View this post on the web at [link removed]

National elections have much smaller impacts [ [link removed] ] than most people think. And this is particularly true of domestic policy [ [link removed] ], including animal rights. 
There are a few areas, however, where the President nonetheless plays an important role in animal protection. First, the President has the power to veto legislation. And while that power has been exercised much less frequently [ [link removed] ] in modern times – Franklin D. Roosevelt vetoed 635 bills while Joe Biden has vetoed only 12 – it still plays a role in shaping important legislation such as the Farm Bill. Second, the President issues regulations on and enforces federal laws and, with the passage of the Preventing Animal Cruelty and Torture Act [ [link removed] ] in 2019 (PACT), there is for the first time in history an all-purpose national animal cruelty law. Third, the President can intervene in state animal rights cases in ways that hurt or help the cause of animal rights, e.g., with respect to litigation to strike down California’s Proposition 12, which banned gestation crates. Fourth and finally, the President can push cultural change using the power of persuasion. 
The Simple Heart is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
It’s for these reasons that I thought it might be useful to compare the Presidential candidates. And a deeper look at Trump and Harris leads to a surprising conclusion: the two candidates are closer, on animal rights issues, than you might think. There is even an argument that Trump could be better on animals, largely because he may take on one of the third rails of American politics: subsidies for Big Ag. 
Legislation. There are numerous federal laws that affect animals, but by far the most important is the Farm Bill. This massive piece of legislation, which is estimated to cost $662 billion over the next 5 years [ [link removed] ], plays an enormous role in shaping the food system, which in turn shapes the lives of billions of animals on factory farms. Of crucial importance for those who care about animals, within the Farm Bill, is the various subsidies paid to farmers, including losses relating to mass mortality events such as avian flu [ [link removed] ]. One of the reasons factory farmers produce so many animals, and allow them to die in nightmarish ways, is that the government pays them for doing so. And, surprisingly to many, Trump and Biden were roughly equivalent [ [link removed] ] in these handouts.
Importantly, however, Trump has a potential advantage over Biden and Harris in the future, as his supporters at the Heritage Foundation have proposed [ [link removed] ] an end to many farm subsidies, along with the “checkoff” programs that have created a public-sponsored cartel in factory farming. While there are many other specific laws that Harris might be better on – especially those related to endangered species protection or wildlife conservation – the Farm Bill likely trumps them all. And that means Trump is probably the better choice on federal legislation affecting animal rights.
Enforcement and regulation. The primary direct impact of the President on animal protection is via enforcement and regulation of federal laws. While the PACT Act of 2019 made headlines, it is far less important than other laws, such as the Humane Slaughter Act (HSA) or the Animal Welfare Act (AWA), that impact the lives of billions of animals. And in this regard, Trump was a disaster. Enforcement of the AWA plummeted [ [link removed] ] in his administration, and he gave corporate factory farms the ok to engage in unlawful high-speed slaughter [ [link removed] ]. Trump also pushed bizarre interpretations of existing law, such as defining [ [link removed] ] “outdoor access” under the federal organic program as including industrial sheds with tiny porches where the animals never actually step outside. While the Biden administration did nothing special in this area – and Harris has not indicated how she might differ from her former boss – doing “nothing special” is better than what Trump did. This is a clear win for Harris. 
Impacts on state policy and law. The President, through various discretionary programs and legal intervention, can have a significant impact on the animal rights movement in states across the nation. This was made most evident by the Biden administration’s efforts [ [link removed]. ] to strike down Proposition 12, the California ballot initiative that banned certain forms of intensive confinement. Biden argued [ [link removed] ] that California had “no legitimate interest” in preventing mother pigs from being tortured in gestation crates, and his lone Supreme Court appointee, Kentanji Brown Jackson, agreed with this analysis. (It took three conservative justices to save [ [link removed] ] the law.) Trump apparently has made no statements on the law, which was passed by California voters in 2018 when he was President. This is an area, however, where Vice President Harris is likely to be better than Biden. As attorney general of California, Harris defended two [ [link removed] ] farm [ [link removed] ] animal cruelty laws from similar challenges. Harris therefore gets the slight edge. While she was part of an administration that shamefully tried to keep pigs trapped in crates, she took a different course of action when she was the boss. 
Cultural change. Perhaps the most important power of the President is the power of the bully pulpit. Given the enormous attention, globally, on all aspects of a President’s life, what can we expect of the cultural impacts of a Trump or Harris presidency on animal rights? Trump, culturally, is a huge meat eater who has supported hunting; his son Donald Jr. went [ [link removed] ] to Mongolia and killed an endangered sheep. He has mocked vegan food and cannot even pronounce the word. 
In contrast, Harris has visited vegan restaurants, stated that she’s vegan before 6 pm [ [link removed] ], and argued in public interviews that Americans should eat less red meat [ [link removed] ]. 
While this might be seen as a clear win for Harris, however, the picture is slightly more complicated. Because lukewarm support, of the sort that Harris has provided, may actually reduce the public’s appetite for change, compared to a vigorous opponent. The reason is the backlash effect. Trump’s vitriolic statements empowered movements for change, from environmentalism to animal rights. In contrast, under Biden, and perhaps Harris, grassroots movements have shriveled up. For that reason, this one is, surprisingly, a toss up. 
There are of course many other issues on which the two candidates can be compared, including their commitment to democracy. But the main point of this newsletter is that things aren't always what they seem. Trump’s position on farm subsidies, for example, may be more important than any other policy in protecting animals from cruelty and slaughter.  This newsletter is not an endorsement of one or the other candidate, however, but just an encouragement for all of us to dive deeper.
I suspect that what you’ll find, if you do so, is not that one candidate is clearly better than the other on animal rights but, rather, that the real power for change won’t come from either Harris or Trump. It will come from you [ [link removed] ]. 
What’s up this week?
What are the best counter-arguments to animal rights? I was honored to speak with philosopher Peter Singer on the latest episode of our podcast. And he had some very interesting thing to say, including the one counter-argument to animal rights that has given him pause over many decades. (Preview: it has to do with whether chickens live “net positive lives.”)
Can violence ever be justified? A few weeks ago, I had a hilarious exchange [ [link removed] ] with Richard Burgess, aka Vegan Gains, on whether feeding cats non-vegan food makes you a “scumbag.” Now we’re back for more, as Richard has some very strong views on my recent defense of nonviolence [ [link removed] ] – and shares some dark personal stories in the process. In the wake of the Trump assassination attempt, it’s worth asking: can violence ever be justified?
I’m thinking of doing an “Ask Me Anything” show. I’ve heard from a lot of people who have a strong opinion on recent newsletters or podcasts. If you have a question you want me to answer, leave it as a comment on one of the two shows above. I’ll try to answer all questions in an upcoming Substack or podcast. 
We’re hosting a nonviolence and mass open rescue training in SF from Sept 7-8 [ [link removed] ]. There will be tremendous opportunities to take action for animals in the coming months, and we want everyone to be prepared. And we have a special guest - Kazu Haga, part of a lineage of legendary nonviolence trainers from the Civil Rights Movement - leading the first day of the workshop. RSVP here [ [link removed] ]. Also, stay tuned for dates and times for trainings we may do in Chicago and Denver soon, too!
Don’t forget about the AI and Animals Meetup in SF on Sunday! RSVP here. [ [link removed] ]
The Simple Heart is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Unsubscribe [link removed]?