Written anonymously because I work in a field where there is a currently low but non-negligible and possibly high future risk of negative consequences for criticizing Trump and Trumpism.

This post is an attempt to cobble together some ideas about the current situation in the United States and its impact on EA. I invite discussion on this, not only from Americans, but also those with advocacy experience in countries that are not fully liberal democracies (especially those countries where state capacity is substantial and autocratic repression occurs). 

I've deleted a lot of text from this post in various drafts because I find myself getting way too in the weeds discoursing on comparative authoritarian studies, disinformation and misinformation (this is a great intro, though already somewhat outdated), and the dangers of the GOP.^[1] I will note that I worry there is still a tendency to view the administration as chaotic and clumsy but retaining some degree of good faith, which strikes me as quite naive. 

For the sake of brevity and focus, I will take these two things to be true, and try to hypothesize what they mean for EA. I'm not going to pretend these are ironclad truths, but I'm fairly confident in them.^[2] 

1. Under Donald Trump, the Republican Party (GOP) is no longer substantially committed to democracy and the rule of law.
   1. The GOP will almost certainly continue to engage in measures that test the limits of constitutional rule as long as Trump is alive, and likely after he dies.
   2. The Democratic Party will remain constrained by institutional and coalition factors that prevent it from behaving like the GOP. That is, absent overwhelming electoral victories in 2024 and 2026 (and beyond), the Democrats' comparatively greater commitment to rule of law and democracy will prevent systematic purging of the GOP elites responsible for democratic backsliding; while we have not crossed the Rubicon yet, it will get much worse before things get better.
2. The United States is very likely entering a period of democratic backsliding, and that may result in a hybrid regime, wherein elections are still held and contested, albeit on an uneven playing field, but concurrent civil liberties and protections are not universal. It is also possible that in the event of a GOP loss, it adopts rhetoric along the lines of the 2020 Big Lie, and refuses to concede power altogether.

Some initial thoughts on what this could mean for EA. Overall, EA advocacy areas will almost certainly become much harder, if not permanent nonstarters:

• On AI: The United States may see the emergence of oligarchic politics, wherein business magnates are exceptionally politically influential. AI oligarchs would not take kindly to attempts to slow them down and may lean on the state to use state pressure to weaken AI safety advocacy.
• On global health and development: The political costs of foreign aid and helping others—especially Black Africans—will be much higher. EA advocacy on global health and vaccines may risk being branded as unpatriotic or "woke" because it is aimed at people outside the US. I worry that for the sake of retaining influence in AI, there might be a temptation to cease the critical work done on this front for risk of incurring the wrath of the GOP.
• On nuclear risk reduction: The current administration's foreign policy is in flux and seems subject to the vagaries of Donald Trump. Marco Rubio maintains that we're trying to "peel off" Russia from China. I think that's a post-facto justification for otherwise shocking behavior vis-a-vis Russia and Ukraine, but even so, advocacy for detente or dialogue in any form with China may risk being branded as a Chinese sympathizer. (I'm unsure on nuclear risk reduction vis-a-vis Russia right now.)
• On animal advocacy: This may also be viewed as "woke" and suspect. Oligarchic/agribusiness influence may take advantage of the GOP's willingness to deploy state power against political opponents and try to silence or harass civil society groups engaged in animal advocacy. 

Additionally, at the meta-advocacy level, EA will suffer insofar as the bureaucracy is drained of talent. This will be particularly acute for anything touching on areas with heavy federal involvement, like public health, biosecurity, or foreign aid/policy.^[3] 

Finally, on a darker note, one may reasonably conclude from this that the solution is to keep our heads down collectively, because the cost of even perceived opposition could be quite high in the coming years. Setting aside my immense moral opposition to that, for the reasons outlined above, I think that would not do much for EA: without democracy, space for advocacy seems like it will be very limited within the US. But maybe that just makes earning to give all the more important.

1. ^{^}

   I am not the first to point this out by far, but I struggle a lot with not sounding like a completely delirious, partisan hack when describing the status quo. Just to put (some of) it out there: "A bunch of barely-out-of-college followers of Elon Musk, including a 19-year-old with the online alias BigBalls and an blatant racist whose dismissal for blatant racism was reversed because of support from the Vice President, are systematically gutting Congressionally authorized programs and agencies in clear violation of the law. The President has executed a complete reversal of US foreign policy and the US has begun voting with Russia and against its traditional allies at the UN. The US has also entertained invading Canada, which most US elites seem to think is at most a quirky bluster, but has deeply disturbed Canadians. We might also invade Denmark, a NATO ally, in Greenland. The man who runs Health and Human Services does not appear to fully understand or believe in germ theory. The health and lives of millions are on the line as programs like PEPFAR, famine aid, and NIH research are halted." 

2. ^{^}

   It may end up being the case, for example, that in the next several months actors like the Supreme Court, Congress, and civil society form robust checks on Trump and Musk. Large Democratic victories in 2026 and 2028 could result in reversal of democratic backsliding. There are also plenty of other ways things could go back to more normal, constitutionally bound politics. I certainly do hope I am wrong/overreacting, but I'm not especially optimistic.

3. ^{^}

   Autocrats tend to prioritize loyalty over technical competence among elites because elite coups/competition are one of two primary threats to their power (the other being mass uprising). Two influential papers summarizing this line of thinking are Egorov and Sonin 2011 and Zakharov 2016. The dynamic here is a bit different, given that elections are likely to occur in the next few cycles, but seems broadly similar: RFK is a good example of someone chosen for loyalty (and electoral benefit) over competence. It is also clear that the Trump administration largely views the current federal civil service (the "deep state") adversarially. Education polarization in the US means that at least for now there are limits on the number of competent, sufficiently MAGA people who would be able to fill the federal bureaucracy's more technically demanding roles, though the goal is almost certainly not to replace civil servants 1:1 with loyalists anyway.