Longtermism, a philosophical perspective contending that action prioritizing future generations is a crucial moral priority, is becoming increasingly popular among both scientists and the broad populace. The idea is often used as reasoning for existential risks, such as those posed by climate change, artificial intelligence, and pandemics, to be prioritized in policy. While action on these specific issues may be beneficial, longtermism’s emphasis on the extremely long-term future has a critical flaw: policy paralysis. This paper argues that the ripple effect, interconnectedness of catastrophic events, and uncertainty surrounding long-term outcomes create a situation where policymakers are paralyzed. The paper further explores how, in decision making, cognitive biases such as loss aversion and status quo bias are exacerbated by longtermism, which tips the scale and causes policymakers to default towards inaction. To address these challenges, this paper proposes a discounting risk model that caps the influence of low-probability existential risks on policy decisions, thereby allowing for a more pragmatic approach to governance. This model serves as a robust framework for future research to refine and implement, thereby offering a concrete pathway to integrate longtermist principles into effective policymaking, specifically within complex and large-scale policy arenas. If policy paralysis is averted, longtermism can be effectively applied within fields such as applied political philosophy, influencing how societies prioritize the interests of temporally distant individuals.