Checklist: Report the NIH funding change; quote the key social media statements exactly; explain the scope and limits of the move; assess broader implications for animal research funding; note ongoing political pressure and activist roles.
The National Institutes of Health appears to have cut new grants for experiments involving dogs and cats in fiscal year 2026, a change that reflects growing political and public scrutiny. This development was flagged on social media and by advocacy groups that have pushed Congress and the administration to stop taxpayer dollars from supporting those experiments. The shift targets new funding, not necessarily existing grants, and is being framed as a victory by critics of animal testing. The debate is now focused on whether the announcement will translate into concrete policy and enforcement.
On Thursday, an activist reported that the fiscal year 2026 federal budget contains no new funding for the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to conduct any . The social post laid out a claim that NIH has “apparently decided to not fund any new dog and cat experiments in fiscal year 2026” and suggested an official announcement would follow. If confirmed by top officials, supporters say the change would mark a meaningful rollback of a specific type of federally funded animal testing. For now, it looks like a pause on new grants rather than an immediate end to all related research.
Advocacy groups have long targeted the NIH for funding studies that involve companion animals, arguing the work is cruel, unnecessary, or wasteful. White Coat Waste and others have campaigned to cut funding and to expose grants that use dogs and cats, framing the practice as an improper use of taxpayer money. Legislators and activists have urged NIH leadership to halt both new and ongoing projects that involve these animals. That pressure has grown louder as public sympathy for pets remains high and as alternative research methods improve.
A new White Coat Waste @WhiteCoatWaste review of federal grants reveals that the @NIH has apparently decided to not fund any new dog and cat experiments in fiscal year 2026. Sources tell me an official announcement from @NIH about dog and cat testing is coming soon, during the second week of February. If this news uncovered by White Coat Waste is confirmed by Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. @SecKennedy, this would be another huge victory against wasteful and abusive animal testing for WCW and the Trump administration.
Not every scientist agrees on whether studies involving dogs and cats are essential, and the NIH historically has defended the necessity of certain animal models for specific fields. The practical reality is that most laboratory animals used in the U.S. are mice and rats, and those models account for roughly ninety-five percent of animal subjects. Dogs and cats represent a small share of animals used but draw outsized public attention and political heat when they are involved. The new funding decision aims to limit future use while leaving existing work in place unless further steps are announced.
White Coat Waste has been the only group calling out the NIH and demanding that NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya @NIHDirector_Jay and certified Trump-hater and Fauci-lover Dr. Nicole Kleinstreuer immediately end all funding for new and existing experiments that abuse dogs and cats. Meanwhile, @PETA and other left-wing anti-Trump groups have let Nicole and Jay off the hook. As I’ve reported with White Coat Waste since Tax Day of last year, Jay Bhattacharya and Nicole Kleinstreuer have continued to defend, support and fund Dr. Anthony Fauci’s labs and abusive tests on dogs, cats and other animals in labs in the US and foreign countries like China on US taxpayer dime.
Critics of animal testing emphasize ethical concerns and argue that modern alternatives, including refined computer models and organ-on-chip systems, can increasingly replace animal use. Supporters of niche animal studies respond that some complex biological questions still require whole-organism approaches. Lawmakers who pushed the issue argued that government priorities should reflect public values and fiscal responsibility. The recent budget language suggests officials are trying to strike a balance between scientific need and political accountability.
Political actors on the right have celebrated the move as proof that pressure works and as evidence of a responsible reorientation of federal science funding. Activists who drove the campaign are touting it as a win while calling for additional transparency about how existing grants will be handled. Observers note that administrative guidance, grant conditions, and agency leadership will determine how strictly the pause on new awards is implemented. The coming weeks will show whether the announcement is symbolic or a durable policy change.
Several practical points matter for researchers and institutions: existing awards may continue under current terms, grant solicitations could be altered to exclude certain animal models, and oversight mechanisms might be expanded to ensure compliance. Universities and labs that rely on diverse animal models may need to review their portfolios and adapt to shifting priorities. For the public, the headline is straightforward: fewer new federal dollars will likely flow to experiments involving dogs and cats, at least for now.
The issue ties into broader questions about the proper scope of federal science spending and the role of taxpayer oversight. As animal-model technology advances, policymakers will face ongoing choices about when animal experiments are truly necessary and when alternatives suffice. The NIH decision, as described by advocates and now circulating in budget language, signals an appetite for change and invites continued scrutiny from Congress, watchdog groups, and the public.
Add comment