Bill Gates has an amazing talent for identifying terrifying threats to humanity and then positioning himself as indispensable to solving them.
Whether the subject is pandemics, climate change, global health or artificial intelligence, the billionaire Microsoft co-founder has spent decades promoting sweeping interventions that require enormous resources, powerful institutions and expanded cooperation between governments and private industry.
His latest warning about artificial intelligence offers another chilling version of this racket.
During a recent CBS interview with Tony Dokoupil, Gates warned that artificial intelligence could enable catastrophic cyberattacks, biological threats and other dangers that existing institutions are poorly equipped to address.
He argued that governments need to establish monitoring systems and safeguards before those threats become unmanageable.
"One thing that's clear is if you have a big cyber attack that caused a lot of problems, then people will say, 'Okay, they were right. The people who are talking about that were right.' So it may be that we have to suffer a few of the negatives before we'll respond as fully as we should."
🚨 Bill Gates Says a Global ‘Catastrophe’ May Be Needed to Usher in AI Regulations “It may be that we have to suffer a few of the negatives before we respond as fully as we should.” https://t.co/6j5tKaPMUF
— Chief Nerd (@TheChiefNerd) November 10, 2026
Once again, the gameplan is right in front of our faces. “Never let a good crisis go to waste.”
And the addendum: “If there isn’t a crisis, create one.”
Former Obama administration chief of staff Rahm Emanuel famously declared that politicians should never allow a serious crisis to go to waste. Hillary Clinton repeated that philosophy during the 2009 financial crisis, arguing that the emergency created opportunities to advance climate and energy policies.
That isn’t to say Gates will personally engineer a crisis, but he has already laid out the incentives for others to do so. And “philanthropists” like Gates have huge financial stakes in prodding government into “taking action” to solve problems, no matter how they should arise.
The modern left already wants to create crisis in the “global capitalist system.” So why not cash in?
A crisis creates public fear, fear generates pressure for immediate action, and the resulting urgency allows political leaders to pursue policies that might otherwise face major resistance.
And that brings us back to Gates, whose public reputation deserves considerably more scrutiny than it receives.
Here he is, doing interviews as if he is some moral authority on the future of humanity. But consider what has emerged about his relationship with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
Gates continued associating with Epstein years after the financier's 2008 conviction for soliciting prostitution from a minor. During congressional testimony in June 2026, Gates acknowledged extramarital affairs and said Epstein had attempted to exploit information about his private life. Gates denied Epstein's more sensational allegations involving sexually transmitted infections and covertly administering medication to his then-wife.
Melinda French Gates has publicly discussed the damage caused by her former husband's association with Epstein, which contributed to the breakdown of their marriage.
Nonetheless, his access to government institutions is astonishing. As RedState previously reported, records released by Sen. Rand Paul revealed that Gates held a Department of Energy Q security clearance from June 2014 until December 2021. The authorization was granted through reciprocity with another federal agency, which the department did not publicly identify.
Additional records showed Gates communicating directly with Anthony Fauci about pandemic policy and sending him drafts of his book on preventing future pandemics. Gates Foundation representatives also received a briefing from the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency concerning military biological research programs.
This is an unusual level of access granted to an unelected billionaire whose foundation operates across areas normally associated with public policy and national security.
Why should private individuals wield such influence over institutions that are supposed to answer to the American people? It is damning evidence that our government is coming off-track.
The COVID-19 pandemic gave rise to one of the biggest corruption scandals in American history.
Governments imposed draconian restrictions on businesses, schools, travel and daily life, while public health authorities and private technology platforms exercised unprecedented control over information and personal behavior.
Pharmaceutical companies benefited from authoritarian “mandates,” and Big Tech firms reaped the benefits of immense government contracts.
Meanwhile, the official narrative about the pandemic's origins are dubious, to say the least. China was never held accountable for its crimes against humanity (such as covering up the spread of the viral contagion) and Dr. Anthony Fauci was “pardoned” for his alleged crimes.
The FBI and Department of Energy have assessed that a laboratory-associated incident in Wuhan was the most likely origin, although with differing confidence levels. Federal funding of coronavirus research through EcoHealth Alliance and the Wuhan Institute of Virology has also become the subject of congressional hearings.
None of it leading to actual accountability, it should be added.
Now the same issues are emerging around artificial intelligence. (And it should not be lost on anyone that the “Climate Crisis” narrative was dropped as soon as it became problematic for those who wanted to build data centers.)
As Rusty Weiss reported for RedState in September, Gates warned that AI could enable events causing a billion deaths shortly after his foundation announced a $1 billion commitment to expand the technology's use in healthcare, education and agriculture.
Here is the problem: Gates is financing the expansion of a technology he describes as potentially more dangerous than nuclear weapons, while simultaneously calling for governments to establish new safeguards and oversight institutions.
There are genuine reasons to worry about AI-enabled cyberattacks, biological weapons development, autonomous drones and the disruption of critical infrastructure. These aren't imaginary threats, and responsible governments cannot simply ignore them.
But recognizing a real threat doesn't mean accepting every proposed solution, particularly when the solutions could give a small collection of governments, corporations and technology experts unprecedented control over information.
The recent controversy surrounding Nvidia illustrates another dimension of the problem.
The company's longtime chief executive, Jensen Huang, resigned this week amid reports of extramarital relationships, including one involving a businesswoman suspected by U.S. intelligence officials of having connections to Chinese espionage.
Huang's departure has intensified an already heated debate over advanced semiconductor exports to China and the national security implications of American technology companies' relationships with Beijing.
This is the kicker: Huang was one of the few Big Tech executives who opposed the government control of artificial intelligence.
Isn’t that convenient?
The political response to nearly every modern ‘crisis’ seems to involve another proposed transfer of authority away from individuals and toward centralized institutions.
Whether the justification is public health, climate change, economic inequality or technological safety, the recurring question is who makes the decisions and who bears the consequences when those decisions go wrong.
Centralized economic planning can lead to an even bigger crisis for humanity, as we have seen throughout history. Not only do the elites usurp the moral authority for people to lead their own lives, but their dictates often cause a ripple effect of negative consequences that literally affect everyone.
In a marketplace, risk is mitigated because it is dispersed throughout the economy. If Microsoft goes down, then people can turn to AOL. Okay, not the best example, but you get the point: Competition means accountability and alternatives.
When the government runs the show, you take what you get and you like it. Or else. If you complain, you might wind up in prison — or worse.
Americans have already witnessed what happens when emergency decision-making becomes detached from public accountability.
When the next crisis arrives, will the people who stand to cash in also be the ones deciding how much freedom everyone else must surrender?
Crisis has become the gateway drug of globalist elites. And Bill Gates may be its biggest pusher.
