A Surprising Alliance: Trump, Animal Welfare, and the Future of Scientific Research

The Trump administration, not particularly known for championing animal welfare causes, has taken unexpected steps that align with long-standing goals of animal advocates: reducing and ultimately eliminating animal experimentation. These moves, unfolding amidst broader efforts to cut federal funding for scientific research, have sparked a complex and often uneasy coalition of animal welfare activists, science reformers, and even some far-right political figures.

One of the first significant actions came from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which announced plans to phase out animal testing requirements for the development of monoclonal antibodies, a type of drug used to treat various diseases, including cancer and COVID-19. This move, along with plans from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to revive a ban on animal testing for substances like pesticides and fuel additives, signals a potentially significant shift in regulatory practices.

The EPA had previously set ambitious deadlines under President Trump in 2019 to reduce animal testing by 30 percent by 2025 and eliminate it entirely by 2035. While the Biden administration removed those deadlines, the current EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin has expressed a commitment to getting the agency back on track, according to a spokesperson.

Perhaps the most impactful development is a new initiative from the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the world’s largest public funder of biomedical research, to reduce the use of animals in research and accelerate the development of animal-free methods. The NIH’s decision is particularly significant given that NIH-funded research relies on millions of animals annually, including rodents, monkeys, dogs, pigs, and rabbits.

The NIH acknowledged the limitations of animal models in predicting human outcomes, citing scientific literature to support this claim. This acknowledgment and the subsequent initiative have been lauded by animal advocacy groups like PETA and Humane World for Animals (formerly the Humane Society of the United States) as the most significant commitment ever made by the NIH to reduce its dependence on animal experimentation.

These developments represent a potentially monumental shift in American science, potentially sparing millions of animals from painful experiments and, advocates hope, accelerating the adoption of cutting-edge technologies that could lead to more reliable research outcomes.

However, the motivations behind these actions, particularly given the Trump administration’s broader assault on scientific institutions and research funding, remain a subject of debate and skepticism. The Trump administration’s attacks on scientific institutions, the slashing of research budgets at the NIH and the National Science Foundation, undermining decades of American leadership in science and medicine, raise questions about the true intentions behind these animal welfare initiatives.

The lack of new funding specifically allocated toward advancing animal-free research methods further fuels concerns that these moves may be a convenient way to slash support for science across the board, rather than a genuine commitment to improving animal welfare and scientific progress.

Despite the skepticism, there is a growing consensus that animal experiments are often expensive, ineffective, and ethically problematic. This sentiment has created a diverse coalition of animal welfare advocates, science reformers, and even some far-right political figures, who are united in their desire to reduce or eliminate government-funded animal research.

The appointment of Jay Bhattacharya as the Trump administration’s NIH director further exemplifies this unusual alliance. Bhattacharya, an established scientist with ties to the political right, has praised the watchdog group White Coat Waste, which campaigns against animal research, as "heroes." He has argued for the need to transition to animal-free methods using the language of scientific progress, a departure from the more destructive approach of other members of the administration.

Money and resources are powerful incentives in scientific research. Allocating them effectively can drive innovation in areas deemed important for societal progress. Moving beyond the pervasive use of animals in science should undoubtedly be one of those priorities. Lab animals endure immense suffering, living in intensive confinement and undergoing painful experiments, including blood draws, tube feeding, and forced inhalation of substances.

Finding alternatives that would end this agony would be one of American science’s most important achievements. It remains unclear whether a real push for alternatives to animal research can emerge from an administration that’s simultaneously imposing widespread austerity on science. There are also concerns that the Trump administration’s broader anti-regulatory approach could negatively affect the welfare of animals that remain in labs.

Animal advocates remain hopeful that they can leverage this uncertain moment in American science policy to usher in a paradigm shift in how the US uses animals in science. They argue that animal trials are not necessarily the most effective tools available in modern science. While animal dissection laid the groundwork for early medicine, and animal research has contributed to breakthroughs like polio vaccines, preventative HIV medication, and treatments for Parkinson’s disease, animals are not always suitable proxies for humans.

According to a 2023 review by animal welfare advocates, more than 90 percent of drug trials fail between animal and human testing trials. This is a problem that many scientists acknowledge, albeit not always publicly.

The NIH’s announcement to reduce animal research is undeniably groundbreaking. The NIH stated it will establish an Office of Research Innovation, Validation, and Application to scale the use of non-animal methods, expand funding for these approaches, evaluate human relevance, and include experts in alternative animal-free methods on grant review panels so that more of the agency’s funding is allocated toward those methods.

Scientists are often incentivized to use animals in their research, a phenomenon sometimes called “animal methods bias.” Academic journals prefer to publish studies using animals, and internal research ethics review boards are mostly comprised of animal researchers.

Technologies like computational modeling and organ-on-a-chip technology offer alternatives to animal testing, and many scientists are embracing these new methods. However, the scientific community has been slow to adopt them. To address this, the NIH’s new initiative will "address any possible bias towards animal studies" among its grant review staff.

The agency will also publicly report on its annual research spending to measure progress toward reducing funding for animal studies and increasing funding for human-based approaches.

The EPA, which requires toxicology tests on animals for many substances, has not yet announced an official plan to reduce animal research, though a 2016 agency reform required increased reliance on non-animal methods. Advocates are hoping the agency will recommit to its 2019 directive to end animal testing requirements by 2035.

The FDA, however, has announced a plan that lays out a three-year timeline and alternative testing strategies. The FDA’s phaseout of animal tests will start with monoclonal antibodies, as lab animals’ immune responses are not predictive of human responses "due to interspecies differences." Safety risks may go undetected in animals, and the stress of laboratory life can affect their immune function and responses. Animal testing is also very expensive, with monoclonal antibody development often involving monkeys that can cost up to $50,000 per animal.

Despite the promising advancements in organ-on-a-chip and computer modeling, some scientists caution that relying on them to completely replace animals may be premature. These tools cannot fully replicate "the complexity of living organisms" and should be integrated "alongside traditional animal studies."

Critics also point out that the FDA’s promise to "reduce, refine, or potentially replace" animal testing is not new. Previous legislation and recommendations have paved the way for alternatives to animal testing. However, the FDA’s and NIH’s recent announcements are among the first public statements by government organizations questioning the efficacy of animal testing.

The Trump administration’s decision to cap "indirect costs" at 15 percent of a university’s research grant has been met with strong opposition from the research community, who warn that it will be catastrophic for science. However, animal advocates argue that it will be beneficial for animals, as universities will have less incentive to renew research grants that harm animals while yielding little to no benefit.

Oregon Health & Science University, for example, receives a significant portion of its grant in indirect costs for animal studies and has racked up several critical Animal Welfare Act citations for animal deaths at its research labs.

Despite its promises to reduce the number of animals in labs, the Trump administration’s disdain for regulation may mean that those animals that remain will suffer more. Enforcement of the Animal Welfare Act declined during Trump’s first presidency, and the USDA removed thousands of animal welfare reports from its website.

Critics argue that the Animal Welfare Act is insufficient and poorly enforced. Most mice and rats, birds, and cold-blooded animals are excluded from the Animal Welfare Act’s definition of "animal." Nor does the law place any legal limits on what can be done to animals in experiments.

The USDA has few options for enforcement when a researcher violates the Animal Welfare Act, and the monetary fines it can levy are often considered a "cost of doing business" for facilities that receive millions in funding.

Recent signs of an anti-regulation shift are also alarming. A recent Supreme Court decision calls into question government agencies’ ability to issue fines. The USDA is “still assessing the impact of the ruling.” In January, the USDA inspector general was fired and escorted out of her office. The following month, the USDA OIG released a report on inspections of dog breeders with key information redacted.

About 15 percent of USDA’s workforce has accepted the Trump administration’s buyout to leave the agency, including more than 1,300 people in the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, which inspects and enforces the Animal Welfare Act.

The US is witnessing a significant shift in how animals are used for research. It’s too soon to say what the Trump administration’s reforms to animal testing will accomplish or whether they’ll produce durable changes in American science. Although animal welfare is a bipartisan issue, it’s rarely been a priority for previous administrations.

The fact that an administration is meeting with animal welfare groups, holding congressional hearings, and taking strong stances on animal research issues within months of taking power is unprecedented.