Effective altruism explained: The AI-linked giving philosophy beloved by Silicon Valley and opposed by Trump

Sam Bankman-Fried was once a leading figure in effective altruism.

Now, the Trump administration has the movement in its sights.

Artur Widak/Anadolu via Getty Images/Yuki Iwamura/Bloomberg via Getty Images Effective altruism is back in the spotlight amid a fight over AI safety and regulation.

Its central idea is that people should use evidence and reason to choose how they give away money.

Trump officials have accused effective altruists of using fears around AI to slow US innovation.

Effective altruism is having another moment in the spotlight , three years after Sam Bankman-Fried's crypto collapse first put the movement on the map.

The AI boom has created enormous new wealth among people sympathetic to effective altruism — a brand of philanthropy espoused by many in Silicon Valley.

At the same time, the movement's influence over AI safety debates has put it at odds with President Donald Trump's push for rapid American AI development .

On Monday, Trump dismissed fears that advanced AI could threaten humanity as a "hoax." His administration went further: the Defense Department posted "Americanism, not effective altruism" on X, and Trump advisor David Sacks accused effective altruism-linked groups of forming a "Doomer Industrial Complex" that could set back the US in its tech race with China.

Americanism, not effective altruism.

The United States will continue to be AI DOMINANT! 🇺🇸 pic.twitter.com/CQDt5s72Jl — Department of War CTO (@DoWCTO) September 14, 2026 These mentions brought new scrutiny to a movement still facing reputational issues from its ties to Bankman-Fried, the former boss of FTX, who is serving a 25-year prison sentence after being convicted of orchestrating multiple frauds.

Effective altruism began with a question about doing the most good Effective altruism is more of a loose community than a formal organization.

Its central idea is that people should use evidence and reason to determine how best to use their money and careers to benefit humanity.

Its intellectual roots include philosopher Peter Singer's 1972 essay "Famine, Affluence, and Morality," which argued that affluent people have a duty to prevent suffering when they can do so without sacrificing something equally important.