The image of the world's richest man killing millions of innocent children would undoubtedly shake the world. In fact, it did. Protestors rallied in Washington D.C. and staged demonstrations in a Capitol office. The elimination of USAID instigated by Elon Musk earlier this year has prompted several foreign aid advocates to speak out about the consequences of such a decision. One of them was Bill Gates, who accused Musk of personally contributing to the world’s instability and advised him to “go in and meet the children that have now been infected with HIV because he cut that money.”

Some USAID programs did receive a portion of fair criticism for being too political. The agency was far from being perfect like any institution. However, the complete dismantling of USAID has led to far more severe consequences for the whole world. The U.S. was the second world's largest donor to developing countries. Upon taking office, Mr. Musk quickly moved to eliminate existing programs, halting critical aid that provided food, medicine, and education, which can
potentially lead to 14 million deaths globally.

Let's imagine that instead of Elon Musk destroying foreign assistance programs, another billionaire had the chance to reform them for the better.

In 2000, Bill and Melinda Gates launched the Gates Foundation, the third-largest charitable organization in the world. For over 25 years, they have partnered with USAID and other foreign assistance programs to combat global poverty, promote world health, and fight diseases. The Gates Foundation pioneered the development of the Global Fund to Fight Aids, Tuberculosis and Malaria and Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, which have collectively saved tens of millions of lives.

If given an opportunity, Bill Gates would have introduced a long-term developmental approach with a specific emphasis on localization.

Imperfect USAID.
One of the most pronounced controversies surrounding foreign aid has been whether aid properly addresses the cause or merely treats the symptoms. In the Goalkeepers report in 2022, Gates said, “The goal [of food aid] should not simply be giving more food aid. It should be to ensure no aid is needed in the first place. The main issue here is that such an approach does not introduce local organizations in the process, meaning the system, where the problem arose in the first place, is left unchanged, and the issue is likely to occur
again requiring international assistance.

Solution?
A long-term developmental approach emphasizes localized solutions, investment in local economies, and multilateral cooperation with the most effective partners—including American contractors, international NGOs, and local organizations. This is exactly the approach that has been used by the Gates Foundation since its establishment in 2000.

The Gates Foundation exemplifies this model through its commitment to sustainable, multifaceted solutions rooted in local partnerships. Its collaboration with several local NGOs has contributed to the near-eradication of polio in Africa. They invested in nontraditional strategies – like funding vaccine research and establishing emergency operations centers in high-risk countries. Beyond vaccination campaigns and routine immunizations, they strengthened surveillance, supported outbreak response, and rallied political and financial backing for global eradication. This strategy signifies a multi-step approach to addressing a worldwide issue like polio. It also restates the importance of direct involvement of local organizations and international cooperation that influence the country’s educational and political systems.

The now dismantled agency could have certainly benefited from this approach. The developmental focus of USAID would have boosted the recipient’s economy by using local expertise, establishing long-term systems, and ensuring educational exchange rather than short-term profit of American contractors. As a result, it would have created markets that American companies could enter more effectively in the future and contribute positively to global well-being. Unfortunately, presently we speak only in conditionals, using the language of “what might have been”, since we cannot rewrite the past. However, as we look to rebuild smarter aid institutions, this story should emphasize the importance of developmental programs that A4AL strives to promote. Development is a key strategy.