How ‘Effective Altruism’ went from fringe philosophy to Trump’s AI villain

The Trump administration rarely speaks with one voice, particularly when it comes to AI policy.

But lately, a chorus of Trump officials has all been in harmony about one thing: Effective Altruism is bad.

“Americanism, not effective altruism,” the Department of War tweeted in mid-Sept.

“The United States will continue to be AI DOMINANT!” Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth chastised Effective Altruism for “sanctimonious rhetoric” used to “strong arm the United States military into submission.” Emil Michael, the Pentagon’s Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering, called its ideology “dangerous” and “pretty dystopian.” But what is “Effective Altruism” and how did this once obscure philosophical movement wind up in the crosshairs of some of the most powerful U.S. officials and their efforts to argue against AI regulation? Founded by two British academics almost two decades ago, Effective Altruism is a philosophical movement whose core idea is that people should try to use rational processes to do the most good for the most people in the world.

That may not sound controversial, but as with so many dogmas that purport to have simple, good intentions, things get messy when those ideas encounter the complexity of the real world—and competing ideas about what people and governments should prioritize and why.

Effective Altruism, or EA for short, has gotten caught up in the AI debate because many of those who subscribe to its philosophy have gravitated towards working at the top AI companies: OpenAI, Anthropic, and Google DeepMind.

They have done so because of a fervent belief in both AI’s possibility to advance humanity, and its potential to cause great harm.

In particular, many EA adherents are drawn to work on AI safety, believing that unless methods are found to ensure advanced AI systems remain obedient to human instructions and human values, this powerful technology has a good chance of destroying humanity.

EA’s close affiliation with fears about advanced AI leading to human extinction—often branded “AI doomerism”— has brought the group into conflict with the Trump administration, which is racing to keep AI regulation off the table over fears of ceding ground to China in the AI race and concerns that any slowdown in the pace of AI development could tank the U.S. stock market, which has been buoyed by the runup in shares of AI-related stocks.

Despite loud warnings from industry leaders including OpenAI’s Sam Altman and Anthropic’s Dario Amodei last week, Trump was quick to reject the idea of an international slowdown.

For Trump and other opponents of regulation, using culture war rhetoric to attack EA has become a way to try to discredit the broader anxiety about AI risk before it hardens into legislation.