Part 1: Lab Animals Saved—But At What Cost?

The face of reform or a distraction from deregulation? As beagles are rescued, deeper animal protections quietly unravel.

This is Part 1 of a 3-part investigative series. Read the full series HERE. For several years, I worked as a research investigator focused on laboratory animal violations. I was part of the team that helped uncover and document the systemic abuses at Envigo—a massive breeding facility that supplied beagles and other animals for laboratory testing. Working with legal teams and experts, I helped compile the evidence that ultimately led to the facility’s closure following an extensive USDA investigation and public outcry.

So when I hear about renewed efforts to end animal testing, I want to believe in them. But I also know how often humane language is used to distract from deeper cruelty.

That’s what prompted me to dig into the Trump administration’s 2025 revival of its animal testing phaseout plan—and what I found is a troubling contradiction between what the public is being told and what policies are actually doing.

A Policy Reborn: The Return of the 2035 Phaseout

In 2019, under former EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler, the agency announced a plan to eliminate all mammalian testing requests and funding by 2035, with a 30% reduction goal by 2025. This included grants to academic institutions for advancing New Approach Methodologies (NAMs) such as organ-on-a-chip systems and in silico modeling.

The White Coat Waste Project, an organization focused on ending taxpayer-funded animal experiments, celebrated the plan, highlighting its potential to reduce animal suffering and government spending. But by 2021, under the Biden administration, these targets were quietly removed from EPA strategic documents. Emails obtained through FOIA revealed internal concerns over whether binding deadlines could be met given current scientific readiness.

In April 2025, Trump’s newly appointed EPA Administrator, Lee Zeldin, officially reinstated the original goals, stating the agency was "returning to a science-based and humane testing strategy."

Who Really Benefits From This Reform?

While the phaseout may appear driven by ethics, the loudest support is coming from fiscal conservatives, industry lobbyists, and chemical manufacturers who see an opportunity to deregulate. By reducing mandatory testing requirements, companies can bring products to market faster and with less scrutiny.

In testimony before Congress, former EPA scientists warned that eliminating animal-based toxicology studies without validated alternatives could jeopardize public health, particularly for chronic exposure and reproductive toxicity endpoints.

The FDA Modernization Act 2.0 (2022) did remove the federal requirement for animal testing in drug development, opening the door to NAMs. But critics emphasize that these methods are not always independently peer-reviewed or publicly disclosed.

International Comparison

Unlike the U.S., the European Union follows the REACH regulation, which still mandates certain animal testing for chemicals under strict conditions, but has heavily invested in cross-validated NAMs and requires public transparency of data. The EU also explicitly prohibits animal testing for cosmetics, something still allowed in the U.S. for certain ingredients.

China, historically reliant on animal testing, has recently relaxed its policies to allow non-animal methods for some imported cosmetics. Japan and South Korea are beginning to explore NAMs, though animal testing remains common.

From Envigo to EPA: What Gets Forgotten

The USDA cited Envigo for over 70 violations of the Animal Welfare Act. Inspectors documented dogs denied veterinary care, kept in filthy conditions, and subjected to chronic neglect. Ultimately, a federal complaint and mounting pressure forced the company to relinquish over 4,000 beagles.

I didn’t witness the rescues personally. I was working in the background—reviewing inspection records, researching violations, and helping legal teams build the case. But I know what those animals endured. And I know what it takes to hold institutions accountable.

That’s why I can’t celebrate progress that only protects certain animals while allowing systemic harm to continue unchecked. Real reform must be comprehensive. You can't point to the end of one lab program and ignore the weakening of every law protecting animals in the wild. You can't parade a rescued beagle while quietly bulldozing a critical habitat for wolves.

Conclusion: Compassion or Cover?

This administration’s phaseout plan for mammalian testing is being hailed as a humane breakthrough. But what we’re seeing may be less a moral awakening and more a strategic shift to expedite deregulation.

Compassion cannot be selective. We can’t protect dogs in labs while sentencing wildlife to extinction through policy rollbacks.

True animal protection includes all animals—captive, wild, and future generations yet to be born.

Next: Part 2 — While Lab Doors Close, Wildlands Burn →