Gates-funded “remote-controlled” birth control sparks debate over global contraception

• The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation has invested over $100 million since 2012 in long-acting, remotely controlled contraceptive technologies, including injectable microcrystal implants and wireless microchips, aimed at improving access in developing nations.
• Critics warn these technologies could enable coercive population control, citing historical precedents like the “Jaffe Memo” and Cold War-era sterilization campaigns, while proponents argue they empower women with more reproductive choices.
• Key technologies include a16-year wireless microchip implant (developed by MIT-linked Microchips Biotech, now under Daré Bioscience) can be turned on/off remotely. Meanwhile, injectable microcrystals (recently studied by MIT) form hormone-releasing “depots” under the skin, lasting months to years.
• Skeptics, like epidemiologist Nicholas Hulscher, link the tech to Gates’ overpopulation concerns, fearing misuse by authoritarian regimes. Remote control features and long durations raise autonomy issues, especially in regions with weak oversight.
• While researchers emphasize medical benefits (e.g., treating HIV or mental health), historical distrust of global health initiatives and past abuses (e.g., Norplant) fuel skepticism. Future acceptance hinges on transparency, cultural sensitivity, and regulatory safeguards.

Details about contraceptive technologies funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, which emerged in April, have reignited fears over global population control and medical autonomy.

The Gates Foundation has spent over $100 million since 2012 developing long-acting, remotely controlled birth control technologies. These include an injectable microcrystal implant and a wireless, chip-based system.

Critics argue these methods risk enabling covert enforcement or depopulation agendas, while proponents maintain they empower women in developing nations. As the devices near human trials, stakeholders clash over whether innovation prioritizes health equity or covert control.

The evolution of Gates-funded contraceptive technologies

The foundation’s interest in contraceptive innovation began at its 2012 Family Planning Summit, where it pledged funding for injectable contraceptives for low-income regions. By 2014, Gates directed $20.4 million to Microchips Biotech, an MIT?linked firm, for a wireless implantable microchip.

The microchip made by the MIT-linked company releases levonorgestrel, a hormone used in birth control, for up to 16 years. The chip could be turned on or off via remote control.

Though the company later dissolved, its design was acquired by Dare Bioscience. The San Diego-based company has since received over $59 million in Gates Foundation funding for its DARE-LARC1 implant, now in preclinical testing.

More recently, MIT engineers developed an injectable microcrystal system, described in Nature Chemistry Engineering (March 2025). Suspended in a biocompatible solvent, these crystals self-assemble under the skin to form a “depot” that releases hormones for months to years. Projects like these aim to offer contraception without the need for frequent injections, particularly in regions with limited healthcare access.

Critics link funding to depopulation and covert control

Skeptics cite the “Jaffe Memo,” a 1969 document from Planned Parenthood that reportedly included proposals for coercive measures like population control via water supply additives or compulsory sterilization.

Nicholas Hulscher, an epidemiologist and administrator at the McCullough Foundation, linked the microcrystal research to Gates’ documented concerns about overpopulation. In a May interview with Dr. Joseph Sansone, Hulscher claimed Gates funded both the contraceptive tech and studies predicting an “irreversible birth rate collapse,” raising suspicions of a coordinated depopulation strategy.

“This technology could be exploited to enforce policies, especially in places with weak regulatory oversight,” Hulscher said. He echoed broader fears that mRNA vaccines might align with “mass vaccination programs backed by the same entities.”

MIT researchers meanwhile emphasized medical intent. Sanghyun Park, co-author of the March 2025 study, noted the system could treat HIV, tuberculosis or mental health disorders. “It’s not just about birth control,” Park stated. Yet critics argue language like “last for 16 years” and remote-access features heighten concerns that users might be unaware or unable to opt out of perpetual contraception.

Concerns over population control

Critics trace fears to 20th-century eugenics and Cold War-era projects like Ford Foundation initiatives in India, which funded sterilization campaigns. The Gates Foundation’s focus on developing nations, often in partnerships with entities like the World Health Organization, echoes these dynamics.

“The distrust isn’t new,” wrote Inversionism on Twitter. “Globalists have long considered fertility control a tool for ‘sustainability.'” The Jaffe Memo also resurfaces fears of systemic depopulation strategies. As Daré Bioscience advances towards human trials, ethicists question whether long-acting systems could inadvertently disincentivize consent, particularly in regions where coercion has historical roots.

With the microcrystals’ efficacy confirmed in early rat studies and human trials on the horizon, the debate shifts to regulation and intent. The Gates Foundation has sought to position the tech as a voluntary empowerment tool, denying depopulation motives. But the legacy of past projects, such as the discontinued Norplant implants, shows how good intentions can intersect with abuses.

As philanthropic health initiatives grow, the line between innovation and autonomy remains fragile. Whether the implants become symbols of progress or renewed distrust will hinge on transparency, cultural sensitivity and global oversight.

Sources for this article include:

TheExpose.com

InterestingEngineering.com