Bill Gates just pulled the plug on a shadowy funding network that’s been funneling millions into progressive causes. The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation announced in late June that it’s severing ties with nonprofits managed by Arabella Advisors, a Washington, D.C.-based firm under fire for its political maneuvering, as the Daily Mail reports. This move shakes up a $77 billion philanthropy empire and raises questions about its future direction.
The Gates Foundation’s decision halts all grants to Arabella-managed entities, including the New Venture Fund, Sixteen Thirty Fund, and Windward Fund. Over 16 years, the foundation poured roughly $450 million into these groups, which handle everything from payroll to civic engagement for nonprofits. The shift aims to bypass intermediaries and work directly with grant recipients, a move that smells like a strategic retreat from controversy.
Arabella’s funds have long been a lightning rod for critics, especially those eyeing their “dark money” ties to Democratic Party causes. The Sixteen Thirty Fund, for instance, has funneled $97 million to super PACs backing Democrats and opposing Republicans since 2016. Meanwhile, the New Venture Fund has supported groups like Community Change, which funds protests against policies like President Trump’s National Guard deployment in D.C.
The Gates Foundation’s June 24 announcement framed the decision as a push for “deeper, more durable relationships” with community partners. That’s a polite way of saying they’re dodging a political minefield. With President Donald Trump threatening philanthropists tied to progressive policies, Gates seems keen to shield his foundation’s tax-exempt status.
“Teams are increasingly working directly with programmatic partners,” the foundation declared, emphasizing mission alignment. Nice words, but they don’t erase the fact that Arabella’s operations have been a political hot potato. The foundation’s pivot suggests it’s more worried about scrutiny than it’s letting on.
A Gates Foundation spokesperson called it “a business decision” tied to “strategic assessments.” That’s corporate-speak for covering their tracks. When your nonprofit is linked to protests and super PACs, “business as usual” starts looking like a liability.
Arabella Advisors claims it merely “provides operational support” to clients chasing social change, per Megan Cartier, its chief marketing officer. She insists they don’t engage in politics or make grants. Yet, the millions flowing through their funds to Democratic causes tell a different story.
The New Venture Fund, for example, received a $41 million Gates grant in November for women’s health initiatives. But it also bankrolls Community Change, which backs Free DC’s activism against Trump’s National Guard moves. That’s not exactly apolitical.
“DC is facing shootings, carjackings, and assaults,” said Caitlin Sutherland of Americans for Public Trust, “yet progressive groups… spend millions to manufacture protests.” She’s not wrong -- Arabella’s network has been a cash pipeline for causes that thrive on chaos, not solutions.
Some nonprofits are already cutting ties with Arabella to stay in Gates’ good graces. Others were planning exits anyway, fearing asset freezes or investigations under Trump’s administration. The Gates Foundation’s decision seems less like a bold stand and more like a calculated dodge.
Lee Bodner, president of the New Venture Fund, claimed their work remains “nonpartisan” and vital. He even boasted that Gates is still a partner. That’s a brave face for a group watching its funding lifeline fray.
“Our work continues to expand,” Bodner told the New York Times, insisting their mission is stronger than ever. But when your biggest backer pulls out, that’s less a vote of confidence and more a warning shot.
Bill Gates is clearly circling the wagons to protect his foundation’s legacy. The move to de-emphasize diversity, equity, and inclusion causes shows he’s reading the political tea leaves. With Trump targeting nonprofits tied to progressive agendas, Gates isn’t taking chances.
The foundation’s refusal to extend existing grants or make new investments with Arabella signals a broader retreat from risky intermediaries. It’s a pragmatic play, but it leaves progressive groups in the lurch. Good luck finding another sugar daddy with $450 million to spare.
This shake-up proves one thing: even billionaires like Gates can’t ignore the heat from a resurgent conservative pushback. As scrutiny of “dark money” grows, expect more philanthropists to rethink their alliances. The days of unchecked progressive funding networks might just be numbered.
