Animals are suffering in plain sight while accountability weakens. The system meant to protect them issues more warnings than penalties, and crucial records have been hidden from view before being only partially restored.

That is not an accident of bureaucracy; it reflects policy choices and legal shifts that leave abusers less likely to face real consequences, Vox reports.

The Animal Welfare Act covers less than 0.01% of animals used by U.S. businesses.

The Law With Gaps Big Enough to Drive Cruelty Through

The Animal Welfare Act (AWA) sets baseline care standards for animals in research, exhibition, breeding, and transport. But it excludes most animals in labs—mice, rats, birds—and all farmed animals while alive, covering a tiny fraction of animals used by businesses, Vox reports. When a law covers so little, enforcement must be strong. It isn’t.

Warnings Instead of Consequences

Over the last five years, federal inspectors increasingly issued “official warnings” instead of fines, suspensions, or confiscations—even after serious or repeat violations, according to Vox.

The pattern hardened after a 2024 Supreme Court ruling made agencies wary of imposing civil penalties through administrative law judges: fines plummeted from 63 in the 14 months before the decision to five in the 14 months after, Courthouse News reports.

The USDA has stopped issuing most fines for cruelty violations.

A Supreme Court Chill—And an Administrative Choice

In *SEC v. Jarkesy*, the Court said certain agency fines require jury trials. Whether that applies to the AWA is unsettled; a recent court said a similar animal-protection statute wasn’t covered. Yet the Agriculture Department paused most AWA fines anyway, creating a chilling effect on enforcement, Federal News Network notes. The result: more warnings that carry little deterrent value.

Too Few Inspectors, Too Many Facilities

USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service is stretched thin. With roughly 77 inspectors for about 17,500 licensees and registrants, many facilities see infrequent or complaint-only inspections, leaving suffering unaddressed, Federal News Network reports. Even when fines existed, they were often small enough to be treated as a cost of doing business.

Transparency declined when animal abuse records were removed from public databases.

Transparency Rolled Back, Then Partly Restored

Public access to inspection records is a guardrail. Early in the Trump Administration, the USDA removed decades of online animal-welfare records, forcing journalists and advocates to wait months for FOIA responses and blunting public oversight, according to National Geographic. Years later, after legal and congressional pressure, the database was restored—but the damage to timely scrutiny was done.

Policy Signals That Let Abusers Off the Hook

Taken together—narrow legal coverage, scarce inspections, record removals, and an agency pullback on penalties—these choices reward noncompliance. Analyses describe a post-*Jarkesy* collapse in fines and a rise in toothless warnings, a trend aligned with deregulatory priorities seen in both Trump eras, Archyde reports.

What Would Real Protection Look Like?

Experts point to three fixes: restore meaningful penalties (including DOJ-led cases in federal court), fund more inspectors, and consider an independent animal protection agency to avoid conflicts of mission, Federal News Network reports. Without those steps, animals will continue to pay the price while abusers face little more than paper warnings.

Click below to make a difference.