President-elect Donald J. Trump has promised to remake the federal government, an undertaking that could have far-reaching consequences for hundreds of millions of Americans and countless other people around the world.
But the policy choices and the priorities of the second Trump administration will also have profound effects on animals. “The federal government dictates a lot about the lives of all different kinds of animals,” said Ann Linder, an associate director at Harvard University’s animal law and policy program, “whether those are wild animals living free in nature, whether those are farmed animals living in intense confinement, whether those are monkeys or beagles in research laboratories.”
Mr. Trump’s campaign promises, emerging cabinet selections and first-term record have worried many experts like Ms. Linder. “I expect the second Trump term to be harmful to animals in many ways,” she said.
Mr. Trump’s first term offered a few bright spots for animal welfare, such as a new law making certain forms of extreme animal abuse a federal crime. But in general, experts said, the administration put the interests of industry over those of animals. That pattern is expected to continue, given Mr. Trump’s pledge to slash government regulations.
“We’re very concerned that deregulation can come at the expense of animals,” said Nancy Blaney, the director of government affairs at the nonprofit Animal Welfare Institute.
Here’s what Trump’s re-election might mean for nonhuman creatures:
Wild animals
During Mr. Trump’s first term, his administration made it easier to remove a species from the endangered list and made it harder for regulators to consider climate change threats when weighing whether to protect a species. The administration moved to open up part of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska to oil and gas development and, in its closing weeks, gutted protections for migratory birds.
The Biden administration reversed many of those changes. Now, they stand to be reversed again.
Mr. Trump has also promised to “free up the vast stores of liquid gold on America’s public land for energy development.” His pick for interior secretary, Governor Doug Burgum of North Dakota, has longstanding ties to fossil fuel companies and would also serve as the nation’s energy czar, Mr. Trump said. Increased energy development on public lands could degrade the habitat of declining species like the greater sage grouse, which the Biden administration recently moved to protect.
“We’re certainly bracing for impact after what we saw in the first term,” said Robert Dewey, vice president for government relations at Defenders of Wildlife, an advocacy group. “And this is probably even more of a nightmare scenario.”
But Timothy Male, executive director at the Environmental Policy Innovation Center, a conservation group that focuses on working with the private sector, painted a more nuanced picture.
“I expect a long list of changes that people will shriek about,” he said. “But some changes will produce real procedural improvements without much real effect at all on wildlife.” He noted that many federal environmental rules are cumbersome and outdated.
However, Dr. Male lamented that the Trump administration didn’t appear to have any new ideas or approaches to benefit biodiversity, which is experiencing global declines. An initiative by President Biden to conserve at least 30 percent of U.S. lands and waters by 2030 is expected to end at the federal level, at least for now. Some states like California and Vermont are moving ahead with their own versions.
Biologists are concerned that Mr. Trump’s position on climate change could have far-reaching consequences for ecosystems and wildlife. (Mr. Trump has called global warming a “scam,” vowed to undo efforts to stem it and pledged to “drill, baby, drill.”) Coral reefs are already being devastated by warming oceans. Animals that have evolved for life at the poles or high elevations, from polar bears to American pikas, are also especially vulnerable. Overall, climate change is putting pressure on more than 10,000 species on the International Union for Conservation of Nature’s Red List, the scientific authority on the status of species.
“If Trump’s election means that we don’t treat climate change actively, there will be many species that go extinct,” said Paul Leadley, a professor at Paris-Saclay University who focuses on the interaction between climate change and biodiversity.
Farm animals
Neither political party has a great track record on farm animal welfare, Ms. Linder said, but the first Trump administration weakened a number of regulations. It killed a rule requiring organic farmers to meet certain animal welfare standards, reduced federal oversight of pork processors and lifted limits on how quickly they were allowed to slaughter swine.
Increasing slaughterhouse speeds, critics said, could increase the risk of injuries for workers and food-borne illnesses for consumers. But it could also make it more likely for animals to be handled inhumanely, and it could facilitate the expansion of animal agriculture, said Delcianna Winders, director of the Animal Law and Policy Institute at Vermont Law and Graduate School.
“The entire intent is to raise and slaughter more animals, to the tune of millions,” she said.
Some of those moves were later reversed, and the next administration is likely to advance similar proposals, said Ms. Winders, who was involved in several lawsuits against the Department of Agriculture under Trump.
Experts are also keeping an eye on the EATS Act, a federal bill that would override many state laws on farm animal welfare. The bill has opponents on both sides of the aisle, but its prospects could improve in a Republican Congress. Elements of the EATS Act have also made their way into a draft of the next Farm Bill, which may not get a vote until the next Congress has been seated.
Captive and companion animals
The Animal Welfare Act, a landmark federal law more than a half-century old, establishes minimum care standards for many captive animals, including those used for research, put on display in zoos and bred for the pet trade. The U.S.D.A. is responsible for inspecting animal laboratories, breeders and attractions and taking action against violators.
“The law has never really been robustly enforced,” Ms. Winders said. “Nevertheless, we saw a decline in already paltry enforcement under President Trump.”
From 2016 to 2020, the number of inspections documenting violations of the law fell by 67 percent, and new investigations dropped nearly 90 percent, according to the Animal Welfare Institute.
Shortly after Mr. Trump took office, the U.S.D.A. also removed years of inspection and enforcement records from its website.
Sara Amundson, president of the Humane Society Legislative Fund, which has endorsed Mr. Trump’s Democratic opponents for president, said that decision signaled that the agency was “going to protect the interests of the regulated industries.”
Animal welfare groups, including the Humane Society of the United States, sued over the removal of the records, and Congress eventually required the U.S.D.A. to restore them. But enforcement remains weak, experts said, and could deteriorate further during a second Trump administration, resulting in less oversight of puppy mills and roadside zoos.
Lab animals
In recent years, the federal government has retreated from certain kinds of animal testing, a trend that could accelerate during the next administration.
During Mr. Trump’s first term, the Environmental Protection Agency, which typically required that potentially toxic chemicals be tested in animals before being used in the environment, announced that it would reduce testing on mammals by 30 percent by 2025 and all but eliminate it by 2035.
Animal rights groups heralded the announcement, noting that animals are not always good models for humans and that new technologies, such as “organs on a chip,” were becoming increasingly good alternatives to animal testing.
“It was forward thinking on the part of the Trump administration,” Ms. Amundson said.
Some scientists and environmental groups argued that animal testing was still the best way to collect critical safety data and that phasing it out would effectively weaken regulation of the chemical industry, putting public health at risk.
Although the Biden administration took steps to reduce animal testing, it backed away from the E.P.A. deadline. Animal rights groups hoped the incoming administration would restore those bench marks and make further commitments to phasing out animal experiments.
Cuts in federal spending could also reduce funding for scientific research, including invasive animal studies. That might have short-term benefits for lab animals, but it could undermine research into conservation, climate change and animal health.
“On the whole,” Ms. Linder said, “I would say any decrease in funding for science generally would work against animal issues.”
The post What Trump’s Re-election Could Mean for Animals appeared first on New York Times.
