The philanthropic landscape for nuclear risk mitigation is undergoing significant changes, as several major foundations scale back or withdraw their support. This shift could lead to the downsizing or shutdown of critical initiatives, reduced capacity to address emerging nuclear threats, and a potential reallocation of focus toward non-nuclear issues like climate change. Such changes raise strategic questions for Effective Altruism (EA) funders, who now face the decision of whether and how to fill the funding gap in this high-stakes area.

Assessing the Funding Gap

One way to address this challenge could involve conducting a comprehensive assessment of ongoing funding changes, their impact on nuclear risk projects, and opportunities for EA-aligned interventions. This might include:

• Mapping funding shifts: Identifying which funders have reduced support, their reasons, and future projections.
• Analyzing impact: Evaluating how these changes affect high-impact projects and the broader ecosystem.
• Spotting opportunities: Highlighting underfunded or scalable projects that align with EA priorities, such as existential risk reduction.

Execution and Stakeholder Alignment

The research could combine desk research, interviews with funders and project leaders, and trend analysis to create actionable recommendations. A phased approach might involve:

1. Initial data collection to identify urgent gaps (1-2 months).
2. Deeper engagement with stakeholders (2-4 months).
3. Synthesizing findings into a strategic report (1-3 months).

A minimal viable product could focus on the most pressing funding gaps, using publicly available data and select interviews to provide quick, targeted insights.

Differentiation and Impact

Unlike general research on nuclear risk, this project could specialize in connecting EA funding priorities with high-impact opportunities. For example, while organizations like the Council on Strategic Risks analyze threats broadly, this initiative might focus specifically on where EA capital could be most effective. Potential advantages include speed—acting before critical projects disband—and a framework that prioritizes longtermist outcomes.

By addressing funding instability with data-driven recommendations, this proposal offers a way to sustain and amplify efforts against one of humanity's most significant risks.