Michael Molenaar is the Manager of Marketing and Communications at KPMG
What happens when the hand that feeds the world pulls back? Not with a bang, but with a farewell letter.
What if the world’s biggest foundation chose to disappear?
What if a government forced that disappearance overnight?
When Bill Gates announced that the Gates Foundation would dissolve in 20 years, he introduced a bold idea: planned impermanence.
This decision is not the result of a crisis but rather a deliberate one.
This decision presents a challenge to all those who have depended on long-term philanthropy—it goes beyond mere headlines.
Donors, NGOs, businesses, and all those who engage with the global development ecosystem must now face a hard truth: Permanence is not a given.
Dependency is no longer sustainable.
Indeed, philanthropy, once considered limitless, is quietly writing its end.
In contrast, when the Trump administration abruptly slashed billions in foreign aid, from health to climate and humanitarian relief, the world saw what an unplanned withdrawal looks like.
These two different moments and choices couldn’t be more different in tone. But their consequences echo one powerful truth: Impact built on dependency is impact built on quicksand.
𝗔 𝗧𝗮𝗹𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝗧𝘄𝗼 𝗘𝘅𝗶𝘁𝘀
Gates’ exit is strategic. A 20-year countdown clock ensures that his billions drive urgency, innovation, and systems that can survive without them.
Trump’s aid cuts were abrupt. Trump’s aid cuts shocked the NGOs, governments, and communities that rely on U.S. funds, exposing the fragility of the global aid architecture.
One was by design. The other was imposed by decree. But both demand the same response: Rethink how we build, fund, and future-proof impact.
1. 𝗦𝘂𝗻𝘀𝗲𝘁𝘀 𝗖𝗮𝗻 𝗦𝘁𝗿𝗲𝗻𝗴𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗻—𝗜𝗳 𝗧𝗵𝗲𝘆’𝗿𝗲 𝗣𝗹𝗮𝗻𝗻𝗲𝗱
Gates is proving that permanence isn’t the goal—resilience is. Just as startups aim for an exit strategy, philanthropy can provide funding to gradually wind down operations. Done right, a sunset becomes a legacy, not a loss.
On the other hand, Trump’s cuts demonstrated the consequences of unplanned exits: disrupted vaccine campaigns, stalled infrastructure projects, and NGOs struggling to survive.
Lesson: Plan your exit before someone else plans it for you.
𝟮. 𝗗𝗲𝗽𝗲𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗻𝗰𝘆 𝗜𝘀 𝗗𝗮𝗻𝗴𝗲𝗿𝗼𝘂𝘀—𝗘𝘃𝗲𝗻 𝗪𝗵𝗲𝗻 𝗜𝘁 𝗙𝗲𝗲𝗹𝘀 𝗦𝗲𝗰𝘂𝗿𝗲
For decades, many NGOs, particularly in the Global South, built models assuming Gates’ or U.S. aid would always be there. But aid isn’t a guarantee—it’s a lever. If you pull back that lever, everything collapses unless you have internal strength.
Lesson: Build autonomy in every program. Treat every grant as temporary.
𝟯. 𝗨𝗿𝗴𝗲𝗻𝗰𝘆 𝗠𝘂𝘀𝘁 𝗥𝗲𝗽𝗹𝗮𝗰𝗲 𝗟𝗲𝗴𝗮𝗰𝘆
Gates is giving us 20 years. Trump gave us none. But both moments shout a clear warning: You don’t have time to waste. Whether by strategy or shock, the age of “forever funding” is ending.
Lesson: Speed matters. Agility wins. Impact needs a now-not-later mindset.
𝟰. 𝗖𝗼𝗿𝗽𝗼𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗣𝗮𝗿𝘁𝗻𝗲𝗿𝘀 𝗠𝘂𝘀𝘁 𝗦𝘁𝗲𝗽 𝗨𝗽—𝗔𝗻𝗱 𝗦𝘁𝗲𝗽 𝗜𝗻 𝗦𝗺𝗮𝗿𝘁𝗹𝘆
As public and philanthropic funds pull back or disappear, the private sector can’t afford to treat CSR like a side gig. It’s time to bake social value into business models, not bolt it on.
Lesson: Build for shared value, not shared credit. Fund like you’re preparing to exit, not entrench.
Conclusion
The message is simple: Impact requires more than just money. It requires urgency. Innovation. And, most importantly, an understanding that no model—no matter how big—lasts forever.
So, What Now?
The question is no longer just about funding. It’s about building partnerships that can stand on their own, with or without the world’s philanthropic giants.
If you’re a donor, the Gates model says: Don’t just fund—future-proof.
If you’re an NGO, Trump’s aid cuts say: Don’t wait—diversify.
If you are a business, both situations indicate that you should not fall behind but instead take the lead.
Impact without independence isn’t impact—it’s liability.
Are your programs built to last, or built to end well?
Gates is showing us how to design the endgame. Trump showed us what happens when we don’t.
This is the new frontier of impact: exit as strategy, not surrender.
The future belongs to the builders who plan their exits—and the partners who survive them.
