Approach to politics and polarized issues

Last updated: 26th November, 2025

The upside of doing political work can be extremely high. But engaging in political campaigns or with polarized issues carries risks. This page has information about the risks, so you can carefully choosing your actions.

Feel free to reach out to Catherine (catherine@centreforeffectivealtruism.org) from CEA’s Community Health team to discuss the situation in your own location. She also may be able to connect you with other group organizers in similar situations to yours. 

1. The EA community’s usual approach to political issues in the West

• EAs are predominantly left-to-center, but there is a wide spread of positions.
• There is a considered effort to avoid association with any specific political party.
• We explicitly want to avoid EA cause areas becoming politicized to prevent the "tug of war" scenario that often happens between opposing sides. The example of environmentalism in the US and other Western countries demonstrates how an issue becoming "left-coded" or “right-coded” can be detrimental to progress.
• There are different approaches EAs can have towards politics - for some that will mean trying to change the people in power, and for some that will mean working with the people that are in power (whoever they are).
• Working on hot-button topics can score low on tractability because sometimes the more resources one group spends, the more the opposing group will spend.
• Some people interested in politics or policy who have been involved with EA may choose to avoid public connection due to potential career impact concerns.
• Political parties (as well as parts of the political spectra) typically take stances on a wide range of issues, which can make it hard to align with one party without making it appear you share their other goals. This bundling can be limiting if you care about specific causes that don’t align neatly with any one platform. Similarly, intersectional approaches - which tie certain actions on one issue to certain actions on other issues - can make it harder to build coalitions around narrow, shared aims. EA-connected organizations often favor more targeted progress, and sometimes this includes having partnerships with groups that might agree on the specific issue, but not on all issues - for example, animal advocates teaming up with farmers or environmentalists on single-issue campaigns.
• There is also a potential risk of the community falling into lower standards of reasoning, honesty, etc. through feeling a need to compete in political arenas where good epistemics are not valued as highly.

Some related ideas about the risks of polarization and political advocacy:

1. Climate change policy and politics in the US
2. Lesson 7: Even among EAs, politics might somewhat degrade our typical epistemics and rigor
3. To Oppose Polarization, Tug Sideways
4. Politics on the EA Forum

2. Considerations for different countries / regions

• Consider what the risks of association with different political groups might be in the future
• Freedom House, Human Rights Watch can give you some information about personal risks to people who act against the government. In countries with low levels of freedom people may need to be exceptionally cautious.
• Check out your local laws - some countries restrict promotion of international charities or prohibit donations abroad.
• Some religious or strongly ideological governments may be more suspicious of alternative ideologies in general.
• We’re more worried about EA being polarized in more influential countries.

3. Advice for group organizers

• Create an environment where people feel comfortable participating, even if they're considering political careers, including being mindful of those who may need security clearance or should be careful about association in the future - even if they don’t know it yet!
• As a community leader, recognize that if you’re involved in political action this may inspire others in the group to do so. Make it clear there are different strategies for different roles - it isn’t necessary (or even advisable) to get involved in activism for some career paths.
• Be explicit about the diversity of political backgrounds within EA (if you don’t have this diversity in your EA group, you could refer to the diversity in the international community)
• We recommend that newer city and national groups are particularly careful not to become politically polarized as this is something that is hard to undo.
• In many contexts, it’s reasonable for EAs to engage in party politics - it can be an impactful way of doing good! But we recommend group organizers are careful to ensure political work is separate from EA groups. Group organizers are representatives of EA, so note that the things that you do/say could easily be interpreted as representing EA.
• If you’re already strongly affiliated with (or against) a party, and you and your co-organizers think this might be a problem you could
• consider taking steps to be less affiliated with the party if you want to take on a visible organizer role. You might remove political posts from your social media or ask to be taken off political pages or listings. This might be the best solution if you’re planning to be a spokesperson for EA or for your EA group.
• stay affiliated with the political party, but lower your public EA visibility. This could be the best if political work is core to your strategy, that’s valid. But consider contributing in a lower-profile way (e.g. behind the scenes) and avoid being listed publicly e.g. on the groups website
• Discussions about political topics can be done very well in our community, with people displaying scout mindset, care for others, and intellectual rigor. But it isn’t always the case. Consider moderating political discussions in your spaces (online or in person) more carefully than most discussions. Political discussions can devolve quickly - sometimes treating people (including voters and politicians) they disagree with in a kind of “othering” way, or sharing political in-group signals, neither of which help us seek truth.
• Ensure that discussions on having an impact through politics as part of your EA group are clearly nonpartisan, e.g. you could hold a discussion about different political parties' policies or track records relating to key cause areas, but the organizers or discussion facilitators should be careful not to imply that “EA” or the EA group as a whole is supporting a particular candidate or party.
• If you are considering inviting speakers from political parties about something other than an election, like a policy issue of interest to EAs, or to inform your group about careers in politics, invite speakers from multiple political parties.
• Take especial care to separate your political and EA activities if you are a funded group organizer. If you decide to do political campaigning work in your free time, it won’t necessarily appear separate to others. See the above section on separating out your individual work.
• Don’t hold political meetings in EA group spaces such as an EA office, or in the same venue after EA events.
• Don’t advertise events as an “EA event” or affiliated with your EA group if they are primarily about a particular political candidate or party.

4. Making public statements on polarized issues

• In the past many EA group members and organizers have felt the desire to publish a statement about a current polarized issue, or to sign such a statement written by others.
• There are downsides to doing this. It’s hard and time-consuming to write a good statement. Different audiences often consider a statement inadequate or poorly worded, and what goes over well with one audience often reads badly to a different one. Your group likely contains people with a variety of views on this topic, and making or signing onto a statement on behalf of the whole group can misrepresent some of your members.
• There are upsides too. Public statements can
• Support the morale of people who feel strongly about the situation, and want to know that others in their community care too.
• Move a space (such as a university, or a subfield, or EA generally) toward something you value.
• Help retain or recruit members who agree with your stance.
• Make connections with like-minded people from other groups and cause areas.
• We also recognize that, especially on some university campuses, many people see "not taking sides" as compliance in unjust systems, and this can also be harmful for EA's reputation.
• If you're ever unsure of how to respond to these situations, feel free to get in touch with the Community Health team, and we'll be happy to either advise your situation or connect you with other people who can.

5. Legal risks of EA groups interacting with political campaigns

Charities and organizations associated with/funded by charities have constraints on what political activities they can do.

Note: This is not legal advice. Our team is employed by US and UK charities. So, we have a little familiarity with the legal situations for groups/organisations that are based in the US or UK (many EA organisations), and groups/organisations that are funded by charities in the US or UK (even more EA groups and organisations). We have very little knowledge about the legal situation relating to other countries.

It could be useful for groups/orgs in any country (including US and UK) to get independent legal advice if they’re planning to significantly interact with political campaigns.

If your group/organization is a charity or is funded by a charity

In many (or maybe all?) places, charities or organizations funded by charities are NOT allowed to engage in political campaigning.

E.g.

• US
• U.S. 501(c)(3) public charities are prohibited from “intervening in political campaigns” (more detail). This includes organizations that are funded by US 501 (c)(3) charities (including Open Philanthropy’s charitable arm, and Effective Ventures (which hosts CEA)). This includes
• financial support for a campaign, including reimbursing costs for people to engage in volunteer activities
• endorsing or disapproving of a candidate, referring to a candidate’s characteristics or qualifications for office — in writing, speaking, mentions on the website, podcasts, etc. Language that could appear partisan like stating “holding elected officials accountable" could also imply disapproval.
• taking action to help or hurt the chances of a candidate. This can be problematic even if you or your charity didn’t intend to help or hurt the candidate.
• staff taking political action that’s seen as representing the organization they work for
• E.g. attending rallies or door knocking as a representative of a charity.
• letting campaigns use office space or other nonprofit resources for their work.
• But they can generally promote action on particular issues, or promote types of solutions to problems (e.g. promotion of better welfare practices for hens out of cages or advocating for decision makers to take AI risk seriously).
• In some cases, charities can do a limited amount of advocacy for specific policy changes (such as an animal-focused charity advocating for a ballot measure to regulate how animals are treated).
• UK
• Gov.UK guidance
• Charities can campaign for the government to introduce certain policies, if this supports the charity’s purpose.
• UK charities can not engage in any party political activity such as donating resources or asking supporters to vote for or against a party or candidate.
• There are regulations around spending on any activities which ‘can reasonably be regarded as intended to promote or procure electoral success at any relevant election’ for or against any political parties or candidates. It is not necessary to name a party or type of candidate in the campaign materials, but if a reasonable person might think you are calling for the public to vote for or against a party or candidate it could count.
• More information
• Basic information on some other countries
• France
• Germany
• Australia
• Canada

Violations of these rules could result in the charity status being revoked from an organization, which would be very costly.

If your organization is not a registered charity, and is not funded by registered charity

Even if the above rules do not formally apply to your org, it could still be good to consider the above suggestions to reduce the chances that

• your group or EA as a whole is seen as particularly political or partisan by others
• that you don’t unknowingly reduce your ability to get funding from grantmaking charities in the future.

For individuals: If you’re not a citizen or permanent resident

Many countries also have laws disallowing people who are not citizens or permanent residents from participating in some (or all) ways in a campaign.

E.g.

• US - Foreigners can’t donate to campaigns, or be compensated for campaigning, but foreigners can be involved in campaigning as a volunteer.
• UK - in order to donate to a political party, you must be registered to vote in UK elections.

If you’re interested in getting involved in campaigns in a place where you can’t vote, check out the relevant laws. It is probably worth being extremely cautious if you’re hoping to get residency, work permits, or visitor visas for the country you’re hoping to campaign in.

For individuals: Involvement as a private citizen when you are affiliated with an EA org

EA group organizers and EA org staff can still campaign for, or donate to, political campaigns in their own country as a private citizen. But sometimes it can be blurry when you are and when you aren’t acting as a private citizen. If you are campaigning using platforms (like slack or social media) where you’re known by your role in an EA group, you should be careful to be clear that any campaigning is being done as a private citizen, and unassociated with your role. But, if you are campaigning using a platform/to an audience that you have access to because of your role, just stating that you are acting as a private citizen may not be enough. E.g. a group organizer should not share a political announcement in a group meeting they are running.

6. A few examples of how groups have managed political situations

Political affilations of members

• Case 1: Stepping back to focus on political action

In one country, anti-government protests emerged, and many group members, including the main organizers, felt that participating in these protests was an important thing for them to do. The organizers decided to pause group activities temporarily so they could focus on political action. They may choose to restart the group in the future.

• Case 2: Balancing representation at a conference

An elected official with an interest in effective altruism was seen as a strong potential speaker for a local EA conference. The organizers chose to invite them, but also invited a representative from another political party who had also shown some alignment with EA ideas. This ensured that EA was less likely to look like part of a single party.

• Case 3: Hosting a political discussion in a private space

At a national group retreat, a discussion session on the upcoming election was held in response to popular demand. The session was not recorded. It was facilitated by community members who also worked in government roles. The facilitators aimed to create a space where attendees felt comfortable engaging with a range of political perspectives. They highlighted how the policies of various parties might impact important cause areas. While a few community members voluntarily shared who they planned to vote for (and it was apparent that the group leaned left), the session began with a clear statement that the group, and the EA community more broadly, does not hold any particular political affiliation.

Engaging with political action without it being associated with a party

Encouragement to participate in the democratic process on a particular policy discussion

When a government invited the public to share their perspective on a particular policy proposal relating to an important EA cause area, the group organizers told group members about the opportunity to weigh in, and some members shared their submission ideas as inspiration. The topic wasn't politically polarized, and submissions/discussions avoided talking about the political parties, and focused just on the policy in discussion.