For the last 20 years the Gates Foundation has focused on improving global health and strengthening US public education.

Judge as of 2020-02-10. True: the Gates Foundation's own records show that from about 2000 to 2020 its main programme areas and largest grant spending were global health and US public education (K-12 or postsecondary). Its annual reports, grant databases and strategy pages are acceptable records. Mostly true: both were core focuses for most of the period, but one of them (for example US education) became a major focus a few years after 2000, or other areas (development, agriculture) took up comparable resources. The claim does not exclude other areas. Mixed: only one of the two areas was a sustained main focus over the period. Mostly false: both areas were funded but were minor parts of the foundation's work for most of the period. False: the records show that neither was a primary focus.

Set before the research began.

1. E1 The surprising strategy behind the Gates Foundation's success Vox (Future Perfect) · 11 February 2020

   “Over the first 20 years of its existence, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation spent $53.8 billion on its various programs, the Gateses announced in their annual letter for 2020. The large majority of that spending, about $39.8 billion, went to global development and global health programs.”

2. E2 The surprising strategy behind the Gates Foundation's success Vox (Future Perfect) · 11 February 2020

   “The Gateses’ entire US program agenda, including education and everything else they invested in, cost $8.6 billion over the last 20 years.”

3. E3 The grand impact of the Gates Foundation. Sixty billion dollars and one famous person can affect the spending and research focus of public agencies PubMed Central (academic journal article by independent researchers) · 1 January 2008

   “To achieve this, the Foundation concentrates on three main areas: global health, global development, and the US program that includes education and access to technology for low-income communities in the USA.”

E1 reports that about $39.8 billion of the $53.8 billion the foundation spent in its first 20 years went to global development and global health programmes, the largest share. However, the evidence does not separate health spending from development spending. E3 (2008) names global health and a US programme that includes education among the foundation's three main areas, so US education was a core programme area. E2 shows that the whole US agenda, education included, cost $8.6 billion, a much smaller share of spending. Both areas were core programme areas [E3], but global health spending is reported only together with development [E1], and the whole US agenda, education included, was a much smaller part of spending [E2], which matches the "mostly true" criterion.