That makes sense! My best guess is that this is an evolving situation many in the community are paying attention to but that those more in the weeds are part of larger, non-EA-specific discussion channels, given the scope of the entities involved and the larger global response. But I could be off the mark here. I base this largely on my own experience following this closely but not particularly having anything to say on e.g. the Forum about it.

I disagree with the implication that those focused on other cause areas would actively downvote a post, rather than just not engage. I haven't seen evidence of people downvoting posts for focusing on other cause areas and I worry it spreads undue animosity to imply otherwise.

I won't claim it is sufficient to the urgency of the current funding cuts, but there have been many posts, quick takes, and comments in the past few weeks about this issue, including one four days ago already announcing The Rapid Response Fund with 90 upvotes at time of writing.

My primary advice is to avoid rushing to any judgements. The criticism came out yesterday and neither organization was aware of it in advance. I assume Sinergia and/or ACE will respond, but it makes sense that that might take at least several days.

Thanks for the post! Quick flag for EAIF and EA Funds in general (@calebp?) that I would find it helpful to have the team page of the website up to date, and possibly for those who are comfortable sharing contact information, as Jamie did here, to have it listed in one place.

I actively follow EA Funds content and have been confused many times over the years about who is involved in what capacity and how those who are comfortable with it can be contacted.

"There seems to be movement towards animal welfare interventions and away from global health interventions."

What is this based on? I don't believe this tracks with e.g. distribution of EA-associated donations.

The application deadline has been extended and now closes on July 28 at 11:59 pm ET.

My best guess there is also a large U.S./EU difference here.

I do think you need to differentiate the Bay Area from the rest of the US, or at least from the US East Coast.

This seems like it has significant implications for the trajectory of global geopolitical stability and some GCR scenarios. I'm wondering whether or not others following this who are better informed than I am see this as a notable update.

Oh, it sounds like you might be confused about the context I'm talking about this occurring in, and I'm not sure that explaining it more fully is on-topic enough for this post. I'm going to leave this thread here for now to not detract from the main conversation. But I'll consider making a separate post about this and welcome feedback there.

I do also want to clarify that I have no desire to "control which ideas and people [anyone] is exposed to." It is more so, "If I am recommending 3 organizations I think someone should connect with, are there benefits or risks tied to those recommendations."