Trump’s EPA Renews Commitment to Phasing Out Animal Testing

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under President Donald Trump’s second term is set to revive efforts to eliminate animal testing, a policy that was initially prioritized during his first administration. According to EPA spokesperson Molly Vaseliou, the agency aims to realign with its earlier goals of reducing and ultimately phasing out animal testing, reversing delays introduced during the Biden administration. This renewed focus has drawn support from advocacy groups, lawmakers, and critics of animal testing, who see it as a step toward modernizing scientific research while addressing ethical concerns.

A First-Term Promise Interrupted

During Trump’s first term, the EPA took significant steps toward reducing reliance on animal testing. In 2019, the agency issued a directive to prioritize alternative testing methods, setting ambitious targets to reduce mammal testing by 30% by 2025 and eliminate it entirely by 2035. These goals were part of a broader push to modernize regulatory testing, spurred by advancements in technology and growing public concern over the ethical implications of animal experimentation.

The directive was seen as a landmark moment by advocates for animal welfare, who have long criticized the use of animals in experiments as both cruel and outdated. Technologies such as computer modeling, in vitro testing, and artificial intelligence have increasingly offered viable alternatives that can replicate or even surpass the reliability of animal-based studies. By committing to these alternatives, the EPA aimed to align its practices with emerging scientific trends while addressing ethical and economic concerns.

However, progress stalled under the Biden administration. According to Vaseliou, compliance deadlines were delayed, and the EPA shifted away from the aggressive timeline established under Trump. Critics, including the advocacy group White Coat Waste Project (WCW), argue that the Biden-era EPA not only halted advancements but also funded controversial experiments, such as those involving animals inhaling simulated wildfire smoke or emissions from firearms. These experiments, WCW claims, were both wasteful and unnecessary, given the availability of modern alternatives.

A Renewed Commitment Under Zeldin

With Trump’s return to office and the appointment of Lee Zeldin as EPA Administrator, the agency is now working to reinstate its original plan. Vaseliou emphasized that Zeldin is “wholly committed” to eliminating animal testing, signaling a return to the 2019 directive’s goals. The EPA is expected to review existing policies, reassess compliance timelines, and accelerate the adoption of non-animal testing methods.

This renewed effort comes at a time when public and political support for phasing out animal testing is growing. Advocates argue that modern alternatives are not only more humane but also more cost-effective and scientifically robust. For example, computational models can simulate human biological responses with high accuracy, while cell-based assays can provide insights into toxicity without the need for live animals. These methods have gained traction across industries, from pharmaceuticals to cosmetics, and are increasingly seen as the future of regulatory science.

Advocacy and Political Support

The White Coat Waste Project, a taxpayer watchdog group focused on exposing government-funded animal experiments, has been a vocal supporter of the EPA’s renewed efforts. WCW Senior Vice President Justin Goodman praised the agency’s shift, contrasting it with what he described as the Biden administration’s rollback of animal welfare protections. Goodman highlighted specific experiments funded under the previous administration, including those that subjected animals to pesticides, stress tests, and inhalation of smoke from rifles and handguns. Such experiments, he argued, were not only ethically questionable but also a misuse of taxpayer dollars.

WCW’s broader mission is to eliminate government-funded animal testing altogether, advocating for transparency and accountability in how public funds are spent. The group has documented numerous cases of what it calls “cruel and wasteful” experiments, rallying public and congressional support for reform. Their efforts have resonated with lawmakers like Rep. Nicole Malliotakis (R-NY), who has championed legislation to curb animal testing within federal agencies.

Malliotakis, a longtime critic of animal experimentation, hailed the EPA’s renewed focus as a victory for taxpayers and animal welfare. She argued that reinstating the Trump-era plan would save millions of dollars while sparing countless animals from suffering. “Modern alternatives are more effective than antiquated animal testing methods,” Malliotakis said, pointing to advancements in technology that offer safer and more reliable ways to assess chemical safety.

Broader Implications and FDA Developments

The EPA’s push to phase out animal testing aligns with similar efforts across other federal agencies. Notably, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently announced plans to reduce its reliance on animal testing, a move that Malliotakis and other advocates have celebrated as a significant step forward. The FDA’s decision reflects a growing consensus that animal testing, while historically standard, is no longer the only—or best—option for ensuring human safety.

This shift is part of a larger trend in regulatory science. In 2022, Congress passed the FDA Modernization Act 2.0, which eliminated a longstanding requirement that new drugs be tested on animals before human trials. The law opened the door for greater use of alternative methods, such as organ-on-chip technology and computational toxicology, which have shown promise in predicting human outcomes more accurately than animal models.

For the EPA, phasing out animal testing has both practical and symbolic significance. The agency regulates thousands of chemicals, from pesticides to industrial compounds, and its testing protocols have a far-reaching impact on public health and the environment. By adopting cutting-edge methods, the EPA can set a precedent for other agencies and industries, potentially transforming how safety assessments are conducted worldwide.

Challenges and Criticisms

Despite widespread support, the transition away from animal testing is not without challenges. Developing and validating alternative methods requires significant investment, and regulatory acceptance of these methods can be slow. Some scientists argue that animal testing, while imperfect, remains necessary for certain complex studies, particularly those involving long-term exposure or multi-organ interactions. Bridging this gap will require collaboration between regulators, researchers, and technology developers to ensure that new methods meet rigorous standards.

Additionally, the EPA’s renewed focus has sparked debate over its broader priorities. Critics of the Trump administration argue that environmental protection, not animal testing, should be the agency’s primary concern. They point to rollbacks of pollution regulations and other policies during Trump’s first term as evidence of misplaced priorities. Supporters, however, counter that modernizing testing protocols is consistent with a forward-thinking approach to regulation, one that balances innovation with accountability.

Looking Ahead

As the EPA moves forward with its plan, stakeholders will be watching closely. The agency’s ability to meet its 2035 goal of eliminating animal testing will depend on sustained funding, technological advancements, and political will. For now, the renewed commitment has energized advocates and lawmakers who see it as a win for science, ethics, and fiscal responsibility.

The EPA’s efforts also reflect a broader cultural shift toward more humane and sustainable practices. By prioritizing alternatives to animal testing, the agency is positioning itself at the forefront of a scientific revolution—one that promises to deliver safer, more efficient ways to protect human health and the environment. For the millions of animals used in experiments each year, and for the taxpayers funding those experiments, the stakes could not be higher.

This rewritten article expands on the original by providing additional context about the science of alternative testing, the policy landscape, and the broader implications, while staying true to the core facts and perspectives presented. Let me know if you need further adjustments!