress on climate and global health. Mr. Gates donated about $50 million to a political nonprofit supporting Kamala Harris's presidential bid.
'I support candidates who demonstrate a clear commitment to improving health care, reducing poverty and fighting climate change in the U.S. and around the world,' Mr. Gates told The Times last year. 'I have a long history of working with leaders across the political spectrum, but this election is different, with unprecedented significance for Americans and the most vulnerable people around the world.'
After Mr. Trump's win, Mr. Gates has tried to make amends. Like other tech billionaires, he traveled to Mar-a-Lago for a three-hour dinner during the transition period and said publicly he was 'impressed' by Mr. Trump's interest in his global-health priorities, although he did not say if they discussed climate change during the meeting.
But Mr. Gates has been caught off guard by Mr. Trump's complete dismantling of the United States Agency for International Development, which provided medical assistance to vulnerable people around the world, according to one person familiar with his thinking.
Mr. Gates's foundation shares many grant recipients with U.S.A.I.D., and he has predicted 'millions of deaths' if the cuts are not restored. There have been appeals made to Mr. Gates to try to use his foundation, which has almost a $9 billion budget, to fill the vacuum being left by the aid agency, which disburses about $40 billion a year. But the foundation has warned its grant recipients that it cannot make up such a large gap.
But on climate change, Mr. Gates has not been as outspoken. Like other billionaires and chief executives who once spoke up loudly about climate change, Mr. Gates went silent in the face of Mr. Trump's early efforts to reduce federal support for clean energy, promote fossil fuels and dismantle the government programs aimed at addressing climate change.
Philanthropists and donors are concerned that Mr. Trump might come after their foundations. Mr. Gates has been viciously attacked by Elon Musk, one of Mr. Trump's closest advisers.
Mr. Gates's personal life and philanthropy have been in some upheaval since his divorce from Melinda French Gates, who ran the foundation with him but stepped down from the post last year. Warren Buffett, the billionaire founder of Berkshire Hathaway who has worked closely with Mr. Gates on charitable efforts, resigned from the foundation in 2021.
There had been recent signs of turmoil at Breakthrough Energy. Last month, Heatmap News reported that the group was slashing its grant making budget. There were also a smaller number of staff cuts in recent months, including employees who ran the Breakthrough Energy Summit, a lavish event that took place last year in London.
In an essay describing how he became interested in climate change and why he founded Breakthrough Energy, Mr. Gates said that he hoped to accelerate the deployment of solutions.
'Climate change is already affecting most people's lives, and when we think about the impact on our families and future generations, it can feel overwhelming,' he wrote. 'The scale and speed of the transformation required to build a clean energy future is unprecedented.'
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Axios
26 minutes ago
- Axios
Amid backlash, Tesla remained resilient in Texas
Even as Tesla deliveries plunged nationally this year amid Elon Musk's very visible (if short-lived) alliance with President Trump, there was at least one state where Tesla registrations were up: Texas. Why it matters: The registration data, obtained by Axios through public information requests, indicates loyalty to the brand in its home base, including Texas' large urban and suburban counties. The depth of conservatives' enthusiasm for Musk's automobiles now faces a major test amid the absolute meltdown last week between the Tesla CEO and the president. By the numbers: Texans registered 12,918 new Teslas in the first three months of 2025, a period when Musk, who contributed more than $250 million to a pro-Trump super PAC during the 2024 election campaign, was enmeshed in the Trump administration as the overseer of DOGE, the president's cost-cutting initiative. Over the same period in 2024, Texans registered 10,679 Teslas. That's a 21% increase year over year. The intrigue: The spike in Texas registrations came as Tesla was flailing elsewhere. Tesla's vehicle deliveries plunged 13% globally in the first quarter of 2025 (336,681 electric vehicles) compared with Q1 2024 (386,810). Tesla vehicles were torched at showrooms and the brand's reputation cratered. Zoom in: Tesla saw year-over-year improvements in its sales in some of the most populous Texas counties. In Travis County, new Tesla registrations grew from 1,369 in the first quarter of 2024 to 1,424 during the first quarter of 2025. In Harris County, they grew from 1,526 to 1,837 during the same period. Tesla registration grew from 1,316 to 1,546 in Collin County and from 990 to 1,146 in Dallas County. In Bexar County, registrations grew from 631 to 664. What they're saying:"It's homegrown pride," is how Matt Holm, president and founder of the Tesla Owners Club of Austin, explains the car company's resilience to Axios. "And regardless of all the drama going on these days, people can differentiate between the product and everything else going on, and it's just a great product." "Elon has absolutely and irreversibly blown up bridges to some potential customers," says Alexander Edwards, president of California-based research firm Strategic Vision, which has long surveyed the motivations of car buyers. "People who bought Teslas for environmental friendliness, that's pretty much gone," Edwards tells Axios. Yes, but: The company had been enjoying an increasingly positive reputation among more conservative consumers. Musk was viewed favorably by 80% of Texas Republicans polled by the Texas Politics Project in April — and unfavorably by 83% of Democrats. In what now feels like a political lifetime ago, Trump himself even promoted Teslas by promising to buy one in support of Musk earlier this year. "In some pockets, like Austin, you have that tech group that loves what Tesla has to offer, can do some mental gymnastics about Musk, and looks at Rivian and says that's not what I want or might be priced out," Edwards says. Between the lines:"Being in the state of Texas, you're naturally conditioned to think you're better than everyone else in the U.S. And when you buy a Tesla" — a status symbol — "that's what you're saying. It doesn't surprise me that there's an increase in sales" in Texas, Edwards says. Plus: Tesla's resilience in Texas could have practical reasons as well, Edwards says. Texas homes — as opposed to, say, apartments in cities on the East Coast — are more likely to have a garage to charge a car in, he adds. What's next: Musk said late last month that Tesla was experiencing a "major rebound in demand" — without providing specifics. But that was before things went absolutely haywire with Trump and Tesla stock took a bath last week.
Yahoo
28 minutes ago
- Yahoo
This AI Company Wants Washington To Keep Its Competitors Off the Market
Dario Amodei, CEO of the artificial intelligence company Anthropic, published a guest essay in The New York Times Thursday arguing against a proposed 10-year moratorium on state AI regulation. Amodei argues that a patchwork of regulations would be better than no regulation whatsoever. Skepticism is warranted whenever the head of an incumbent firm calls for more regulation, and this case is no different. If Amodei gets his way, Anthropic would face less competition—to the detriment of AI innovation, AI security, and the consumer. Amodei's op-ed came in a response to a provision of the so-called One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which would prevent any states, cities, and counties from enforcing any regulation that specifically targets AI models, AI systems, or automated decision systems for 10 years. Senate Republicans have amended the clause from a simple requirement to a condition for receiving federal broadband funds, in order to comply with the Byrd Rule, which in Politico's words "blocks anything but budgetary issues from inclusion in reconciliation." Amodei begins by describing how, in a recent stress test conducted at his company, a chatbot threatened an experimenter to forward evidence of his adultery to his wife unless he withdrew plans to shut the AI down. The CEO also raises more tangible concerns, such as reports that a version of Google's Gemini model is "approaching a point where it could help people carry out cyberattacks." Matthew Mittelsteadt, a technology fellow at the Cato Institute, tells Reason that the stress test was "very contrived" and that "there are no AI systems where you must prompt it to turn it off." You can just turn it off. He also acknowledges that, while there is "a real cybersecurity danger [of] AI being used to spot and exploit cyber-vulnerabilities, it can also be used to spot and patch" them. Outside of cyberspace and in, well, actual space, Amodei sounds the alarm that AI could acquire the ability "to produce biological and other weapons." But there's nothing new about that: Knowledge and reasoning, organic or artificial—ultimately wielded by people in either case—can be used to cause problems as well as to solve them. An AI that can model three-dimensional protein structures to create cures for previously untreatable diseases can also create virulent, lethal pathogens. Amodei recognizes the double-edged nature of AI and says voluntary model evaluation and publication are insufficient to ensure that benefits outweigh costs. Instead of a 10-year moratorium, Amodei calls on the White House and Congress to work together on a transparency standard for AI companies. In lieu of federal testing standards, Amodei says state laws should pick up the slack without being "overly prescriptive or burdensome." But that caveat is exactly the kind of wishful thinking Amodei indicts proponents of the moratorium for: Not only would 50 state transparency laws be burdensome, says Mittelsteadt, but they could "actually make models less legible." Neil Chilson of the Abundance Institute also inveighed against Amodei's call for state-level regulation, which is much more onerous than Amodei suggests. "The leading state proposals…include audit requirements, algorithmic assessments, consumer disclosures, and some even have criminal penalties," Chilson tweeted, so "the real debate isn't 'transparency vs. nothing,' but 'transparency-only federal floor vs. intrusive state regimes with audits, liability, and even criminal sanctions.'" Mittelsteadt thinks national transparency regulation is "absolutely the way to go." But how the U.S. chooses to regulate AI might not have much bearing on Skynet-doomsday scenarios, because, while America leads the way in AI, it's not the only player in the game. "If bad actors abroad create Amodei's theoretical 'kill everyone bot,' no [American] law will matter," says Mittelsteadt. But such a law can "stand in the way of good actors using these tools for defense." Amodei is not the only CEO of a leading AI company to call for regulation. In 2023, Sam Altman, co-founder and then-CEO of Open AI, called on lawmakers to consider "intergovernmental oversight mechanisms and standard-setting" of AI. In both cases and in any others that come along, the public should beware of calls for AI regulation that will foreclose market entry, protect incumbent firms' profits from being bid away by competitors, and reduce the incentives to maintain market share the benign way: through innovation and product differentiation. The post This AI Company Wants Washington To Keep Its Competitors Off the Market appeared first on
Yahoo
28 minutes ago
- Yahoo
California City Terminates 'Divisive' ICE Contract Amid L.A. Protests
Glendale, California, which is located just minutes from Los Angeles where anti-ICE protests erupted this weekend, has decided to end a contract with Immigration and Customs Enforcement to hold detainees in its jail. In a press release Sunday, city officials said that 'public perception of the ICE contract—no matter how limited or carefully managed, no matter the good—has become divisive.' 'And while opinions on this issue may vary—the decision to terminate this contract is not politically driven. It is rooted in what this City stands for—public safety, local accountability, and trust,' the statement said. Ahead of the unrest in Los Angeles, Glendale had come under some scrutiny over a 2007 contract to house ICE detainees despite a 2018 sanctuary state law ensuring that no local law enforcement resources are used for the purpose of immigration enforcement. In one year, the city collected $6,000 to house ICE detainees, and The Los Angeles Times reported that the city receives $85 per detainee per day. In the last week, two ICE detainees were held in Glendale's detention center, leading to an outcry over the city's potentially unlawful compliance, as the Trump administration has moved to increase the number of daily ICE arrests. But it seems that Glendale will no longer be complicit in the Trump administration's immigration crackdown. The statement continued, emphasizing that local law enforcement was not responsible for enforcing immigration law, and that the city would remain in compliance with the law. 'The Glendale Police Department has not engaged in immigration enforcement, nor will it do so moving forward,' the statement said. Just a few miles away in downtown Los Angeles, massive anti-ICE protests are still ongoing after immigration authorities arrested at least 44 immigrants Friday. In response to the protests, Donald Trump bypassed California Governor Gavin Newsom to deploy the National Guard, which has used tear gas, flash grenades, and rubber bullets against the protesters and journalists. The decision on behalf of Glendale is a victory for the protestors, and a clear response to the ongoing direct action in Los Angeles, as well as the Trump administration's escalating efforts to conduct mass deportations of undocumented immigrants.