The case for contributing to the US election with your money and time
Introduction & Summary
Contributions to the 2024 US election may be among the most impactful uses of money and time over the next few months, and perhaps for a long time to come. Trump poses an unprecedented threat to the US and the world. We must make him and the MAGA movement lose again, and for good.
We1 have spent much of this year investigating the most effective ways to contribute. This article outlines our background reasons and results.
The US is the world’s most powerful state and the only superpower that is also a liberal democracy. If one of the presidential candidates is expected to be much worse in crucial areas (e.g., protecting liberal democracy in the US and around the world, climate change, nuclear risk, AI safety, pandemic preparedness and biosecurity, global health and development, animal welfare, and more), and if the election is expected to be very close, then contributing to the better candidate’s victory has extraordinary value. Your contribution may be decisive.
We know of no lever, other than the US presidential election, that allows as many individuals and organizations to clearly influence the trajectory of the world. Many of us – a group of center-left and progressive activists – have paused our jobs to prevent Trump this year or are using our free time to do so.
If you’re already convinced and ready to contribute, here are our recommendations (see this document for more details):
For American donors:
SwapYourVote.org offers third-party and undecided/uncommitted voters in swing states the opportunity to vote for Harris in exchange for two third-party votes in solidly Democratic states (such as California). Third-party voters in swing states may thwart a Harris victor. Margins of victory are often razor-thin. Incentivizing them to swap their votes may have a decisive effect.For international/non-American donors:
The Center for US Voters Abroad Foundation (CUVA) contacts US citizens abroad to mobilize them to vote. Americans abroad overwhelmingly lean Democratic and have generally been neglected by get-out-the-vote efforts.
You probably have more influence over the US election than you might think.
US presidential elections are often decided by slim margins in a few swing states (by 537 votes in 2000, 118,601 in 2004, 77,744 in 2016, and 42,918 in 2020).2
The best polling data we have as of August 2024 suggests that the election’s margins will be in a similar range this year, with Trump slightly favored to win at the moment. Public polls are probably underestimating the support for Trump somewhat, like they did in the last two presidential elections.
Given how small margins of victory have been, many individuals and organizations have arguably been responsible for flipping past presidential elections, and many more could have flipped them with modest investments.
While a lot of good work is being done, poor incentives and other structural issues among organizations aiming to get Democrats elected result in many inefficiencies. For example:
Social credit and funding can conflict with objective impact.
Wages are comparatively low and careers unstable.
Staff’s political views tend to be further to the left than the voters Democrats need to persuade and turn out.
Some of the most cost-effective interventions (i.e., those that produce the greatest number of net Democratic votes per dollar) are consistently underfunded.
The 2024 presidential election is among the most important elections in US history.
Most importantly, Trump incited a deadly coup attempt to overturn a free and fair election ought to be disqualifying. Trump incited a fatal attack on the US capitol on January 6th, 2021, as part of a broader attempt to discredit and overturn the 2020 election. He continues to push election denialism and the possibility of political violence if he doesn’t deem the election fair. Even more concerning, the Republican party has coalesced in support of MAGA’s anti-democratic behavior, with widespread plans to challenge and fight election results if they don’t go the way of Republicans.
Trump's violent and autocratic rhetoric has escalated. He’s vowing to "be Dictator on Day 1," "root out" his political opponents who "live like vermin," and saying migrants “poison the blood of our country.”
In most policy areas, there’s strong reasons to think a Trump administration would be far worse than that of Harris.
Trump has cut billions in global health spending, cut pandemic preparedness programs, and plans to gut climate funding.
Trump refuses to read briefings, anoints unqualified family members his senior advisors, punishes or fires staff who disagree, and has repeatedly suggested launching nuclear weapons.
In his first term, Trump and his allies were held back by civil servants who rejected ideas such as potentially launching nukes or using the military to overturn the election. Since then, Trump and his allies have been openly preparing a plan to eliminate these checks and balances if he is re-elected: firing up to 54,000 independent civil servants (Schedule F Executive Order) and replacing them with Project 2025's vetted loyalists.
A second Trump administration would already enjoy more power due to a recent Supreme Court ruling on presidential immunity (backed unanimously by the six conservative justices, three of whom were appointed by Trump, and rejected by all three liberal justices).
It’s easier to influence the outcome of US elections than one might think
Recent US presidential elections are close
Although the popular vote is won and lost by millions of votes, the Electoral College is causing our elections to be tight.
2024 will be another close election.
In August 2020, Biden was up ~8 points nationally, while Harris was up just 2.4 points. Prediction markets and analysts only slightly favor a Harris win. The Economist claims, “this presidential race is tighter today than any since polling began.”
The best, non-public polling data we have as of mid-August suggests 2024’s margins will be similar to 2020’s and 2016’s, with Trump slightly favored to win.
The tipping point states are likely to be Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, or Michigan. While public polls show a slight Harris lead, Biden had a consistent lead in swing states the entire 2020 cycle and his margin of victory was tens of thousands of votes.
Given how close recent US elections have been, many efforts by small groups of people can be tip the election.
There’s still low-hanging fruit.
The cost of netting a Democratic vote in swing-states this cycle has been estimated to be somewhere between a few hundred and a few thousand dollars, if you fund the best performing interventions tested. There are also more speculative interventions with harder to measure effect that could perform better (or worse, of course).
Most political donations go to relatively ineffective organizations.
Because most political donors aren’t particularly data-driven or trying to optimize their giving, most donations go to relatively ineffective interventions (see below). This means that many effective interventions are being neglected.
Many promising strategies have not been sufficiently explored or are underfunded.
Many cost-effective strategies can’t scale as much as they should because they’re underfunded. See here for more information on those organizations.
Many top organizations in the space were created within the last 2-6 years. This suggests that there is little barrier to entry for creating an effective organization, that these groups have room to grow, and that more good ideas are likely out there.
Anecdotally, people with little political background have been able to generate many ideas that haven’t been tried and were received positively by experts.
One group we’re in touch with, started in 2018 by people with almost no political background, has rocketed to being among the top organizations in Democratic politics. It contributes mainly by advising donors with sophisticated research on the effectiveness of election interventions and coordinating their giving. We believe their work has had crucial impacts on past elections.
Even many of the most well-funded organizations aren’t operating very efficiently.
Biden’s post-debate campaign was the pinnacle of ineffective operation. They spent tens of millions on ads long after it became clear Biden should drop out. The campaign team consistently rationalized away evidence against Biden, ignored polling, and misled the public in ways that did little but damage trust.
Many of the most prominent Democratic organizations use messaging which many studies show is ineffective. For example, when attempting to mobilize people to vote, most organizations use issue-focused language despite testing suggesting other messaging would be more effective.3
According to experts we’re in touch with, as much as ~$400M is expected to be spent on paid canvassing. While there are effective versions of paid canvassing, most of the money spent on this will likely go to organizations whose efforts often result in null or even negative/backfiring effects.4
We’ve been surprised and frustrated with the unwillingness of some of the leading fundraising organizations to scale their outreach and operations. Our experience has been that they are often using outdated technology and failing to find ways to automate simple tasks (e.g., managing email lists).
Impacting the election is relatively straightforward
Interventions to increase Harris’ share of votes are measurable: Whether someone voted in an election is publicly available information and how they voted is pretty predictable. Understanding what works, based on randomized control trials, is easier in US electoral politics than in most cause areas (see our recommendations below).
The closeness of the 2024 election means many individuals and organizations have a shot at making a decisive difference.
Electoral politics has poor incentives and talent retention
Given the stakes and amount of money spent each cycle, many assume electoral politics is a well-optimized for getting votes. However, there are a number of factors that make electoral politics less efficient than one might initially assume.
Incentives push talent away from political work.
Jobs in political campaigns are temporary, very demanding, poorly compensated, and offer uncertain career capital (i.e., low rewards for working on losing campaigns).
There’s a common assumption that others are handling the election and that stepping forward to donate or volunteer can’t make a difference, which reduces interest from top talent to work on the issue.
Because of these poor incentives, politics often attracts partisan people who sometimes have poor intuitions about how key swing voters think.
Incentives for those working in electoral politics often push against optimizing for effectiveness.
Because elections are necessarily adversarial, much of the research about effective election interventions is risky to share. If the other side finds and uses the research, the potential advantage is nullified. Thus, information sharing is limited and the best information about effective interventions is not as widely known as one might hope.
Those working on campaigns are often doing so to get jobs with the administration after winning. Because of this, they’re sometimes more interested in their reputation with the candidate relative to their peers than in actually winning. This competition can lead to internal tension, which is not conducive to good decision-making.5
Election nonprofits are accountable to donors first and foremost. This means they’re incentivized to overestimate the impact of their work and to operate in ways that appeal to donors rather than aiming to win the most votes (e.g., using messaging that appeals to donors rather than undecided voters).
The 2024 election is much more important than other elections
A second Trump term would likely be far more damaging for liberal democracy than the last
Liberal democracy has many attractive features. It has problems, too, but it famously is “the worst form of government except for all those other forms that have been tried.” We expect a second Trump Presidency to be much worse for liberal democracy, both domestically and globally (see the section on US-China and international relations below), than a Harris Presidency would be.
In his first term, Trump and his allies were held back by sane civil servants who rejected their dangerous ideas, such as potentially launching nuclear weapons or using the military to overturn the election. Trump’s failure to overturn the 2020 election has shaped his second-term agenda, which is aimed at destroying checks and balances through unprecedented power over the military, courts, and key agencies. His plans reflect these new priorities:
Execute a massive purge of independent civil servants: Trump has mentioned several times his desire to pass the “Schedule F” executive order. This would give him the power to fire up to 50,000 civil servants who have traditionally checked the president’s power, including in legal, regulatory, and military contexts.
Assemble vetted loyalists: Trump’s allies have spent tens of millions on Project 2025, one goal of which is to screen Trump loyalists6 to replace independent civil servants. In their own words, “Our goal is to assemble an army of aligned, vetted, trained, and prepared conservatives to go to work on Day One to deconstruct the Administrative State.”
Expand presidential control: As reported, “Project 2025 proposes that the entire federal bureaucracy, including independent agencies such as the Department of Justice, be placed under direct presidential control.”
Appoint more loyal judges: While this happened in Trump’s first term as well, it’s become apparent just how impactful the appointment of judges loyal to Trump has been, at the Supreme Court, appellate, and district levels. Both Trump’s immunity ruling and Cannon’s ruling to throw out his classified documents case have been highly unusual and appear politically motivated.
A key change from Trump’s last term is the presence of an extremely Trump-friendly Supreme Court. Among other things, the Court has granted the president unprecedented immunity from prosecution. It remains to be seen just how much immunity Trump would have, but in her dissenting opinion, Justice Sotomayor said, “[When the president] uses his official powers in any way, under the majority's reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution… [if he] orders the Navy's Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune." It seems likely that Trump would be legally able to take or offer bribes, and it’s possible he couldn’t be prosecuted even for organizing a military coup. While the full implications remain unclear, experts are near-universally concerned about this ruling and its implications for how Trump could behave in a second term.
It’s worth spelling out just how forceful Trump’s attempts to overturn the 2020 election and become a de facto dictator were. He pressured state officials not to certify the election, considered using the military to seize ballots in an effort to prove fraud, attempted to replace official electors with loyalists, attempted to use the Department of Justice to legitimize his fraud claims, pressured his Vice President Mike Pence not to certify the election, and ultimately was responsible for a violent march on the Capitol.
Many of the checks on Trump that prevented him from seizing power in 2020 are unlikely to be present in a second term. Given the Supreme Court ruling on immunity, he’ll have far less concern about being prosecuted for election interference or threatening officials. Vance, his 2024 Vice President nominee, has implied he would obey Trump’s demands were a similar situation to happen again. The administrative state would be hollowed out and powerless to resist.
While retaining plausible deniability, Trump has made allusions to attempting to stay in power beyond his second term, making statements like, “Four more years, you know what? It’ll be fixed, it’ll be fine, you won’t have to vote anymore” or “I don’t know, are we going to be considered three-term? Or two-term?” It appears highly likely that Trump will take actions to further degrade democratic institutions. The possibility that he attempts to stay in power beyond 2028 should be taken seriously – it would be in line with the playbook other autocrats have followed around the world.
Trump is likely to enact dangerous and harmful policies in a second term
Trump was far from ready to take on the presidency in his first term. He hadn’t prepared, didn’t have loyal staff ready to serve, didn’t understand the government, and didn’t have much support from Congress or the courts. All these were significant factors holding him back from enacting a dangerous policy and institutional agenda. Even with these constraints, in his first term Trump:
ended the constitutional right to an abortion. Trump appointed three Supreme Court justices who overturned Roe v. Wade, bringing back state abortion bans from the 1970s. As a result, access to abortion in the US has diminished dramatically: 14 states have banned abortion, while six others have made abortion virtually inaccessible by criminalizing the procedure after the earliest stages of pregnancy. In 2020, Trump was the first sitting president to take part in the anti-abortion demonstration “March for Life” in Washington, DC.
undermined the constitutional principle of the separation of state and religion. In 2017, Trump signed an executive order that allowed religious groups greater latitude in political activities and guaranteed employers the right to deny contraception coverage in health plans, claiming a religious objection.
bungled the Covid response, causing tens of thousands of preventable deaths. Trump’s early denial of COVID — preventing the CDC from encouraging people to wear masks, encouraging people to try bleach injections, and slow action on lockdown — led to tens of thousands of preventable deaths, and a huge spike in vaccine skepticism.
stoked tensions in Israel and Palestine. Beyond his Muslim travel ban and calls for a Muslim registry and the closure of mosques, Trump greenlit the provocative move of the US embassy in Israel to Jerusalem, among other dangerous actions stoking tensions with Palestine. His son-in-law and senior advisor Jared Kushner recently suggested Israel should “move the people out” of “Gaza’s waterfront property” and “clean it up.”
Trump has found ways to address many of the constraints he faced in his first term. Along with what was mentioned in the previous section, Trump has been laying the groundwork for a massive policy push once he gets into office. Since his first term, Trump has managed to shove many of the most critical Republicans out of office. For example, 8 out of the 10 Republican Members of Congress who voted to impeach him have either retired or lost their primaries. Republicans in Congress are now virtually all Trump supporters. Further, Trump allies have drafted a massive slate of executive orders that could go into effect nearly immediately once Trump is in power.
In his second term, Trump will have unprecedented freedom and ability to act, which will allow him to do far more harm. Among a host of other things, Trump seems likely to pursue political revenge, execute mass deportations, use his ability to fire US attorneys to force them to comply with his desires, attempt to restore the presidential ability to withhold congressionally appropriated funds, eliminate the Department of Education, build a border wall, allow states to monitor women’s pregnancies to ensure they don’t go out of state for an abortion, and establish 10% tariffs on all foreign goods as well as >60% tariffs on Chinese goods.
It seems likely that Project 2025 proposals will be implemented by a Trump administration, though it’s unclear how many. Some of these include: rolling back investment in renewable energy, abolishing the Federal Reserve, slashing corporate income taxes, banning abortion pills, and banning pornography.
Trump has demonstrated poor judgment and incompetence
Trump’s own ghostwriter disclosed that Trump has an “absolute lack of interest in anything beyond power and money” and a “completely compulsive” need for attention. “Lying is second nature to him.” A statement signed by Republican national security experts, some of whom worked with Trump, says that “other global leaders … view him as unreliable, unstable, and unworthy of respect” and that he “solicited foreign influence” from Xi and Putin.
The former head of Trump’s National Economic Council, Gary Cohn, purportedly said, “It’s worse than you can imagine. An idiot surrounded by clowns. Trump won’t read anything – not one-page memos, not the brief policy papers; nothing. He gets up halfway through meetings with world leaders because he is bored. And his staff is no better.”
We cannot trust Trump to act responsibly in a crisis scenario or to address crucial issues competently. Because of this, any risk of concern is amplified under a Trump Presidency.
How you can help
Election Day, November 5th, is approaching fast. As time runs out, it gets harder to build organizational infrastructure, forge relationships with voters, and test and scale promising intervention.
On November 6th, you’ll wake up and there will be nothing you can to do to change who will take office in January. And, depending on the outcome, we might not have another chance like this in 2028.
Many agree the election is a huge deal; few are acting like it by making it a priority.
Donate
We think the recommendations below offers some of the most cost-effective opportunities to net Democratic votes. They were put together over the last few months by a multi-disciplinary team with expertise in election impact evaluations (see this document for more details).
The reasoning behind these public recommendations is more vague than we’d like (it’s because some of the information would benefit opposing campaigns). If you want more details, please reach out to ee.interventions@gmail.com.
For American donors:
SwapYourVote.org offers third-party and undecided/uncommitted voters in swing states the opportunity to vote for Harris in exchange for two third-party votes in solidly Democratic states (such as California). Third-party voters in swing states may thwart a Harris victor. Margins of victory are often razor-thin. Incentivizing them to swap their votes may have a decisive effect.
For international/non-American donors:
The Center for US Voters Abroad Foundation (CUVA) contacts US citizens abroad to mobilize them to vote. Americans abroad overwhelmingly lean Democratic and have generally been neglected by get-out-the-vote efforts.
Volunteer
SwapYourVote.org would greatly benefit from additional volunteer organizing capacity. Please join this volunteer group chat if you’re interested in helping scale up this effort in the final week of the election.
We’ve also launched this Notion to share volunteering opportunities.
For personalized advice, fill out this form and we’re happy to call or email.
We find it motivating to think of how we’d feel if Trump takes office, especially if he won by a slim margin, and knowing that we could’ve done more to stop him.
Appendix: The candidates on key issue areas
The following are quick assessments, often based on limited information. Given how little we know of a Harris administration’s policy views, much of our assessment assumes she’ll act similarly to Biden on key issues (which seems likely).
As we detail below, Trump is likely to actively cause great harm (relative to the regulatory status quo) in key issue areas. But even if Trump did not actively cause harm – e.g., by rolling back climate policy or repealing Biden’s executive order on AI safety, which he vowed to do on day one –, his presidency would still be extremely bad in opportunity cost terms. He would be the center of societal attention for at least four years and the entire political conversation would revolve around his agenda and rhetoric (e.g., attempts to grab power across the branches of government, revenge against his political opponents, the border/immigration, further attacks on the right to an abortion, etc.). An enormous amount of progressive resources would be bound up resisting Trump’s agenda instead of improving public policy.
Climate change
We don’t yet know the specifics of Harris’ climate platform, but she has long prioritized climate change.
Her record includes co-sponsoring the Green New Deal, creating a unit to target polluters in poor neighborhoods as the San Francisco district attorney, and bringing charges against major California polluters as attorney general.
Her campaign spokesperson said Harris will follow Biden’s lead. A key example of Biden’s climate efforts was the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act, which allocated hundreds of billions in funding and tax incentives to help both the public and private sectors transition to renewable energy and otherwise reduce emissions.
Trump is clearly not going to take positive action on climate change and is likely to roll back much of the progress made under Biden
Analysis from Carbon Brief shows that a second Trump administration could lead to an estimated extra 4 billion tonnes of CO2 emissions by 2030 relative to a Harris administration. This is comparable to the annual CO2 output of the European Union and Japan.
Put another way, the extra 4 gigatons of CO2 from a second Trump term would negate – twice over – all of the savings from deploying wind, solar, and other clean technologies around the world over the past five years.
Looking beyond 2030, and assuming no further policy changes, a Trump win could yield an extra 27 billion tonnes of CO2 emissions by 2050, compared with policies that would likely be implemented under a Harris administration.
Trump has actively solicited money from oil executives, apparently in exchange for major actions to cut pollution regulations, reduce subsidies for electric cars, and expand offshore drilling permits.
US-China and international relations
The next administration will inherit a tense international situation which could easily get worse. AI and other emerging technologies have the potential to add further challenges.
Many experts on geopolitics and international relations, among them ones who predicted the Russian invasion of Ukraine ahead of time, consider a Chinese invasion of Taiwan likely before the end of the decade. Back in 2021, a panel of superforecasters estimated the likelihood of a Chinese invasion over the next five years at 14%.
The US and China are competing over frontier technologies (e.g., the chips required to expand AI capabilities), which is likely to increase tensions, not least because Taiwan’s TSMC makes a crucial contribution to the global chip supply chain.
Over the last few years, purges have become far more common in China, and the domestic political situation is getting more tense and volatile. Under a Trump administration, the US may experience severe domestic instability. Such domestic developments can exacerbate international risks, too.
Harris, assuming she acts similarly to Biden, is likely to perform well when it comes to international relations.
A Harris administration seems much more likely than a Trump administration to successfully navigate important relationships with China or the EU (and, in technological contexts, with key players such as Taiwan, South Korea, Japan, the Netherlands, and top AI companies). For instance, the Biden-Harris administration seems to have successfully navigated the complex issue of instituting semiconductor export controls on China with the help of key allies.
“Harris, like Biden, has emphasized the need to reduce Western economic reliance on China without strangling trade between the two nations or potentially hurting the US economy through steep tariffs of the sort former President Donald Trump espouses. Harris also echoes Biden’s stress on engaging in competition with China but not conflict.”
Biden and Harris have credibly committed to help Taiwan which seems likely to help deter China from invading.
Biden prepared military-military communication between China and the US that Republicans have criticized, as well as an APEC summit.
While Trump had some foreign policy successes, his second term would likely degrade US alliances and could open up new security issues for the US and its allies around the world.
The first Trump administration showed near-universal disdain for international coordination, as evidenced by pulling out of the Iran Nuclear Deal, the Paris Climate Accords, and the TPP. Trump appears to have a poor understanding of the importance of stable liberal international order, and the essential role the US plays in maintaining it.
To his credit, Trump did manage to successfully pressure some NATO countries to raise their military spending closer to the 2% threshold suggested in the treaty. He has, however, discussed withdrawing the US from NATO if re-elected (though he seems unlikely to do so).
Both Trump and Vance have threatened to stop all US military aid for Ukraine. (Vance said: "I gotta be honest with you, I don't really care what happens to Ukraine one way or another.") This seems likely to embolden the Russian dictator as well as undemocratic regimes all around the world.
Trump told a right-wing Israeli newspaper that Israel should “get the job done” and “...finish up your war.” He has expressed little concern for the Palestinian casualties of the war. As mentioned, Trump’s son-in-law and senior advisor Jared Kushner, who was point person for Trump on Middle East strategy, said the best option was to “bulldoze something in the Negev” and move Palestinians there so that Israeli forces could “finish the job.” Trump also criticized the Biden administration’s calls for a ceasefire. By contrast, Harris expressed great concern for the immense suffering of Palestinians and affirmed a commitment to “their right to dignity, security, freedom, and self-determination.”
Trump seems to have little regard for sending a consistent message on which countries the US is or isn't prepared to defend. Misunderstandings on this have caused wars in the past (e.g., the Persian Gulf War).
This seems especially important in the case of Taiwan, where Trump has seemingly backed away from traditional US positions.
Trump has proposed a 10% universal import tariff (including allies), and a >60% tariff on all Chinese goods. This would likely hurt international diplomacy as well as the American economy (e.g., by causing massive inflation).
Overall, we expect a Trump Presidency to destabilize the global security environment. If the foremost military superpower withdraws from its global policing role or sends mixed signals about its willingness to protect allies, conflicts are likely to break out at significantly greater rate. Many undemocratic regimes are likely to pursue territorial and other ambitions if the US check on their power weakens.
Artificial Intelligence
The candidates’ general strengths/weaknesses and AI
With how quickly AI is advancing, it matters not only what the candidates' current stances are on AI, but how they will respond to new evidence of risks:
Who will have the humility to, if needed, change their mind about AI risks and pursue international cooperation?
Which administration would have the expertise and culture to effectively track and govern AI?
Who would govern with societal well-being most in mind, if given power over potentially game-changing AI?
For the reasons given in our sections on Trump’s poor judgment and on the candidates’ views about international relations above, the answers strongly favor Harris.
Stances on AI
There are similarities in how the candidates have discussed AI so far, with both discussing global leadership and staying ahead of China as a priority, and pointing out AI’s potential to cause harm. There are also important differences:
Trump has expressed some concerns about AI. But some of his top supporters are proponents of (potentially reckless) AI acceleration and deregulation, and Trump has announced that he will roll back Biden’s efforts to regulate AI.
Trump has voiced some concerns about dangers from AI, especially around deepfakes and how they might trigger nuclear war.
Trump plans to repeal Biden’s executive order on AI safety on day one.
Prominent AI catastrophic risk deniers and accelerationists are backing Trump, including a16z leadership and Marc Andreessen, who are supporting the Trump campaign and angling to influence his administration’s AI policy.
Elon Musk has given large, and very public, donations in an effort to help Trump win. He has voiced concern about AI risk, has not expressed support for accelerationism, and may have some ability to influence Trump. While this does mitigate some fears that Trump will throw in his hat entirely with the accelerationist crowd, we have little trust in Musk’s judgment. We’ve been alarmed by what appear to be poorly thought-out statements of Musk’s on how to address AI safety.
One proposal from a group close to Trump, the America First Policy Institute, has promoted messaging around limiting regulation and reliance on corporate self-governance for AI companies. This proposal also brought up the idea of a “Manhattan Project for AI.” The extent to which Trump endorses these views is unclear, but they are prevalent in his orbit and may push him toward reckless AI policies.
Harris tends to focus on present harms and has expressed some concern about existential risk.
Harris has generally put more emphasis on current harms, highlighting that local and personal harms can feel existential to individuals in a November 2023 speech. That said, she acknowledged in the same speech that AI might “endanger the very existence of humanity,” perhaps echoing the statement on extinction risk from AI signed by many experts. She cited “AI-formulated bioweapons” and “AI-enabled cyberattacks” as particular concerns.
At a minimum, Harris will not reverse the Biden-Harris administration’s previous actions on AI safety. The administration has made impressive progress on AI safety policy, including the establishment of the US AI Safety Institute, securing voluntary commitments on AI safety from many companies, and the 2023 AI executive order.
Expected impact on AI policy
Competence and integrity of the administration, relationships with other countries and labs, respecting science/strong arguments, not acting out of self-interest, corruption, and other intangibles strongly point in favor of present-day as well as potentially transformative AI developments going better under a Harris administration than a MAGA administration.
Nuclear Risk
Harris seems likely to maintain the status quo on US nuclear policy, perhaps making marginal progress on increasing safety.
We know fairly little about how Harris would differ from the Biden administration on nuclear policy, but it seems likely she would essentially maintain the status quo and perhaps be marginally more interested in addressing nuclear safety issues. Like the Biden administration, a Harris administration would be far more likely than Trump to handle a nuclear crisis responsibly.
Trump probably exacerbated nuclear risk in his first term and would likely do so again in a second term.
Kingston Reif, a missile expert at the Arms Control Association in Washington, DC, summarized Trump’s nuclear initiatives: “The Trump administration's nuclear legacy is one of failure,” Reif said. “The administration inherited several nuclear challenges, to be sure, but it has made nearly all of them worse.” Trump became the first president since the 1960s not to negotiate any new nuclear arms-control agreement. Instead, he did the very opposite – loosened controls, encouraged proliferation and, as a result, is “the first post-Cold War president not to reduce the size of the nuclear warhead stockpile.”
Two years after Trump withdrew from the Iran nuclear deal, Tehran has cut in half the time it would need to produce enough weapons-grade fuel for a nuclear bomb.
Trump is generally unstable and prone to making risky bets. He has not demonstrated a solid understanding of nuclear policy nor the serious risks of using nuclear weapons. In fact, his former Secretary of Homeland Security claims that Trump, “cavalierly discussed the idea of using a nuclear weapon against North Korea, saying that if he took such an action, the administration could blame someone else for it to absolve itself of responsibility.”
Pandemic response and biosecurity
While we don’t know much about Harris’ opinions about pandemic prevention, the Biden administration has taken reasonable steps to address these risks. Harris would likely continue in a similar vein.
The Biden administration has taken action on biosecurity which Trump has expressed plans to reverse if reelected.
In 2023, the Biden White House launched the Office of Pandemic Preparedness and Response Policy. Trump said he would disband this office if reelected, arguing that “we can mobilize,” while with a preparedness office, “[a] lot of the things that you do and a lot of the equipment that you buy is obsolete when you get hit with something.”
The Biden administration is also creating standards and strong financial incentives for many DNA and RNA sequencing companies to screen requests, so they avoid handing hazardous sequences to bioterrorists. This is part of Biden’s Executive Order on AI safety, which Trump has said he would revoke “on day one.”
Trump presided over the beginning of the Covid pandemic and had, at best, a mixed record of handling it. He may appoint known anti-vaccine activist RFK Jr. to a leading role in his administration.
There's a reasonable chance that RFK Jr., an anti-vaccine extremist, will be put into a leading role in a Trump administration. It's hard to imagine a worse person to have in charge of managing a potential future pandemic or to give responsibility for ensuring countermeasures are in place for future pandemics.
According to Wikipedia, “Trump was initially described as optimistic about the country's response to the pandemic and the threat level the coronavirus disease 2019 presented to the public. As the pandemic's severity escalated in the US, Trump repeatedly made false or misleading statements. In contrast, officials within the Trump administration made numerous statements in support of physical distancing measures and business closures.”
That said, under Trump, “The federal government managed the development of several vaccines for the virus through Operation Warp Speed in 2020. Distribution of the vaccines was overseen by the Biden administration during 2021, during which time many pandemic measures were ended.”
Global health and development
A proxy for the candidates’ track records on global health is how much money their administrations asked Congress to approve for global health programs. (How much money Congress actually approved depended less on the candidates and more on Congress. Our recommended organizations turn out Democratic voters not just for the presidential race, but for down-ballot Senate and House races also.) The most recent budget request explains that these programs work “to combat infectious diseases, prevent child and maternal deaths, bolster nutrition, control the HIV/AIDS epidemic, and build the capacity of partner countries to prevent, detect, and respond to future infectious disease outbreaks to prevent them from becoming national or global emergencies.”
On average, the Biden Administration requested $4.4 billion more per year for global health than the Trump Administration.7 For reference, GiveWell moved about $1 billion in 2022. While it’s unclear how Harris will compare to Biden on international aid spending, it seems likely she’ll allocate billions more. If she spends at the same level as Biden (and Trump reverts to his prior spending), getting her elected would lead to an additional ~$16 billion for international aid.
Farm animal welfare
Harris appears to be a strong advocate for animal welfare, including farm animal welfare. (The vast majority of domestic animals live and suffer on factory farms.)
As California’s Attorney General Harris, “defended a series of pioneering animal protection laws approved in the state. She continuously defended California’s ban on foie gras sales after producers launched a series of challenges in the courts. She also took the right side – and the winning side – of multiple separate challenges to Prop 2 and AB 1437, California’s improved farm animal welfare laws.” She also, “defended a law which banned killing pigs for food if they were too sick or injured to move.”
In her 2020 primary campaign, she mentioned she would support changing dietary guidelines to incentivize a reduction in the consumption of red meat, though she cites climate change rather than animal welfare concerns.
On the other hand, Walz's past work on agriculture suggests a less favorable position on farm animal welfare.
We know little about Trump’s views on farm animal welfare, but it seems unlikely we’ll see any positive developments on this issue, and disastrous developments are plausible.
As president, Trump signed a bill making various forms of animal cruelty federal crimes, but the bill exempted customary agricultural practices.
In 2024, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis signed Senate Bill 1084 into law, making Florida the first US state to ban the sale of cell-based meat (also known as “cultivated” or “lab-grown” meat). This is part of a broader MAGA anti-lab-grown meat polarization effort that Trump might take to the federal level. Investments into cell-based meat could save billions of animals from intense suffering (and reduce global warming). While a Harris administration may be open to lobbying efforts for such investments, Trump would likely be unreceptive.Donate
For American donors:
SwapYourVote.org offers third-party and undecided/uncommitted voters in swing states the opportunity to vote for Harris in exchange for two third-party votes in solidly Democratic states (such as California). Third-party voters in swing states may thwart a Harris victor. Margins of victory are often razor-thin. Incentivizing them to swap their votes may have a decisive effect.
For international/non-American donors:
The Center for US Voters Abroad Foundation (CUVA) contacts US citizens abroad to mobilize them to vote. Americans abroad overwhelmingly lean Democratic and have generally been neglected by get-out-the-vote efforts.
Donate
See this Notion for volunteering opportunities.
For personalized advice, fill out this form and we’re happy to call or email.
We’re a group of researchers and activists who dropped our other work (on various public policy issues) or are volunteering to help beat Trump this year. We've built a strong network and contributed to a few high-leverage projects we believe are impacting the election. Some team members would rather not be named publicly, mostly due to concerns about a public partisan record, especially under a Trump administration. Our team is looking for funding to support our recommended organizations as well as to explore some more speculative interventions (details below).
We built a model to better understand the expected value of election donations. This model implies there’s a .16% chance that $10 million could flip the election from Trump to Kamala (i.e. that the margin of victory for Trump comes down to under 5000 votes in PA or other swing states).
You’ll need access to the Analyst Institute (the foremost data-driven think tank in progressive US politics) in order to see it, but you can find some relevant research here.
You can find the relevant information here, though again only if you have access through the Analyst Institute.
This was very clearly the case in Hillary’s 2016 campaign. Obama managed this well in 2008 but his team struggled with it in 2012.
“Trump tells me he would have trouble hiring anyone who admits Biden won: ‘I wouldn’t feel good about it.’”
This is based on publicly available budget requests. Adjusting for inflation, the difference is somewhat smaller, as inflation has been around 1-7% annually in the US over the last decade. Some of the difference may also be due to Covid encouraging more spending, though the Biden administration’s budget request made in 2024 (a couple of years after the pandemic lost salience) is still much larger than any request made by the Trump administration.
Thank you very much for this great article and this great work!
Are donations needed to advertise the quiz on social media?