Dustin Moskovitz and his wife Cari Tuna have quietly set a course to spend roughly a $20 billion fortune they built on the back of Facebook, and Forbes reports they’ve already plowed billions into causes chosen by a tight circle of technocratic advisers. While private charity can do real good, no one should mistake enormous private fortunes for democratic legitimacy — especially when those fortunes are being used to reshape public priorities without public consent.
The couple has given away more than $4 billion so far, directing a large share toward global health, pandemic preparedness and what they call “AI safety,” and they continue to increase the pace of donations. That sounds noble until you remember these aren’t neutral, community-driven campaigns but top-down, evidence-based bets made by Silicon Valley elites whose worldview reflects their circles and incentives.
Cari Tuna, a former Wall Street Journal reporter, chairs the giving operation and helped spin Open Philanthropy into what has become a major vehicle for these grants, while Moskovitz funnels personal wealth into Good Ventures and related funds. Conservatives should applaud private generosity, yet also demand transparency when a handful of wealthy people set agendas that affect national security, research priorities, and the structure of scientific discourse.
One of the clearest examples of their sway is their early funding of AI labs and safety groups — millions to groups like OpenAI early on, and a large Anthropic stake rechanneled into nonprofit vehicles so returns can be reinvested into philanthropy. That kind of influence over the future of cutting-edge technology — from what gets researched to what gets regulated — belongs under democratic oversight, not quietly exercised through grantmaking and private advice.
Now their operation, rebranded as Coefficient Giving, is offering free advisory services to other big donors, essentially trying to herd the billionaire class toward the same set of priorities they favor. This may sound like a helpful service, but it is also an institutional effort to centralize philanthropic decision-making among like-minded elites who prefer technocratic solutions and globalist risk frameworks over local accountability.
It’s also worth noting that Moskovitz and Tuna’s money hasn’t stayed apolitical — past disclosures show big donations to Democratic-aligned causes and PACs, and the couple has been vocal on public policy in ways that align with coastal progressive elites. When billionaires use philanthropy as a vehicle for policy influence, working-class Americans have a right to ask whose values are being advanced and why those decisions are being made behind closed doors.
We should welcome private generosity that lifts lives, but as conservatives we must push back against a ruling class of billionaire donors who treat our institutions and technologies as their personal laboratories. Demand transparency, insist on accountability, and protect democratic oversight so that national priorities reflect the consent of the governed — not just the grantmaking whims of the ultra-wealthy.
