Part 3: Project 2025 and the Politics of Selective Compassion
- Kaia Africanis
- Apr 15
- 3 min read
This is Part 3 of a 3-part investigative series. Read the full series HERE.
In Part 1, we explored how the EPA’s animal testing phaseout is being used to generate public approval while sidestepping broader protections. In Part 2, we uncovered the sweeping environmental rollbacks buried beneath that narrative. Project 2025, authored by the Heritage Foundation and endorsed by over 80 conservative organizations, outlines a sweeping effort to shrink federal oversight and environmental protections under the guise of efficiency. The Mandate for Leadership document proposes eliminating key climate programs, reassigning regulatory authority to politically aligned figures, and accelerating resource extraction on federal lands.
Among the environmental rollbacks proposed:
Endangered Species Act (ESA): Project 2025 supports narrowing the definition of "harm" to exclude indirect impacts like habitat fragmentation or degradation—shielding development projects from regulatory scrutiny.
Species Delisting: The plan advocates for delisting species like gray wolves and grizzly bears, arguing that protections are no longer necessary despite persistent ecological threats.
NEPA Reforms: Building on Trump-era changes, Project 2025 seeks to further weaken NEPA by eliminating cumulative impact reviews and limiting climate considerations in project assessments.
These proposals would not only dismantle existing protections but also undermine the scientific basis of environmental policy—substituting ecological integrity with politically convenient narratives.
From Morality to Messaging: The Shift in Animal Advocacy
Historically, animal welfare was a bipartisan concern grounded in ethics, conservation, and humane science. But in the current political climate, it's being repurposed into a wedge issue—a tool to appease voters and distract from deeper rollbacks.
At the center of this shift is a reframing of the animal welfare narrative to focus almost exclusively on emotionally resonant, easily anthropomorphized animals in labs—beagles and primates. These animals are used as symbols of compassion in media and policymaking, while more ecologically critical but politically inconvenient species—such as wolves, owls, and reptiles—are sidelined or targeted by deregulation efforts.
This isn’t accidental. It’s strategic.
Lobbyists, Industry, and the Illusion of Reform
Groups like the American Chemistry Council and the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) have spent years lobbying Congress to reduce mandatory toxicology testing requirements. The EPA's animal testing phaseout provides these industries with a reputational shield, giving the appearance of ethical progress while easing regulatory burdens and enabling faster product approval. According to OpenSecrets.org, these sectors collectively spent over $300 million in lobbying during 2024 alone.
The same administration championing the end of EPA animal testing has weakened TSCA (Toxic Substances Control Act) enforcement and allowed pesticide re-registrations with limited public oversight.
This illusion of reform makes it difficult for the public to distinguish between legitimate progress and calculated messaging.
The New Culture War: Animals as Political Theater
Animal welfare is now weaponized in the broader culture war. In 2024, conservative media spotlighted animal testing in federal labs while demonizing Indigenous-led conservation efforts as "anti-growth extremism."
Beagles appear in headlines as symbols of compassion, while wolves are quietly hunted and scientists are stripped of their voice. And the public is left with curated compassion—a highlight reel of selective ethics while foundational protections are dismantled.
This paradox isn’t just policy. It’s performance.
What Real Change Looks Like
Real animal welfare doesn’t cherry-pick victims—it doesn’t protect the familiar faces on campaign posters while abandoning the species and ecosystems erased by policy. It demands more than curated compassion. It demands consistency. It demands accountability in labs and wildlands, in science and policy. If this administration truly cared about animals, it wouldn’t be gutting endangered species protections, suppressing data, or empowering polluters. It would be investing in humane science and ecological resilience.
Compassion is not a branding strategy. It’s a value system—one rooted in truth, transparency, and accountability. And we must reclaim it not only in language, but in law, science, and policy.
Comentarios