Does Bill Gates Fund The Guardian? The Truth Behind the Funding

Bill Gates doesn’t personally write checks to The Guardian. But his foundation has given the newspaper over $12.9 million since 2010 to support its global development reporting. That’s not advertising. It’s not a donation with no strings. It’s a multi-year grant that funds an entire section of the paper - and it’s changed how news gets made.

How the Funding Started

In September 2010, The Guardian launched a new digital section called Global Development. The announcement came with a press release signed by both the newspaper’s CEO and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation’s CEO. The goal? To bring more attention to poverty, health, and education in the developing world - topics most mainstream outlets ignored because they didn’t drive clicks or ad revenue.

The foundation didn’t just give money. It gave structure. It paid for a team of about 12 full-time journalists, researchers, and editors. It funded travel, data tools, and reporting trips to places like Liberia, Malawi, and Bangladesh. Over the next decade, that team produced more than 2,300 articles on global health programs, education reforms, and agricultural aid - all under the Global Development banner.

What the Money Actually Bought

This wasn’t pay-per-article. It wasn’t sponsored content with a “paid post” label. It was institutional support. The Gates Foundation gave multi-year grants - $5.69 million alone was confirmed in The Guardian’s 2014 tax filings. The money went to cover salaries, equipment, and production costs for a dedicated vertical inside the newspaper.

The foundation didn’t demand editorial control. At least, not officially. Their public guidelines say: “We do not influence editorial content.” But internal documents leaked in 2019 show something else. Journalists in The Guardian’s Global Development team held meetings where they debated: “How critical can we be of Gates’ vaccine programs?” That’s not a question you ask if there’s zero pressure.

The Transparency Problem

For years, readers had no idea. Articles about Gates’ education projects in Africa or his push for standardized testing in schools didn’t mention that the foundation was paying the reporters writing them. In 2013, FAIR.org found a major article promoting Gates-backed reforms in Liberia that failed to disclose the funding. The piece didn’t mention Gates’ personal stake in the outcome - he was both the funder and the subject.

Public backlash grew. Media watchdogs like Project Censored and FAIR.org called it a conflict of interest. Readers complained. In 2014, the UK’s media regulator IPSO ruled that The Guardian had to make funding sources “clearly distinguishable.” So in 2015, they started labeling articles with: “Funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.”

But here’s the catch: most people still don’t notice. A 2023 Reuters Institute study found that 58% of regular Guardian readers were unaware of the funding. And among those who did find out, 47% said it made them less trusting of the reporting.

Who Else Gets This Kind of Funding?

The Guardian isn’t alone. The Gates Foundation has given over $319 million to news organizations worldwide since 2009. NPR got $24.6 million. Der Spiegel got $5.4 million. BBC got $3.6 million. The Guardian ranks fourth on that list.

But here’s what’s different: The Guardian is one of the few major newspapers that relies on this funding to keep an entire section alive. Without it, global development reporting would likely vanish - because it doesn’t make money. The Guardian itself reported a $75 million annual deficit in 2019. Philanthropy isn’t optional anymore. It’s survival.

The Conflict No One Wants to Talk About

When the same person who funds your reporting is also the subject of your reporting, something breaks. The Guardian has written hundreds of stories about Gates’ education initiatives, vaccine programs, and agricultural tech. But how many have asked: Are these ideas working? How many have dug into the failures?

In 2013, FAIR.org pointed out that while The Guardian covered Gates’ push for teacher evaluations in Liberia, they didn’t mention that the same system had led to worse outcomes in Washington D.C. schools - a fact documented by independent researchers. No critical follow-up. No deep dive. Just promotion.

Journalists at Gates-funded outlets report feeling pressure. A 2021 survey by the Online News Association found that 42% of reporters at these outlets felt they had to avoid criticizing the foundation’s priorities. In the wider industry? Just 12% said the same.

It’s not about lying. It’s about silence. The questions that could hurt the funder? They don’t get asked. The angles that make the foundation look bad? They get buried.

Has Anything Changed?

Yes - but not enough.

The Guardian has diversified. In 2014, Gates funding made up 34% of their philanthropic income. By 2022, it dropped to 12%. They’ve added support from the Ford Foundation and Open Society Foundations. They’ve improved labeling. They’ve trained staff on ethics.

But the core problem remains. The Gates Foundation still funds the section that reports on its own work. And they’ve pledged another $500 million for global development media through 2026.

Meanwhile, readers are catching on. Pew Research found that 52% of people who learn about this funding say they’d reduce their engagement with the outlet. That’s dangerous for The Guardian, which depends on 1.3 million paying digital subscribers.

What This Means for You as a Reader

You don’t have to stop reading The Guardian. But you need to read smarter.

When you see a story on global health, education, or poverty - especially if it mentions Bill Gates or his foundation - check the bottom. Is there a “Funded by” label? If yes, read with extra skepticism. Ask: What’s not being said? Is this story celebrating a solution, or questioning it?

Look for gaps. If a topic like vaccine distribution gets lots of coverage, but the foundation’s role in pushing specific tech or patents never gets questioned - that’s a red flag.

The real issue isn’t that Gates funds The Guardian. It’s that no other funder is stepping in to support independent, critical reporting on his initiatives. And that’s not journalism. That’s advocacy with a newsroom.