While the US presidential election is inherently a polarizing topic, animal advocates on the right and left should be mutually concerned about a Trump reelection. This post is a transparent evaluation of the trade-offs of the election through a lens of animal protection.

From 2017–2020, the Trump administration was quietly an extreme exacerbator of animal suffering. There were three ways in which they increased the net negative well-being of animals:

1) Policy change: They implemented policies that were disastrous for wildlife and farmed animals.

2) Regulation hostility: Trump created an environment that enabled the corporations driving animal exploitation.

3) Cultural deprioritization: Although this may not have been the intention of the administration, social attitudes shifted after the 2016 election in a way that made it harder for to do effective animal advocacy.

Given these three main pillars of concern, it is imperative for non-human animals that Trump not take a second term of office.

Policies that Diminished Animal Welfare

There were a number of significant policies that the Trump Administration took to decrease they regulatory burden for corporations, yet came at great cost to animals.

They increased line-speeds for chicken slaughter and did away with limits for pig slaughter rates altogether as well as allowing slaughterhouses to have fewer USDA inspectors present at slaughter, vetoed a bill to eliminate the use of destructive driftnets, and authorized continued operations of slaughterhouses during the pandemic (not to mention the incredible impact that had on the deeply marginalized people working in those facilities), among others. On the flip side, Trump’s EPA did introduce a plan to phase out animal testing requirements, which was ultimately reversed by the Biden administration. Nonetheless, this is only a partial list of the policy decisions that ultimately impacted the wellbeing of animals in that era.[1]

Less Democracy Means More Corporate Power: Read ‘Big Ag’

Trump made it clear on January 6 that he did not want impediments to his authority. With another term you can envision him appointing loyalists who will not second guess his decisions. To realize the scale of this, imagine what would have happened if Mike Pence had heeded Trump’s demand to stop the peaceful transition of power (although, it was not that peaceful, was it?).

What this means for democracy in the US is unclear to me, but it has a wider scale of negative trajectories than usual. At best it means the rollback of government regulations and increased support for big corporations, and at worst it could lead to Trump leading an oligarchy state where opposition is silenced or neutralized in tyrannical ways. Less democracy means more unilateral decision-making from the government; moving in the direction of dictator-led countries would be disasterous for more than non-human animals.

Even setting aside concern for our democracy, this has significant implications for animals. The bulk of animal ag is concentrated amongst only a handful of extremely powerful and profitable corporations. It is not hard to imagine these corporations increasing the scale and degree of suffering for animals on farms if the government loosens the regulatory leash (or cuts it altogether). I do not have specifics of what this would look like, yet I fully believe in the creativity of these companies to take their profits to new heights at great cost to animal welfare.

Weakened Advocacy

When Trump was first elected, people immediately sprang into action. Donations soared for groups like the American Civil Liberties Union and Southern Poverty Law Center. If he is to be elected again, will this translate to benefits for the animal advocacy movement as well? I would postulate not. Given how niche our movement still is, people will likely trend their advocacy toward causes that Trump directly attacks (e.g. immigration, xenophobia, environmentalism). Further, it could lead to increased marginalization of the animal protection movement if people see our issue as an inferior investment of resources in the face of many other social justice conflagrations. In other words, it could exacerbate the unfounded narrative that “animal activists don’t care about people”, creating tension amongst otherwise sympathetic or aligned movements.

Moreover, Trump will likely cause hardship fatigue amongst the public. People will be inundated with bad news and the hurtful impact of Trump policies. This will make people less receptive to appeals to care about animal welfare. Such fatigue would diminish the appeal of policy interventions and take away from activist-driven corporate campaigns as energy weakens or shifts to other issues.

Momentum Loss for Alt-Proteins

The Republican party has demonstrated an interest in harnessing cultivated meat to facilitate a culture war. This was evidenced in Florida’s and Alabama’s heavy handed bans of cultured meat, which on the surface contradicts the conservative small government ideology. Would a Trump Administration take this culture war to the Federal level? It is hard to know. But there is a high risk that Trump would appoint leadership in the two main regulatory agencies relevant to cultured meat, the Food & Drug Administration and US Department of Agriculture, who could stall, block, and upend approval of safe and beneficial animal-product alternatives.

Is a Harris/Walz Administration Any Better?

There is no doubt that animal agriculture has a large influence on American politics as the small but burgeoning animal protection movement seeks to build power in our democracy. The Biden administration has continued the trend in favor of animal ag, appointing former dairy lobbyist Tom Vilsack to Secretary of Agriculture and his justice department filing an amicus brief to overturn California’s Prop 12 in support of the National Pork Producers. So this would be a different conversation if Biden were running for a second term. But Kamala Harris has a fairly strong track record for animals — it appears she is well suited to nudge the country forward with a non-radical agenda.

Pros of Trump Election

It is worth examining benefits of a second Trump term. We would expect an increase in interest of policy making on the state and local level. So while the federal government could get a lot worse, there could be opportunities for new wins on the local level policy making. However, as pointed out above, the attention will likely turn toward social justice issues that are human-facing, and animal protection would likely be seen as a secondary cause or even a threat.

When Jair Bolsonaro was elected as Brazil’s president while riding the coattails of Trump’s nationalism, advocacy groups took to persuading corporations to make improvements. Indeed, a second Trump term could lead to increased campaigning for corporations to change. However, I see this as likely to be neutralized by emboldened companies that are feeling the benefit of a government that is loosening and eliminating regulations.

What We Can Do

This post is meaningless if all it does is offer persuasion that a Trump election would be disastrous for animals. It only matters if we take action. So what does that look like?

• Donate to Vote Forward which utilizes random control trials to determine the most cost effective election interventions in support of the election.
• Make Calls to help with voter persuasion and recruiting volunteers with an extremely potent call software and script.
• Talk to friends and family by using these psychology tips to increase interest and turnout in the election.
• Knock doors: Are you outgoing? This is a great way to build confidence in talking to voters. Go here if you are located in the DMV.

Everybody will have different strengths, preferences, and bandwidths. But here is my encouragement to do what you can. Others should offer leads for strong election interventions in the comments. This once in four years moment will yield a tremendous impact on animals.

Lastly, I did my best to provide a balanced analysis of the trade-offs and candidates; I sincerely do not intend this to be an attack on a political ideology or party. The more politically diverse our movement, the more we benefit from a broad breadth of interventions, revenue streams, and perspectives on solving some of the world’s most significant problems. 

This is all from my perspective as somebody who campaigned on the ground in North Carolina for Biden in 2020, and who has worked in the political advocacy for animals space for the past 5 years. That being said, I welcome thoughts, feedback, and criticism, as well as other suggestions for how people can get involved in the election.

Footnote

1] Additional policy impacts include Trump rolling back protections for endangered species (which the Biden administration restored), and overturning a 2018 ban on the importation of animal trophies from African big game hunts.