DD Animal News. 22nd June 2025: Reports across media channels are ripe with news of how the Trump administration could be ending animal testing by 2035. While some remain skeptical, there are some concrete developments by national agencies that hint at such a development in the near future.
It appears the Trump administration’s second term is dramatically reshaping the landscape of animal testing in the United States. Key federal agencies—the FDA, EPA, and NIH—have rolled out bold policies aimed at curbing or even eliminating reliance on animal models in scientific research and drug development.
From shuttering notorious animal labs to removing animal-test mandates for certain drugs, these moves mark what could be a historic shift. Yet, beneath the surface, critics question whether these changes are driven by genuine ethical concern, or whether they are part of a broader agenda of deregulation and budget cuts. This article explores the details, motivations, and potential consequences of this transformative moment in U.S. science policy.
FDA Moves to End Mandatory Animal Testing for Some Drugs
On April 10, 2025, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration announced a landmark policy revision that removes the requirement for animal testing in the approval process for certain types of drugs, starting with monoclonal antibodies for cancer and COVID‑19 treatments.
FDA Commissioner Dr. Jay Bhattacharya hailed the change as a “critical leap forward for science, public trust, and patient care,” emphasizing that modern science now offers superior alternatives that can reduce unnecessary animal suffering while ensuring safety and efficacy. While animal welfare advocates, including the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, have celebrated this development as a long-awaited ethical advance, some medical researchers worry about potential gaps in regulatory oversight that could impact patient safety.
EPA Reinstates Ambitious 2035 Deadline to Phase Out Animal Testing
The Environmental Protection Agency has recommitted to its 2019 goal of eliminating mandatory animal tests for chemical safety assessments by 2035. Under Administrator Lee Zeldin, the agency declared its intention to reduce reliance on animal models, particularly for pesticide testing, and to prioritize non-animal technologies.
Molly Vaseliou, an EPA spokesperson, stated, “We are wholly committed to getting the agency back on track to meet our humane science goals.” This recommitment comes after the Biden administration quietly abandoned the timeline during its tenure, prompting renewed hope among animal rights organizations. However, experts caution that meeting this deadline will require significant investment in alternative testing methods and stronger inter-agency coordination.
NIH Shuts Down Beagle Lab and Invests in Animal-Free Technologies
In late May 2025, the National Institutes of Health took one of its boldest steps by closing its long-criticized beagle research facility in Bethesda, Maryland lab that had subjected over 2,000 dogs to invasive tests over four decades. The closure is part of a broader NIH initiative to replace animal studies with cutting-edge technologies such as “organ-on-a-chip” systems and advanced computer modeling.
NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya told Fox & Friends Weekend, “We put forward a policy to replace animals… with tools that translate better to human health. We got rid of all the beagle experiments on NIH campus.” The move was applauded by advocacy groups like White Coat Waste Project, whose president Anthony Bellotti remarked, “We applaud the President for cutting this wasteful NIH spending. The solution is simple: Stop the money. Stop the madness!”
Reactions: Applause, Warnings, and Political Overtones
The shift in animal research policy has drawn praise from groups like PETA, the Humane Society, and White Coat Waste, who view the reforms as a long-overdue ethical victory. At the same time, experts and watchdogs have raised concerns about the motivations behind these moves. While the reforms align with growing public support for animal welfare, some analysts argue they are also tied to broader efforts to slash federal budgets and deregulate industries.
Without corresponding investment in alternatives and regulatory frameworks, critics warn, these changes could weaken scientific rigor and increase risks to public health. Furthermore, the USDA’s record on enforcing animal welfare standards in labs remains under scrutiny, raising questions about the real-world impact on animal suffering.
A Complex Legacy: Science, Ethics, and Politics Intertwined
The Trump administration’s reforms may represent one of the most significant ethical pivots in U.S. research policy history. On the surface, they signal a long-awaited commitment to reducing animal suffering and embracing modern science. Yet, the political context—marked by funding cuts, regulatory rollbacks, and minimal support for alternative technologies—casts a shadow over the sincerity and sustainability of these initiatives.
The challenge ahead lies in ensuring that the momentum toward cruelty-free science is matched by meaningful investment, robust oversight, and a genuine focus on public health rather than political expediency. As the U.S. stands at this crossroads, the decisions made today will shape the future of both animal welfare and biomedical innovation for decades to come.
Andrew Alpin from India is the Brand Manager of Doggo digest. Andrew is an experienced content specialist and social media manager with a passion for writing. His forte includes health and wellness, Travel, Animals, and Nature. A nature nomad, Andrew is obsessed with mountains and loves high-altitude trekking. He has been on several Himalayan treks in India including the Everest Base Camp in Nepal.
