The Congressional Animal Protection Caucus: A Political Arm of Animal Extremism

A version of this article was previously published. Most of the information provided still holds true today. Western Justice is sharing to help reveal the manner in which extremist groups operate, their ties to and cooperation with other extremist groups, and the continued threat they pose to our lifestyles and livelihoods.

Misleading Language, Hidden Agendas

Groups that call themselves “animal protection” or “animal welfare” organizations often present themselves as compassionate advocates. In reality, many of them twist common terms to mask extremist agendas that have little to do with genuine animal welfare as defined by the American Veterinary Medical Association. The Congressional Animal Protection Caucus (CAPC) is one such vehicle—an alliance of lawmakers increasingly influenced by animal rights extremism.

CAPC Membership and Origins

The CAPC was founded in 2009 by Representatives Tom Lantos (D-CA) and Chris Shays (R-CT). Today, it boasts more than 100 members and is co-chaired by Rep. Vern Buchanan (R-FL), Rep. Sharice Davids (D-KS), Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA), Rep. Nicole Malliotakis (R-NY), Rep. Mike Quigley (D-IL), Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD), Rep. Alma Adams (D-NC), and Rep. Jake Auchincloss (D-MA).

While the caucus claims to be bipartisan, its membership skews overwhelmingly Democratic, with only about 15 Republicans involved.

On its surface, CAPC appears well-intentioned, claiming its purpose is to highlight “important issues affecting animals” and to promote “sensible animal protection legislation.” Yet, its partnerships reveal otherwise. CAPC routinely aligns itself with groups like Humane World for Animals or HWA, (formerly Humane Society of the United States), ASPCA, PETA, and their political arm, the Humane World Action Fund, or HWAF, (formerly Humane Society Legislative Fund ).

Extremist Influence on the Caucus

From the start, HWA has maintained close ties to CAPC. Mimi Brody, HSLF’s former director of federal affairs and current senior policy advisor, openly admitted the partnership:

“We co-host congressional briefings on key bills with the Animal Welfare Institute and ASPCA in cooperation with the Caucus… The Caucus helps flag and mobilize congressional support for important legislation and sign-on letters on a wide range of priority matters.”

Even the ASPCA has created form letters for supporters to pressure lawmakers into joining the caucus—evidence of how activist groups funnel grassroots lobbying into CAPC’s expansion.

High-Profile Members and Their Record

Representative Matt Gaetz (R-FL)

Despite his reputation as a conservative firebrand, Gaetz has sided with extremist groups in the past. He supported Florida’s Amendment 13 in 2018, which ended greyhound racing in the state. Framed as a humane victory, the ban destroyed thousands of jobs and eliminated a historic industry after HSUS and Grey2K pushed a misleading campaign against it.

Reps. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) and Vern Buchanan (R-FL)

As former and current CAPC chairs, both are favorites of HWA and ASPCA. Blumenauer proudly touts his 100% rating from HSUS, while Buchanan has won HSUS’s “Legislator of the Year” award twice (2019 and 2020). These endorsements reveal the depth of influence extremist groups have over CAPC leadership.

Troubling Legislation Backed by CAPC

CAPC members frequently sponsor and promote bills rooted in extremist ideology. A few notable examples include:

Preventing Animal Cruelty and Torture (PACT) Act

Like so many other pieces of animal extremist-influenced legislation, the PACT Act was written to be incredibly vague. It was intended to “revise and expand” what constitutes criminal animal crushing. It reads: “(1) the term ‘animal crushing’ means actual conduct in which one or more living non-human mammals, birds, reptiles, or amphibians is purposely crushed, burned, drowned, suffocated, impaled, or otherwise subjected to serious bodily injury (as defined in section 1365 and including conduct that, if committed against a person and in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, would violate section 2241 or 2242)” The issue is that the vagueness would encompass multiple routine procedures in safe animal handling and management practices. It is so vague that it had to include an exemption for veterinarians and livestock, but due to the nature and extremist origins of the bill, it still left legitimate concerns for anyone doing any husbandry practices regardless of the animal classification. It should also be noted that given the shortage of large animal veterinarians in rural America, many owners are forced to learn and conduct lifesaving emergency procedures, which could be included in the language of the PACT act. For example, a rancher needing to use a trocar to release gas from the rumen of a bloated cow.

Safeguard American Food Exports (SAFE) Act

The SAFE Act is especially threatening to equine welfare as it would prohibit humane horse processing in the U.S. and prevent shipping horses for abroad processing. Unfortunately, this type of legislation also contributes to the already overburdened horse “rescue” system in that is insufficiently funded and understaffed to handle the burden of unwanted horses in the U.S.

Prevent All Soring Tactics (PAST) Act

The PAST Act was introduced with direct involvement by the HSUS/HWA and seeks to further restrict the Tennessee Walking Horse industry. The intent was to ban all devices commonly used, including pads, weighted shoes, and actions devices despite that there is no evidence that proves they are inherently harmful to horses. This act also tries to regulate an industry that already has many clear and beneficial rules and guidelines in place, and boasts over 98% compliance.

Truth in Fur Labeling Act

This act, signed into law by President Obama, requires the labeling of all fur products regardless of value. Previously items were exempt if they contained less than $150 worth of fur. This was promoted and supported by PETA.

The Bigger Picture: Extremism in Politics

The growth of CAPC demonstrates how animal rights extremists infiltrate policymaking through carefully branded “welfare” initiatives. By cloaking radical agendas in reasonable-sounding language, these groups push policies that harm animal industries, undermine rural livelihoods, and ignore science-based animal care.

This trend isn’t limited to Washington. On the local level, the Los Angeles City Council has banned horse racing, circuses, and rodeos, while even entertaining bans on children’s pony rides—policies driven more by activism than evidence.

With 100 + members and counting, CAPC’s influence continues to spread. Citizens must ask: Are your representatives on this roster—and are they working for you, or for extremist groups?