Effective Altruism Forum
EA Forum

Hide table of contents
by Giving What We Can
5 min read 2

56

Effective givingGlobal health & developmentPolicyCollections and resourcesGiving What We CanNewsletters
Frontpage

Below is the introduction to Giving What We Can's February 2025 newsletter, sent late February. Some information may now be out of date but we were encouraged to post this on the Forum as it contains practical information for thinking about donating!

EDIT 20th March: An non-final version of the newsletter was posted here in error. We are updating the "What's being done & how you can help" and "Supporting affected high-impact programs" sections to reflect the correct version.

It’s hard to believe the global health landscape has changed so significantly in just one month. We wanted to update our community on what we know so far and how this might impact your donation decisions. 

(There is a lot to cover, so this newsletter will be a bit longer than usual!)

A summary of the situation: 

The US aid funding freeze has left millions without access to critical global health services. While a judicial order was issued to temporarily reverse the freeze, the government is unlikely to comply. USAID staff & access to systems have been gutted, and – despite the government’s stated waiver program for life-saving work – many qualifying programs aren’t able to obtain waivers, and many who have them aren’t able to actually get the funding the waivers promise. 

Many are wondering: “Is there anything I can do?” 

What’s being done & how you can help

The good news is that several folks within the effective giving ecosystem are stepping up to help fill the funding gaps created by the chaos and help affected high-impact organisations continue their programmes. We’ll provide some information below about how you can support this crucial work. But first, here are a few things to keep in mind as you think about what this means for your donation decisions:

The situation is highly uncertain. It’s important to note that there’s a lot we don’t know and that it’s been difficult for organisations working on this to get clarity. It’s unclear if/how much funding will eventually resume and if it does, to which programs. This makes cost-effectiveness calculations extremely difficult.

Cost-effectiveness is more important than ever. It is unlikely all affected programs will be able to restart work & rebuild operations. Prioritising the most cost-effective programs means we can essentially make money go further – restoring protection to more people.

GiveWell-supported programs are experiencing effects from the freeze, to varying degrees. While GiveWell’s top charity programs don't receive direct USAID funding, some GiveWell top charities are indirectly impacted by the freeze; for example, some may rely on USAID-funded programs or suppliers to carry out their operations. Additionally, some of GiveWell's other grantees beyond top charities do receive direct USAID funding.

We continue to recommend GiveWell programs. At this time, we do not recommend stopping support for GiveWell programs to instead support funds that have been explicitly set up to fill funding gaps. If you are donating to GiveWell programs, you are already supporting the type of work that has been cut – and doing so through highly cost-effective programs.

  • That said, if you, like us, have confidence in GiveWell's ability to identify cost-effective opportunities, you might consider shifting funding from specific GiveWell Top Charities to their Top Charities Fund or their All Grants Fund, which can be more flexible in this rapidly changing funding landscape. GiveWell is considering the recent funding freeze in their grantmaking decisions and plans to make grants to fill urgent funding needs. At this moment, they are trying to make some time-sensitive grants while also saving funds for large, critical funding gaps that may appear in the next few months.
    • Donating to the All Grants Fund gives GiveWell the most flexibility to respond strategically, given funds aren’t restricted to only Top Charities, and the grantmaking timeline is more flexible, making it better suited to responding to emergency funding needs. That said, GiveWell is still advising donors who prioritise having the highest level of confidence to donate to the Top Charities Fund, given it knows these organisations best. Please note that – while GiveWell is considering the funding freeze in their grantmaking decisions – donations to the All Grants Fund or Top Charities Fund may or may not go to new grants GiveWell is specifically making as a result of the stop work order.

Supporting affected high-impact programs

As mentioned above, some of GiveWell’s All Grants Fund and Top Charities Fund may be used to support programs affected by the freeze. We also know of two funds that have been set up explicitly to attempt to fill funding gaps for affected organisations.

While our research team has not evaluated the grantmaking of either fund in detail, we currently expect the Rapid Response Fund to be the more cost-effective option of the two, given it specifically supports organisations that are included on Founders Pledge’s or The Life You Can Save’s list of recommended organisations or that otherwise meet their cost-effectiveness criteria.

We do not know how donating to this fund compares to donating to the All Grants Fund or Top Charities Fund. In such an uncertain situation, it’s difficult to know how the strategy of explicitly prioritising direct grants to affected organisations compares to the one GiveWell is taking, and some donors may prefer one approach over the other.

The Rapid Response Fund: Launched by Founders Pledge & The Life You Can Save, this fund aims to fill critical funding gaps for top recommendations & other high-impact organisations affected by the USAID freeze, so they can continue life-saving programs. Read more and donate here.

Unlock Aid’s Bridge Fund: This fund is not explicitly tied to the effective giving ecosystem; some of the coalition partners are recommended by impact-focused evaluators but many are not. While its stated criteria seem to prioritise cost-effective organisations, we have not looked into their cost-effectiveness bar and would expect (though we are not certain) that this fund is overall less cost-effective than supporting the Rapid Response Fund. Read more and donate here.

Another important way to help

Funding gaps for life-saving global health programs are not new. Even with the US responsible for 42% of the global humanitarian aid tracked by the UN, aid spending by the US accounts for a tiny fraction of its total budget, ranging from 0.7% – 1.4% from 2001 to 2025. Government aid has long fallen short of providing life-saving services for those who need them, leading to around 14,000 children dying daily from mostly preventable causes, and nonprofits have long had to step in to help fill the gap left by governments. Now this gap is much, much wider.

In other words, the current situation significantly worsens an ongoing crisis that is usually “silent” – bringing visibility to the hard fact that there are people in the world whose lives are ending simply because there isn’t enough funding and/or infrastructure for low-cost interventions like malaria nets, safe water, and essential nutrients to reach them. 

Ordinary individuals have the power to help provide this funding and are often unaware of both the scale of the problem and the power they have to make a concrete difference. If people in your life are distressed over the USAID crisis, I hope you’ll help them feel less powerless by sharing the funding opportunities above. If you support GiveWell programs, share that as well – talk about why you’ve chosen to support these programs even before the aid freeze, and how much more important your support is now. Bring visibility to the ongoing “silent” crisis that will unfortunately persist even if USAID-funded programs can restart operations. 

Effective giving is more important now than ever, and collective action can’t be underestimated. Let’s work together to deliver life-saving services to those in need by supporting (and spreading the word about) highly impactful programs – with the hope that this support will continue long after the headlines die down. 

As usual, we’re sharing plenty of other news below.


With gratitude and hope,

Grace Adams & the Giving What We Can Team 

You can read the rest of our newsletter for February here: https://www.givingwhatwecan.org/en/blog/february-newsletter-us-aid-freeze-how-to-help-and-where-to-donate

56

0
0
1

Reactions

0
0
1

More posts like this

Comments2


Sorted by
New & upvoted
Click to highlight new comments since:
Melanie Brennan3
0
0

Thanks a lot for this useful overview, Grace! 

Reply
Neel Nanda5
0
0

This was a very helpful post, thanks! Do you know of any way for UK donors to give to the rapid response fund? If not, has GWWC considered trying to set that up? (Like I think you have with a bunch of other charities)

Reply
More from Giving What We Can
View more
Curated and popular this week
LintzA
 ·  · 15m read
 · 
Cross-posted to Lesswrong Introduction Several developments over the past few months should cause you to re-evaluate what you are doing. These include: 1. Updates toward short timelines 2. The Trump presidency 3. The o1 (inference-time compute scaling) paradigm 4. Deepseek 5. Stargate/AI datacenter spending 6. Increased internal deployment 7. Absence of AI x-risk/safety considerations in mainstream AI discourse Taken together, these are enough to render many existing AI governance strategies obsolete (and probably some technical safety strategies too). There's a good chance we're entering crunch time and that should absolutely affect your theory of change and what you plan to work on. In this piece I try to give a quick summary of these developments and think through the broader implications these have for AI safety. At the end of the piece I give some quick initial thoughts on how these developments affect what safety-concerned folks should be prioritizing. These are early days and I expect many of my takes will shift, look forward to discussing in the comments!  Implications of recent developments Updates toward short timelines There’s general agreement that timelines are likely to be far shorter than most expected. Both Sam Altman and Dario Amodei have recently said they expect AGI within the next 3 years. Anecdotally, nearly everyone I know or have heard of who was expecting longer timelines has updated significantly toward short timelines (<5 years). E.g. Ajeya’s median estimate is that 99% of fully-remote jobs will be automatable in roughly 6-8 years, 5+ years earlier than her 2023 estimate. On a quick look, prediction markets seem to have shifted to short timelines (e.g. Metaculus[1] & Manifold appear to have roughly 2030 median timelines to AGI, though haven’t moved dramatically in recent months). We’ve consistently seen performance on benchmarks far exceed what most predicted. Most recently, Epoch was surprised to see OpenAI’s o3 model achi
Dr Kassim
 ·  · 4m read
 · 
Hey everyone, I’ve been going through the EA Introductory Program, and I have to admit some of these ideas make sense, but others leave me with more questions than answers. I’m trying to wrap my head around certain core EA principles, and the more I think about them, the more I wonder: Am I misunderstanding, or are there blind spots in EA’s approach? I’d really love to hear what others think. Maybe you can help me clarify some of my doubts. Or maybe you share the same reservations? Let’s talk. Cause Prioritization. Does It Ignore Political and Social Reality? EA focuses on doing the most good per dollar, which makes sense in theory. But does it hold up when you apply it to real world contexts especially in countries like Uganda? Take malaria prevention. It’s a top EA cause because it’s highly cost effective $5,000 can save a life through bed nets (GiveWell, 2023). But what happens when government corruption or instability disrupts these programs? The Global Fund scandal in Uganda saw $1.6 million in malaria aid mismanaged (Global Fund Audit Report, 2016). If money isn’t reaching the people it’s meant to help, is it really the best use of resources? And what about leadership changes? Policies shift unpredictably here. A national animal welfare initiative I supported lost momentum when political priorities changed. How does EA factor in these uncertainties when prioritizing causes? It feels like EA assumes a stable world where money always achieves the intended impact. But what if that’s not the world we live in? Long termism. A Luxury When the Present Is in Crisis? I get why long termists argue that future people matter. But should we really prioritize them over people suffering today? Long termism tells us that existential risks like AI could wipe out trillions of future lives. But in Uganda, we’re losing lives now—1,500+ die from rabies annually (WHO, 2021), and 41% of children suffer from stunting due to malnutrition (UNICEF, 2022). These are preventable d
Rory Fenton
 ·  · 6m read
 · 
Cross-posted from my blog. Contrary to my carefully crafted brand as a weak nerd, I go to a local CrossFit gym a few times a week. Every year, the gym raises funds for a scholarship for teens from lower-income families to attend their summer camp program. I don’t know how many Crossfit-interested low-income teens there are in my small town, but I’ll guess there are perhaps 2 of them who would benefit from the scholarship. After all, CrossFit is pretty niche, and the town is small. Helping youngsters get swole in the Pacific Northwest is not exactly as cost-effective as preventing malaria in Malawi. But I notice I feel drawn to supporting the scholarship anyway. Every time it pops in my head I think, “My money could fully solve this problem”. The camp only costs a few hundred dollars per kid and if there are just 2 kids who need support, I could give $500 and there would no longer be teenagers in my town who want to go to a CrossFit summer camp but can’t. Thanks to me, the hero, this problem would be entirely solved. 100%. That is not how most nonprofit work feels to me. You are only ever making small dents in important problems I want to work on big problems. Global poverty. Malaria. Everyone not suddenly dying. But if I’m honest, what I really want is to solve those problems. Me, personally, solve them. This is a continued source of frustration and sadness because I absolutely cannot solve those problems. Consider what else my $500 CrossFit scholarship might do: * I want to save lives, and USAID suddenly stops giving $7 billion a year to PEPFAR. So I give $500 to the Rapid Response Fund. My donation solves 0.000001% of the problem and I feel like I have failed. * I want to solve climate change, and getting to net zero will require stopping or removing emissions of 1,500 billion tons of carbon dioxide. I give $500 to a policy nonprofit that reduces emissions, in expectation, by 50 tons. My donation solves 0.000000003% of the problem and I feel like I have f
Recent opportunities in Effective giving
113
USAID Aid Freeze - Bridge Fund established - Donate now for immediate relief
James&Joe
· · 1m read
15
15
38
Announcing the Compassionate Future Summit 2025
Ruth_Seleo
· · 1m read
1
1
127
Projects I'd like to see in the GHW meta space
Melanie Basnak🔸
· · 8m read
2
2
View more