Donald Trump has won a second term in the White House, and if his next administration is anything like his first, he will likely further weaken the few legal protections that exist for animals.
In his first four years in office, Trump’s cabinet:
- has already increased Too fast Line speed in pig slaughterhouses endangers both animals and workers, and attempts to do the same for poultry.
- Kill a rule Improving animal welfare under organic feed standards
- reduced application of already poorly enforced animal welfare laws
- Launch a Massive expansion Hunting and fishing on public lands
- Excluded Endangered Species Act for protection gray wolf And grizzly bear
- interrupted Wildlife habitat across the country
- Violation record deleted For puppy mills, zoos, factory farms and animal laboratories
When slaughterhouses became Covid-19 hot spots in the early days of the pandemic, Trump – At the behest of the meat industry – They demanded to remain open even though schools and offices were closed.
In a second term, which could be a unified Republican government, Trump could go further to weaken animal protections because of his corporate-friendly, deregulatory tendencies.
This story first appeared in the Processing Meat Newsletter
Sign up here for Future Perfect’s biweekly newsletter from Marina Bolotnikova and Kenny Torella, exploring how the meat and dairy industry shapes our health, politics, culture, environment, and more.
Have questions or comments on this newsletter? Email us at futureperfect@vox.com!
“He now has much more active involvement from smart and strategic people whose goal is to reduce — if not eliminate — federal regulation of businesses, including animal-using businesses that already get a light touch” from regulators, Delsiana Windersdirector of the Animal Law and Policy Institute at the Vermont Law and Graduate School told me. And while most federal regulatory employees at agencies like the US Department of Agriculture are civil servants, Trump has promised to reclassify them as political appointees so he can fire and replace them with loyalists to advance his deregulatory agenda. (Disclosure: Last summer, I attended a media fellowship program at the Vermont Law and Graduate School.)
However, some people high up in Trump’s orbit have indicated relatively anti-animal welfare or anti-factory beliefs, despite their reactionary views on other social issues. Some may move into positions to advance animal interests in a second term, e.g Lara Trump, Vivek RamaswamyAnd Robert F. Kennedy Jr — although RFK Jr. can do a lot of harm to people in a position of authority over health.
Whether they will use their influence to help animals in a second Trump term is unknown. But there’s a precedent they can set, because Trump’s first term hasn’t been bad for animals. For example, his Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Secretary Andrew Wheeler wanted significantly reduced Animal testing, with a goal of replacing most of it with alternative methods by 2035, and other federal agencies have scaled back the kitten, the dogAnd The monkey test.
And for all the real differences between President-elect Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris, the truth is that when it comes to animal welfare, there isn’t much daylight between their parties. President Biden’s EPA last year opposite Trump phased-out the EPA’s animal testing, while his judiciary sided with the pork industry in a Supreme Court case over a landmark California law that banned the confinement of pigs in tiny cages. Biden’s US Fish and Wildlife Service recently asked for it revive A Trump-era rule that eliminated protections for gray wolves came after environmental groups successfully sued to stop it. Minnesota governor and Democratic vice-presidential candidate Tim Walz, as I’ve written before, also has a long, cozy relationship with the factory farm industry.
That animal protection remains a politically elusive cause was further underscored elsewhere in Tuesday’s election, as animal issues on ballots in state and local jurisdictions across the U.S. lost soundly, illustrating that voters may not be ready for more ambitious animal welfare legislation. .
Animals lose big at the ballot box
64 percent of voters in Denver rejected A ballot measure Banning slaughterhousesThat would shut down the largest sheep slaughterhouse in the United States. A recently published one investigation The facility, run by an animal rights group, documented injured lambs unable to walk being kicked and pushed to slaughter; Lambs are hung upside down on the slaughter line and beaten even after their throats are cut; Employees laughing and spanking animals; and the alleged use of “Judas sheep” – mature sheep leading lambs to slaughter.
Fifty percent of Denverites also voted against the ban Fur sales.
Despite the loss, Pro-Animal Future, the group behind the Denver ballot measure, celebrated the fact that more than a third of the city’s voters were willing to vote for a measure as far-reaching as banning slaughterhouses — even if the campaign cost national and state meat industry groups, restaurants and Six to one by a coalition of labor unions.
“This has been a bold campaign, and no one said changing the status quo would be easy,” Pro-Animal Future spokeswoman Olivia Hammond wrote in a press release. “More than a million meat eaters voted for a world without slaughterhouses, and that’s a foundation we’ll continue to build on. Voters aren’t used to seeing animal rights on the ballot, and we’re paving the way with this campaign.”
Sheep slaughterhouse CEO calls out supporters of ban “Loser.”
At the state level, meanwhile, with three-quarters of the vote counting, Coloradans Voted 55.5 to 44.5 Against a ban on Trophy hunting Mountain lions, lynxes and bobcats.
and in Sonoma County, California, where approx 75 percent Voters only cast ballots for Harris 15 percent Supported Measure J, an initiative to phase out large factory farms, which would have closed many 21 operations.
“While the opportunity to reduce animal suffering and change our society for the better is slim today, we’ve always known it will take time and we believe people are going to get there,” read a statement from the Coalition to End Factory Farming Campaign, which Measure J. advocates for The campaign was outspent by eight to one in opposition to the measure, which was funded by major meat and dairy companies and trade groups.
in Florida, 67 percent Voters — more than 95 percent of votes counted — supported an amendment to guarantee constitutional rights to hunt and fish. Both of these activities are already protected by Florida law, and Arguments of environmentalists The measure’s vague language enables poachers to use more violent methods of trapping and killing wildlife.
Although voters have overwhelmingly supported bans on small cages for farmed animals in the past (I worked in one of Massachusetts in 2016 When I worked at the Humane Society of the United States), a proposed total ban on factory farms and slaughterhouses in Sonoma County and Denver was too much even for some blue parts of the country. Denver’s rejection of the fur sales ban was a surprise, considering that voters in nearby Boulder pass One in 2021. California’s legislature, along with areas in Massachusetts, Michigan, and Florida, have also banned fur (though not via ballot initiative).
The farm measures faced criticism from both the agricultural industry and some fellow anti-factory farming advocates, who argued that they were just displaced Meat production elsewhere. Denver is proud of its ranching industry in the state, and Sonoma County—an area of both high-welfare organic farms and conventional factory farms—is proud of its farming heritage.
Some critics of the Sonoma County ballot measure argued that, despite its good intentions, it was poorly crafted and moved too far ahead of where voters stand on the issue.
Dena Jones, a former director of farm animal programs at the nonprofit Animal Welfare Institute, told Vox that bans on Denver slaughterhouses and factory farms in Sonoma County are “ill-advised.”
“I found it very hard in both cases to believe that either of these could succeed,” he said, “and I thought the reaction would do more harm than good.”
Whatever the flaws of these ballot measures, the ferocious opposition they faced in Blue Castles underscores how resistant Democratic voters can be to more ambitious meat industry reforms, even though meat production contributes heavily to issues central to progressives’ agendas: climate change, environmental pollution. , and labor exploitation.
How to prevent animal cruelty, anyone in the office
The loss should come as a profound moment for the animal rights movement. Voters have been able to pass modest reforms, such as a ban on cages for farm animals, which ask little more than slightly higher prices for meat and eggs. The economic impacts of such a move are spread across entire industries, as opposed to a city or county — or, in the case of Denver, a single slaughterhouse — which can make voters more fearful of the impact on their local communities.
These dynamics should weigh heavily on how activists plan future ballot systems. Currently, animal rights groups in Oregon are collecting signatures for a 2026 ballot initiative That would dramatically reduce — if not outright eliminate — animal farming, animal testing, and other business activities that rely on animals in the state. It’s an unpopular proposal with all but the most die-hard vegans, though the theory behind the ballot measure is noteworthy: It works by removing many of the exemptions carved into Oregon’s anti-animal cruelty laws for agriculture and other animal-using industries, thereby revealing how this The business depends on legalizing animal abuse.
As for how animal advocates should approach the next Trump administration, Jones said the prospect of new federal animal welfare laws or regulations is slim. But there are opportunities to improve enforcement of some federal laws that protect animals, such as the Humane Kill Act and the Animal Welfare Act. They are primarily implemented by civil servants, not political appointees, so implementation will be less politically charged than lobbying for entirely new policies.
“I’ve done policy work for animals for 30 years,” Jones said, “and it’s possible to make progress for animals in both Republican and Democrat administrations.”
But that progress will be harder to forge if Trump follows through on his promise to mass fire and replace public employees.
Jones challenges animal advocates to look at their issues from a conservative mindset to better appeal to both sides. The anti-animal testing nonprofit has white coat waste Success found — such as some that range from cruel animal studies — work with both Republican and Democratic members of Congress. The group advocates reducing animal testing based on conservative values such as reducing taxpayer waste, not compassion for animals.
“You have to look at issues where the interests of the organization, industry and animal protection or environmental protection overlap,” Jones said. “There’s always something.”
