If Donald Trump continues along the same trajectory as his first term, it’s likely that his second administration will further erode the already limited safeguards in place to protect animals.
During his initial four-year tenure in the workforce, Trump’s accomplishments were scrutinized.
As the COVID-19 pandemic took hold, concerns emerged about the potential risks posed by slaughterhouses, which became hotspots for transmission in the early stages. In response, President Trump, on March 22, called for them to remain operational, even as schools and workplaces were forced to shut down.
If a unified Republican government were to emerge in the future, President Trump could potentially further erode animal protection laws, driven by his pro-business and deregulatory stance.
E-mail us at futureperfect@vox.com!
The director of the Animal Regulation and Coverage Institute at Vermont Regulation and Graduate College noted: “He now has more active engagement from savvy individuals whose objective is to significantly reduce – if not eliminate altogether – federal regulations affecting companies, including animal-using firms that already enjoy relatively lenient oversight.” (Disclosure: Last summer, I participated in a media fellowship program at Vermont Law and Graduate School.) Meanwhile, unlike most federal regulatory agencies like the US Department of Agriculture, where staff are typically civil servants, Trump has pledged to appoint them as political appointees, allowing him to fire and replace them with loyalists to further his deregulatory agenda.
Notwithstanding some individuals close to Trump, despite sharing conservative views on various social issues, have surprisingly exhibited more progressive attitudes towards animal welfare and opposition to factory farming practices. In a future era, certain individuals may find themselves empowered to further the causes of animal welfare, such as conservation efforts, research initiatives, and advocacy groups – an opportunity that could be seized by Kennedy, provided they were entrusted with authority over healthcare.
Whether they will leverage their influence to aid animals during another Trump administration remains uncertain and seems doubtful. While there is some precedent they could potentially build upon, it’s worth noting that Trump’s initial term wasn’t entirely detrimental to the environment. The Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Secretary Andrew Wheeler aimed to significantly reduce animal testing by 2035 through innovative alternatives, working closely with various federal agencies to minimize the use of chemicals, pollutants, and toxins.
While some critics have questioned the group’s motives, citing concerns over the potential for conflict-of-interest or lack of oversight, others see it as a much-needed corrective to the slow and often ineffective federal research process.
Despite notable differences between President-elect Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris, a striking similarity emerges in their approaches to animal welfare: minimal divergence exists between their stances. In December of last year, President Joe Biden’s Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) moved to finalize a policy that reverses the Trump administration’s stance on animal testing, while his Department of Justice intervened in a landmark Supreme Court case involving a California law that prohibits confining pigs in cramped cages. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service under Biden has recently moved to rescind a Trump-era regulation removing federal protections for grey wolves, following a lawsuit by environmental groups that successfully halted the measure. Minnesota Gov. Additionally, Democratic vice presidential candidate Tim Walz has a long-standing, close affiliation with the agricultural industry, particularly with manufacturers of farming equipment.
Animal welfare proved a surprisingly resilient issue on Tuesday’s political landscape, with measures to improve animal safety facing significant pushback at both state and local levels across the US, underscoring the public’s resistance to more ambitious animal protection legislation.
In Denver, a staggering 64% of voters supported a ballot measure that could potentially shut down the largest lamb slaughterhouse in the US. A recent expose by an animal rights group caught on camera the brutal treatment of lambs, capturing scenes of injured lambs struggling to walk only to be kicked and pushed towards their eventual demise; lambs suspended upside down on the slaughter line, still thrashing in agony after their throats had been cut; staff callously laughing and striking the animals with a sense of impunity; and allegedly utilizing “Judas sheep”, mature sheep used as decoys to lead lambs to their inevitable slaughter.
Fifty-eight percent of Denver residents also voted against a ban on firearms.
Regardless of significant setbacks, Professional-Animal Future, the organization behind Denver’s poll measures, celebrated the finding that more than a third of voters were willing to support a comprehensive measure banning slaughterhouses – even as their campaign was outspent 6-to-1 by a coalition of national and state meat industry groups, restaurants, and labor unions?
“Notably bold in its approach, our organization’s recent marketing initiative was poised to challenge conventional norms,” said Olivia Hammond, spokesperson for Professional-Animal Future, at a press conference. More than 100,000 individuals who consume meat have opted for a world without slaughterhouses – a foundation we will build upon accordingly. Voters are unaccustomed to animal welfare issues appearing on the ballot, and our initiative is blazing a trail by incorporating this crucial aspect into our marketing efforts.
The CEO of a major lamb slaughterhouse has expressed support for the proposed ban.
As vote tallies continued to roll in on the Colorado ballot, an overwhelming majority of voters appeared poised to approve a measure prohibiting hunting and killing of mountain lions, lynx, and bobcats within state borders?
In Sonoma County, California, a significant majority of voters cast their ballots overwhelmingly in favor of Kamala Harris, with many also supporting Measure J, an initiative to restrict the growth of large-scale industrial farming operations that could potentially have closed down nearly 200 farms.
“While the opportunity to alleviate animal suffering and propel our society forward may seem fleeting, we’ve consistently acknowledged that meaningful change takes time, and we’re confident that people will ultimately get there.” Despite being significantly outspent eightfold, the marketing campaign’s efforts were countered by a robust opposing force, fueled by substantial financial backing from prominent meat and dairy industries as well as commercial interests.
In Florida, with over 95 percent of votes tallied, nearly all voters backed a constitutional amendment granting the right to hunt and fish. While Florida regulations currently safeguard these practices, the proposed measure’s ambiguous terminology may inadvertently permit more aggressive methods of trapping and killing wildlife.
While voters have consistently supported measures to benefit farmed animals, the recent proposals to ban factory farms and slaughterhouses in Sonoma County and Denver have proven too extreme even for some of the country’s most liberal regions. The unexpected rejection of Denver’s fur gross sales ban came despite the fact that voters in nearby Boulder approved a similar measure just last year? The legislatures of California, as well as localities in Massachusetts, Michigan, and Florida, have independently prohibited the use of fur, a move distinct from popular polls.
The agricultural measures faced criticism from both the agricultural sector and some fellow anti-factory farming proponents, who contended that manufacturers would simply relocate operations abroad. Given the strong agricultural presence in both regions, they likely faced cultural headwinds; in Colorado, a state proud of its ranching industry, and in Sonoma County, where high-end organic and conventional farms alike take pride in their farming traditions?
While some critics acknowledged the Sonoma County poll measure’s well-intentioned aims, they contended that the proposal was fundamentally flawed, venturing beyond what voters are willing to accept in terms of difficulty.
According to Dena Jones, a former director of farm animal programs at the nonprofit Animal Welfare Institute, she cautioned Vox that the Denver slaughterhouse and Sonoma County farm bans were “ill-advised.”
“I found it challenging to envision scenarios where both options could be profitable,” she said. “I worried that the backlash might turn what could have been a gain into a loss.”
Despite limitations in existing polling data, intense opposition in Democratic bastions underscores potential resistance among party faithful to more audacious reform efforts in the meat industry, despite its significant contributions to progressive priorities such as environmental sustainability, economic fairness, and social justice.
The losses serve as a stark reminder of the ongoing challenges facing the animal rights movement. Citizens have had the opportunity to support incremental changes, such as outlawing cages for farm animals, which requires minimal personal sacrifices beyond a slight increase in the cost of meat and dairy products. While the financial repercussions of these measures are nuanced across entire industries, rather than being limited to a single city or county – as is the case in Denver with its sole slaughterhouse – this can lead to voters being more fearful of the localized implications.
As activists shape their strategy for future poll initiatives, these critical dynamics must be carefully considered. In Oregon, animal welfare advocates are currently gathering signatures to support an initiative that aims to significantly restrict or even eliminate animal-based industries such as farming, testing, and other enterprises reliant on animal use within the state. While the notion may be contentious to all parties involved, a key aspect of the proposal resonates with even the most fervent vegans: By eliminating the broad exemptions woven into Oregon’s anti-animal cruelty legislation for agricultural and other animal-using industries, the poll effectively highlights how these companies rely on tolerated animal abuse.
Given the uncertain political landscape under the Trump administration, animal advocates’ expectations of newly enacted federal animal welfare laws should be tempered, with the possibility of incremental progress at best. While existing federal laws provide some protections for animals, alternative approaches can be explored to strengthen their enforcement, such as the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act and the Animal Welfare Act. While regulations governing these areas are typically implemented and enforced by civil servants rather than political appointees, this does not necessarily ensure that the process is entirely apolitical, as it may still be subject to influence from various stakeholders and interest groups.
For three decades, I’ve dedicated myself to advocating for animal welfare, a commitment that transcends partisan divides, as Jones emphasized: “Regardless of the administration – be it Republican or Democrat – we can make meaningful progress for animals.”
If Trump proceeds to fulfill his threat to dismiss civil servants en masse and replace them with yes-men, the path forward may become even more arduous to navigate.
By encouraging animal advocates to consider perspectives from a conservative viewpoint, Jones aims to increase the appeal and attractiveness of each event. Nonprofit organization White Coat Waste is successfully phasing out merciless animal research, a development that mirrors its efforts to work collaboratively with all Republican and Democratic members of Congress. The advocacy group argues that reducing animal testing is driven by both humanitarian concerns and fiscal prudence, seeking to minimize taxpayer expenditures and promote more efficient use of resources.
“It is crucial to examine areas where the interests of the company, industry, and animal or environmental safety intersect,” said Jones. Some there are always.
