So for today I wanted to cover the world of politics
and what's happening with the Trump administration
It's an eruption of news Truly, I mean you don't
know where to pay attention to what exactly and
I really wanted to focus on the animal rights
aspect of it and basically the impact of this
Trump administration on the lives of animals.
And to kick off the conversation, I wanted to
ask you about this whole thing we keep hearing
about at the price of eggs. What is this all
about? The enterprise of X, did you say? Oh,
the price of eggs. Oh, the price of eggs. Sorry,
I don't know how I it's almost like AI beating
back to you something that you didn't hear quite
right or they didn't hear. Yeah, that's funny.
The price of eggs. Oh, well, of course, that's
the big drama in the news. Everything is about
like eggs have become a symbol. of how outrageous
food prices have become. And it's frustrating
to see that because obviously bird flu and other
factors have a lot to do with that. And some
parts of the egg industry and other animal ag
industries are really doing quite well profit
-wise. there's quite a bit out there about how
they might be exploiting this situation with
bird flu and with inflation and This whole chaos
that Like you said flooding the zone type strategy
that the Trump administration uses to overwhelm
us with information and with with conflicts and
situations that we don't know how to react to
So I think that, you know, as activists, we kind
of have to rise above all that noise because,
and recognize it for what it is. It's a strategy
to distract us, to try to disempower us as a
society, as a movement, whatever the movement
is, if it's animal rights or food justice or
climate crisis. they're all they're all part
of you know we we share a lot in common with
other movements in terms of how our main how
mainstream and dominant culture try to disempower
and distract us from our goals and and this is
a classic kind of strategy flooding the zone
trying to overwhelm us to think that you know
we'll never be able to get the public's attention
on what needs to be attended to. And so we have
to kind of, you know, we have to rise above it.
We have to be able to, it's a test of our ability
to have discipline and also it's a test of our
Our character and our discipline and our and
our ability to focus Probably more than anything
What bird flu Yeah Well, that's that's interesting
because no one you know, no one in the farming
industry or in the agriculture industry is denying
They're all Talking about bird flu not maybe
in the right way or the way we would like for
them to talk about it, but it's interesting because
the industry knows that it's a disaster and wants
the federal government to step in and give them
more subsidies, more disaster, what they call
disaster relief. And yeah, like you said, what
bird flu? In terms of like a lot of the public,
it's not even on their radar. It should be though,
because it's in the news all the time. But it's
not a big threat yet to human health, public
health. So it's still on the fringes of people's
consciousness, probably. If that's what you mean
by what bird flu. Yes, I mean, you don't hear
about it. You hear about the prices of eggs increasing,
but you don't hear about the costs. You don't
hear about the underlying problem. Yeah, that
the underlying problem, you know, is often associated
with inflation and Sometimes on the on the left
side of the media, you might see, oh, it's more
about like price gouging. The industry is trying
to get more out of consumers and exploiting the
situation. So, but yeah, you rarely, you rarely
hear you know, you not only you don't hear about
it, but you don't see it. It's one of those hidden
realities. Like, you know, we don't see the mass
extermination of birds. We don't often see sick
dairy cows on the side of the road. However,
there have been some really good reporting of
this stuff and it's getting out there. But yeah,
we'd love to see it out there 20 times as much
as it is. And I would recommend looking through
the content of Dr. Crystal Heath. She's been
on the forefront of covering this issue. And
she got me informed throughout this whole crisis.
So yeah, that would be one recommendation. Yeah,
Crystal and I have known each other for several
years now. And we share information and ideas
and a lot quite a bit. So happy to have her.
mentioned on the show because yeah, she's really
one of her big strengths as a veterinarian is
the ability to leverage media coverage on on
the subject of bird flu and animal agriculture
in general. And that's, you know, something we
need more and more of. And it's really difficult
to accomplish. So I I commend her for her abilities
to do that. To give you an example, I mean, recently
there has been a new investigation from Animal
Recovery Mission of another Fairlife supplier,
but this time it was a brand new state -of -the
-art facility in Arizona. And I think it was
two different suppliers of Fairlife that were
under investigation by ARM. They released the
investigation to Great Fanfare, professional
PR people working on it and everything. And there
was some coverage in Arizona, local news coverage,
but Fairlife is based in Chicago and there was
no coverage here. Nonetheless, we planned a rally
at Fairlife's headquarters on March 3rd, but
I could tell leading up to this that we weren't
getting any local media coverage. And that was
the That was the critical factor in 2019 when
the first big arm Investigation was released
and the media Covered it across Not just locally
internet nationally and internationally. It was
quite a quite a media sensation and It was for
a couple of weeks leading up to the rally that
we had at Fairlife headquarters So we had about
60 people meant many people that I didn't know
well either. As activists, they were just people
that heard about it and decided to come out.
They felt it was an important thing to do. But
this time around 2025, the media wasn't there.
The media wasn't covering it. And as a result,
we had about 25 people or so at the rally and
no media coverage. So, you know, this this is
a you know we could get into a whole conversation
about how important it is to get our message
out in the media our point of view how we need
to shift that narrative mainstream media narrative
more in our favor that's a whole discussion i
don't know if you really want to get into that
but crystal has been able to get an important
perspective into mainstream media outlets and
uh i think that's Fantastic. It's much needed.
Definitely. I'm more of the lane, I would say
personally of creating our own media platforms
and reaching people directly instead of having
to depend on the whims of big legacy media. Yeah,
yeah, absolutely. That's it. That's an important
thing to really focus on maybe on independent
media outlets that are more likely to cover the
topic or even just create your own content if
you can leverage an audience for sure. Yes, and
she's also good on that. She's been after me,
you know, trying to convince me to open a TikTok
account. But yeah, social media game, you know,
I'm not that good at it. So, okay. piece of news
coming from the Trump administration was the
the Brooke Rollins her not an election but her.
Yeah, it's an election appointment. Appoint an
appointed cabinet member. Yes, right. Yes. So
is it she's the agriculture secretary. That's
right. Is this a good thing or a bad thing? Do
you know who is Brooke Rawlins and is she in
any way sympathetic to the animal cause? Well,
I don't think she's sympathetic to the animal
cause, although she has said things about that
her policies would mitigate or reduce animal
suffering. and be good for the environment. She
has made statements about bringing in those benefits
to what her policies are. Now, we did a little
research into Brooke Rollins. I didn't know too
much about her frankly until when I started hearing
that she was Trump's pick. We started doing some
research. We learned that she previously advocated
for an elimination, her words actually, an elimination
of farm subsidies and corporate welfare. That's
not something you hear in political circles in
the establishment Democrat or Republican, or
even what we hear from progressives. We're not
going to ever hear Well, Bernie Sanders might
come out and say, yeah, a corporate welfare is
bad, and we need to end it. And there, you know,
you might hear that from from some of the others
too. But I don't think I've ever heard Cory Booker
or any of those kind of, you know, more progressive
food reform type voices in Congress or in government
say, we need an elimination. Not a cutting just
an elimination of farm sub subsidies in other
words that that's a welfare program It's a socialist
program to prop up an industry that should really
be standing on its own two feet and should the
free market should should be What allows this
industry to sink or swim? And I thought that
was pretty fascinating. It's more of a libertarian
type of and I think that was, I believe it was
in 2016 when she made these comments. But we're
still like, when we went to DC for our week of
action, we hoped to confront her. She never ended
up showing up at this conference. She was very
much suspected to show up, but she wasn't on
the program. And she did make a virtual appearance.
But we still went there. We confronted a powerful
group of panelists. And one of the parts of our
message was, hey, you know, you guys are talking
about farm subsidies and bailout money for bird
flu, but you have a new secretary of agriculture
that has previously called for an elimination
of all of this. So where is your reality next
to to hers or this Trump administration, if their
goal is to make these massive cuts, how is it
that you guys can be talking about how we need
to increase disaster relief? Because there's
more wildfires, there's more extreme climate,
weather events, there's more drought, there's
more zoonotic disease that is killing off. the
animals that would otherwise be marketed and
sold. And so there's such a disparity between
what she has said and alleges to stand for and
then what people in Congress and people even
at this USDA conference where it's the biggest
annual event. for the USDA and it's just huge.
The room we were in had at least 500 people on
it, just listening to a panel. And then there
were hundreds of other people in other parts
of the conference. And they're all talking about,
gee, I wonder how we can get more subsidies out
of the government and get taxpayers to pay for
things that we don't want to pay for. There's
a dissonance there that that is really striking.
Do you think she will make those cuts? Well,
I think she's going to be at the whim of Trump.
And I think you've seen Trump go back and forth
with tariffs and using carrot and stick. It's
really not that unusual. But it's very exaggerated
in Trump's case because he likes to make a show
of everything. But honestly, this whole carrot
and stick approach with using tariffs or something
like that isn't new. If you guys don't do this,
we're going to punish you by cutting your subsidies
or cutting the Department of Education or we're
going to impose a 250 % tariff on French wines
or whatever. All these outrageous things are
really more just kind of It's a chess game. It's
kind of a maybe chess is too sophisticated for
Trump I would say probably but it's more of just
like a It's a negotiation type thing to try to
you know force people to do things that you want
want them to do And I don't think she's gonna
have much autonomy I think she's probably gonna
have to go along with whatever he decides to
do, or probably get ousted. But the point is
though, we've already seen, it's not a question
of if, because we've already seen major cuts.
We've already heard about farmers and ranchers
in the US. And when we think about farmers and
ranchers, we think of these poor people that
you know from the dust bowl era that when subsidies
were really necessary actually for farmers, we
think of these poor people that can barely make
a living, and that's not really representative
of who farmers and ranchers are today. They're
much more corporate, they're much larger in scale.
And so, but we've already heard them outraged
about getting letters from the USDA saying that
they can't count on these different programs.
that are sources of revenue for them. So it's
already happening. It could get reversed. I think
there's gonna be a lot of back and forth, quite
frankly, because that's Trump's style. A lot
of back and forth, a lot of chaos. And where
that will end up is anyone's guess, quite honestly.
But this administration wants to make major cuts.
and already has made major cuts, not necessarily
in the areas that would be beneficial to humanity
or the public at large, but more to the wealthy,
right? So when you hear stories about the USDA
cutting food aid, so farmers were getting paid
to supply food to Indiana's food bank. for poor
people, those kind of programs are getting cut.
But it remains to be seen, are the really unjust
subsidies that are going to corporate firms and
organizations that don't need tax dollars, are
those going to be cut or eliminated? I'm not
really sure where that's going to land. That's
what we're really looking for. And I guess this
was my next question. Do we want those cots?
You know, and, you know, if we do, where exactly
do we want those cots? How is it, you know, most
beneficial for animals? Yeah, that's a great
question. And I'm not sure. That's a tough thing
to answer because I mean, On the one hand, there's
a simple answer. And that is that we're a fan
of subsidies when they actually promote a greater
good, a public good, like providing food to hungry
people or to eliminating the waste of food. Obviously,
there's a lot of animals' lives that are wasted
because food is so much wasted. And subsidies
that help people buy food, like food stamp programs
and things like that, that help the environment.
Obviously, we're a fan of housing, education.
I think anything that produces a public good
is a subsidy of some value. But the reality is
that up to now, subsidies have been used to support
animal agriculture in a hugely unfair way, because
so much of the billions have gone to animal agriculture.
And if you're truly trying to reduce animal suffering
and create a more sustainable food system, then
that subsidy system has to shift. because all
subsidies are is a way to incentivize the agriculture
industry. They're gonna go wherever the money,
wherever the money is. And so that's why we're
so on Congress because they are going to decide
where those incentives are going, those financial
incentives are going to be for the next five
years. And so we need to hold them accountable
because that's the top level decisions being
made in our food system. And if we're not there,
then it's left to industry lobbyists, meat industry,
egg industry, dairy industry, and those congressional
officials, those elected officials. If we're
not in the room, if we're not in those spaces
of power, then we don't even get heard. We're
out leafletting somewhere. And these people are
making huge decisions on our food system in the
future of our food system. So, um, we have to
be in these spaces of power to get anything done,
to make any change. Yes. Let's, let's talk about
this. Um, because in our last conversation, you
made the point that everyone is in the animal
protection space focused on passing pushing laws
and not you know focusing on the subsidies the
money and now it's it's on the news you know
because of all of those potential cuts and but
still you're you're You haven't, you're the only
one basically who is interested in that. And
yeah, it's, it's, it's greatly disappointing
to say the least. Why do you think there's this
obstacle for animal protection organizations?
Why are they not? with you, meeting those lobbyists,
or trying to get a meeting with that new Secretary
of Agriculture. Why are they still focused on
the law part, you know, reforming the law or
passing a new welfare law? Oh, great question.
I mean, some of them are, and many of them aren't.
As you said, The mainstream side of our movement
and most other social movements are on the reformed
side of the equation. The more grassroots side
of a movement, which we identify with at Free
From Harm, is more on what we call the transformational
side of the movement. We want to focus people's
attention on the big picture change. we feel
that people are ready and perfectly capable of
understanding that the long -term vision and
Necessity is a transition to a plant -based food
system and that we need to start that process
now So that if that's the vision that we put
out for people and the reason why is because
of all the problems associated with with exploiting
and killing billions of animals like bird flu
just being one example. If that becomes the vision,
then things like whether we should get animals
out of cages or whether we should, those become
kind of just not important because we've already
moved the public. that we're already moving the
public, they're already accepting this premise
or vision that the future is a plant -based transition
that needs to start now. It might take time.
We are under no illusions that this will happen
tomorrow, but it needs to start now. And so,
most mainstream groups are already invested in
their campaigns, whether it be for cage free
eggs or crate free pigs, or whatever it is, guagua.
And so it's very difficult to ask. It's a big
ask to make to ask people, hey, see, give up,
you know, drop that because there's something
bigger on the horizon here. Bird flu is creating
an opportunity that we must seize upon. There's
a weak spot in this industry that we can exploit
and leverage to our advantage like never before,
and we need to seize on this opportunity. Not
everybody sees that opportunity and is willing
to shift gears. and maybe give up or severely
reduce campaigns that they've invested a lot
of time and money into. And it's understandable,
but it's also unfortunate because movements that
succeed have to adapt and innovate and seize
on opportunities that present themselves that
it doesn't matter what we're involved in. The
only reason why we've seized upon subsidies and
bird flu is because there are two hot point issues
that we feel can really rally public support
across the political spectrum. The issue of subsidies,
for example, this idea that we should be charging
the industry for bird flu and other disasters
that they create rather than taxpayers resonates
across the political spectrum. Bird flu being
a threat that the industry has created because
of the extreme conditions it raises and kills
billions of animals. That's another thing that
we can seize upon to build mass public support.
If we want to build a mass movement, then it
has to be not a luxury product, but something
that actually affects people's day -to -day lives.
And these things do. money in their pockets,
food on their plate does. And that's what we're
talking about with bird flu and subsidies. So
my hope is that as we continue down this path
and do more actions and build our teams in different
cities and confront power holders in our food
system and show people how this can be done,
that these people can be accessed and should
be. And here's how we can do it. Here's an example.
Here's another example. Here's what our team
in San Antonio did. Here's what our team in Denver
did or in San Francisco. And it starts to hopefully
create and it hopefully kind of starts to inspire
people to want to seize upon point issues like
this, like bird flu and subsidies, where there's
a huge potential for public's popular support.
It's just a movement principle that I learned
that other movements have used to their advantage.
So, for example, in the Black Lives Matter space,
certain incidents like the killing of George
Floyd was seized upon as a tremendous opportunity
to bring a consciousness about police brutality.
They did a magnificent job of seizing upon certain
trigger events like that and amplifying it into
the public space, into the media. And as a result,
they were able to shift public opinion on their
cause dramatically, from like 30 % approval to
60, 70 % approval. And that's what we wanna do.
We wanna create a mass shift in the media narrative,
but also in the consciousness of Americans about
this industry that they would otherwise trust,
animal agriculture, which they generally trust
and think is doing the right thing. We need to
cast doubt. and create a questioning for that.
And so things like bird flu become the catalyst,
the trigger for us to shift public thinking about
our food system. You remind me of a story I told
before, but of a conservative podcaster, huge
conservative podcaster. And I was listening to
her talk about a coat she was going to wear for
an event. And the coat was made in fur. And then
she said, Oh, my gosh, now I'm going to get those
PETA letters about The coat every time I mentioned
foie gras or fur or any luxury products of the
kind I get all of those letters and And then
she said but why are they? criticizing my fur
coat when you know every morning I drink a glass
of milk and You know milk is basically exploiting
cows Um, so how does that make sense? Why are
they not, you know, criticizing, uh, my consumption
of dairy and, you know, my, my blood was boiling.
I was thinking, Oh my gosh, why have they not
made the time to make that case for her? You
know, they focused on, um, criticizing her fur
coat and her consumption of foie gras, which
is, you know, rare, um, but not, uh, talking
about the real suffering, the animal exploitation,
the dairy industry, the meat industry, or bringing
those arguments about taxpayer money going to
subsidies that would have resonated with a conservative.
So yeah, such a frustrating thing to witness.
Did you want to comment on that? I'm just listening
now. I know I've seen, I've seen situations like
that too, and tempted to respond and then, you
know, you have to be careful what you say. And
I, yeah, I know what I've experienced exactly
those situations too. I'll just do it at that.
Something I never had the opportunity to ask
you. So I did an episode on the end of the antibiotic
area. And the scientist I interviewed, he's not
vegan. He's not, you know, an animal activist.
But, you know, he understands he has a good grasp
of reality. He's not in denial of the impact
of the animal industry. And at the end of the
interview, he told me how, you know, factory
farming would not have been possible without
antibiotics. And then I asked him, you know,
is big pharma a big client of a big act? Basically,
is there this uh, an holy union between those
two industries. And, um, he was hesitant. He
said, um, maybe, you know, I'm not the right
person to ask that. So let me ask you this question.
Have you ever, uh, noticed, um, something of
the sort, you know, um, uh, a partnership, a
presence of big pharma, um, maybe, uh, in DC
recently, uh, among all of those big ag, uh,
lobbyists, um, are they present? Um, because
you know, they're big ag is one of their biggest
clients. They, they purchase all of those antibiotics
from them. Well, what you're alluding to is,
you know, what we, what we often call it, like,
uh, Bill Moyers would call the pillars of support
that that financially or otherwise support something
that's needed by that industry or that institution.
And, you know, when we look at animal ag and
how privileged it is in terms of subsidies and
benefits and how protected it is by our tax dollars,
we also have to look at all those pillars of
support. You know, the pharma industry, which,
yeah. I mean, I've seen statistics where 60 %
to 70 % of antibiotics are sold to animal ag
clients. It's somewhere around there. I've seen
many sources cite that. But also, beyond big
pharma, we don't realize that a lot of the crops
that are grown serve the animal ag industry.
And the money. the capital firms, the banks,
the lending institutions that the USDA uses for
these loan programs, 0 % loans, no interest for
farmers or ranchers or corporations or whoever
they're lending to. And so looking at these pillars
of support and this, you know, what we call a
power map kind of lays out who are the big players
here and who are targets that are valuable targets
that are actually funding or some otherwise supporting
animal ag. We should really look at that whole
big picture, that whole tree, pharma being a
big one there too, but also the money. Where's
the money coming from? Because Banks and investors,
even just wealthy individual investors are having
a huge enabling effect to help this industry
continue to prosper. We have to look at those
as targets. You made a very good point on social
media about farmers who grow legumes, who grow,
you know, plant -based food, and how, you know,
you were supporting them. You were telling them,
you know, I support subsidies for you, but not
for those, you know, animal agriculture lobbyists,
and how they were not very receptive to your
support. Why is that? Yeah, that's a good question.
In some cases, they took offense. You could tell
that for them, I think if you try to get inside
of their mind, my best guess is that they're
benefiting from both what they call specialty
crops, which are crops grown for human consumption,
as well as crops grown for animal feed. to benefit
the animal ag industry somehow. And perhaps they
also have animal ag interests, financial interests
that could shape their views on it. But we found
them to be rather hostile. We were a little bit
in their face, I would say, but not at the beginning.
We actually started out really, we kind of eased
into it. We tried to find that common ground
and say, we really support and we're against
this idea that the farm bill doesn't really benefit
specialty crop producers and therefore the cost
of those goods are outrageous when compared to
highly subsidized meat and dairy and egg products.
That doesn't make sense to us. And they didn't
want to speak They didn't want to say anything
in support of that. And on the one end, and then
on the other end, they were, they were offended
by the suggestion of that. And many of them just
walked away. So, yeah, I think they look at it
as one big thing. There's no sep, like for us,
it's a separation. We want to advance a planet
based transition. For them, it's like, oh no,
we need all of it. We need to support all of
it. And there was one woman who, I don't know
her name, but she was part of an entourage of
lobbyists for the specialty crop industry. And
she said, we don't want to take anything away
from animal ag. We're not asking anything from
them. I said, I realize that you're asking Congress
for more subsidies, and I support that. I said,
but at the same time, you know, as well as I
do that the massive subsidies go to animal ag.
And we can see it, it's in, you know, it's on
paper. It's black and white here. And that was
a gotcha question. She got really offended. And
she asked me to leave. And the person she was
sitting with, this gentleman said, get out of
my face. You need to get out of my face right
now. And that's when the conversation ended.
So yeah, it wasn't really very pleasant. But
I think it was very revealing. You learn so much
when you go to DC. And if you want to get involved
in our actions, do it. And even if you just want
to go to observe, you're going to learn a lot.
And that's what I tell people. You don't have
to participate. You could actually just go and
learn about what the culture in DC is like. And
what you'll find is you ask whether what we're
doing works. Let your experience answer that
question rather than us telling you, oh, yeah,
it works. Go and you'll see every other interest
group. You'll see every imaginable interest group.
wearing t -shirts or dressed a certain way to
express their cultural or ethnic identity, every
group under the sun is in Congress meeting with
Congress people and displaying their identity
as that interest group. Every interest group
under the sun is there. So if this didn't work,
If it didn't work to be there in the spaces of
power, none of these groups would be there spending
the money to do it. So asking whether something
like that works is basically asking, well, should
we be absent or should we be present? And what
do you think the answer is? You know, come on.
Should we be absent? We're currently absent.
And how impactful or effective are we actually
being? in this context, you know. Not just, you
know, when you say interest groups, people should
know that even foreign nations are there. Oh,
absolutely. Yes. Lots of foreign interests. In
terms of trade deals and all that. Absolutely.
What's the price tag of being present? How much?
would we have to fundraise to get that going?
It depends on how many people you want to engage
in it. And I think it can be pretty low cost.
I mean, we do it with minimal cost. We don't
pay to get into the big events. We just kind
of walk in. We're not registered. We're not members
of some of these organizations that host these
events. So that's what makes it a lot more affordable
is because we're there to get a message out.
And in some cases, we try to blend in and we
try to interview people to get their insights.
and get that footage so we can show our supporters
this is what it's like on the inside. It's really
important that you understand what their values
are, what their concerns are. And you might even
be surprised by some of the statements you hear
about plant -based proteins and that developing
market from really high -level officials. You
might even be surprised at what you hear. You
might even be surprised to learn that they agree
with us. privately quote unquote but publicly
they have a very different position on supporting
animal acts so. It always makes sense to go there
and you can do it with minimal cost by. By not.
Becoming the members are not you know we're people
on the outside where the grassroots we're we're
we're looking. to access powerful people that
typically only provide access to big donors or
people that can get them something that have
an influential position. We're trying to break
through that corruption and cronyism to get a
message heard in a very difficult, it's not easy
work because we're not insiders, we're outsiders.
We don't want to be insiders, really. We don't
want to be high paid lobbyists. And we don't
want to play that game. We want to expose it
because it needs to change if we're going to
see any major change to our food system. But
don't we want to hire one of those high paid
lobbyists so they can do their magic? My theory
is we'll never outspend or outsmart the animal
ag game. They have the best lobbyists, the best
trade reps, they have the most influence in Congress.
If we try to play their game, we'll lose because
they're going to outsmart us and outspend us.
We don't have those kind of resources. But what
we do have is potentially a movement to build
popular support to demand a change. That's the
whole spirit of the grassroots, is that change
comes from the everyday working people, and that
the real change comes there and is thrust upon
those in power, rather than playing this kind
of insider game. Now, at a very late stage, when
we have the popular support we need, then if
you look at like a model like Bill Moyer put
out in the 70s, the stage seven and eight is
codifying that change into law. And that's when
we need powerful insiders, lawyers, attorneys,
lobbyists, Congress people, politicians, to codify
that change into law and make sure that it sticks.
That's when those power players are needed. But
the path to get there is all about people driving,
the movement driving that change from the outside.
So it's not like we don't recognize the importance
of insiders and reformists, we do, but their
role is more valuable when we've already built
the popular support we need. We are nowhere near
that yet. So the laws we're going to see passed
now are going to be inconsequential. That might
save a couple of hundred or thousands of animals,
but in the grand scheme of things are going to
have no real impact on shifting the power structure
in our favor, if that makes sense. Yes. Let me
shift then the conversation to that. This question
of popular support. The day after the election,
I took the mic and talked about how we needed
to reach out to conservatives, that this was
a necessity. Why? Well, because the politicians
on the right who come to power, if they have
no vegan constituency, like zero vegan voted
for them, then how are they even going to be
remotely interested in the animal cause? Like
we need to build that constituency. We need to
not gave our vote freely to one party over another,
and let them, you know, fight for our vote. Let's
be one of those important segments of the voting
population. What do you make of that? Yeah, I
think the key is probably to zoom in on demands
that do have wide popular support. across the
political spectrum like I had mentioned earlier.
And I think that's what we're trying to do. And
so, yeah, I think unfortunately, we are engaged
in the political process, but we're also outside
of it. And the benefit of not being tethered
to the process is that you can speak freely and
build support outside of that system and not
worry about whether you're going to have, if
you say something, you're gonna have a problem
with certain donor groups or advertisers that
are gonna come down on you and ask you to change
your view. We're not tethered to special interests
and moneyed interests. by working on the outside
in, we're able to focus on values and issues
that are important to people across the political
spectrum. What matters to us is that working
people, like people making 50 or 40 or a thousand
or less a year, are the people we're really trying
to appeal to because they're the ones struggling
with food prices. They're the ones that are going
to be the first to suffer from climate events,
climate crisis from bird flu and zoonotic diseases
and pollution from the industry. So when we appeal
to that group, We're we're kind of cutting through
The different Political divides Because we're
focusing instead on issues that actually matter
to people of all stripes What do you think of
the fact that now in the in Trump's cabinet there
are many not that many, but a few ethical vegetarians,
even vegan, people who care about animals. I'm
thinking of Tulsi Gabbard, I'm thinking of Vivek
Ramaswamy, who tweeted, I think, a day before
the election that animal welfare would become
a priority or something like that for the conservative
party. Is this a way in for the movement? Well,
it's a political calculation, I guess that we
we have to make and I'm not saying I don't think
I've made it myself, but Obviously, it's kind
of a chess game, because if you become allied
or associated with a certain political figure
that is very controversial, or creates a lot
of controversy just by the very nature of who
they are, then you risk alienating different
parts of your your support base. And so I think
the way we approach that has to be done pretty
carefully, strategically, and we should just
be honest with people that we're looking, we're
not, you know, we're not with them on X, Y, and
Z. We don't support, you know, brutal dictatorships.
We don't support cutting aid for HIV testing
and some of the things that they support or that
they have championed. We only see this as an
opportunity on the animal issue or on the food
system issue. to the extent that they share our
views. And then they're also gonna say things
that are going to probably blow their position
up because that's what these kind of people seem
to do. The people that Trump attracts seem to
be unstable in the sense of saying one thing
one day that sounds great to one group. And then
that's the nature of politics, isn't it? We went
to a Senate hearing on the farm bill a couple
of weeks ago and Cory Booker, much to many people's
demise or disappointment, spoke in defense of
the boutique pig industry and how it really needed
to be protected. He could have chosen to speak
about a number of different issues, like the
need for supporting plant -based proteins. Now,
a lot of people responded to those videos that
we put out. on that as how disappointed they
were with Cory Bicker, because they thought he
was vegan, and they thought he was supportive
of a plant -based food system. In my mind, I
share the disappointment, but I also realize
that a politician has multiple interest groups
to represent and to speak on their behalf. They're
going to say things that are seemingly contradictory
because they're there to try to please many different
interest groups. So don't expect them to be your
hero. Just realize this is their role. And what
we need out of them is to make policies that
advance our cause. That's what we should be razor
focused on. Not whether they said something That
pleases us personally or offends us because honestly.
That's a distraction like we have to realize
their politicians. And the only role. That we
should see as you know valuable here is the relationship
is about advancing the cause and not whether
you know whether they they actually act regardless
of what they say what what they do is really
what matters. in the end. The reason why I come
back to this idea of gaining grounds with the
more conservative crowds is really, you know,
from my point of view, I don't see the other
side having, you know, very optimistic political
future, a very promising political future. I
think we're in for a long conservative right,
you know, era. And I feel like if we don't do
something in, you know, gaining some grounds
with them, we won't make any progress in the
coming future. Yeah, and I guess that's why I
I fearfully think about this this issue and try
to rise the the alarm on on that. Okay. A few
words about wildlife. We talked a lot about farms
and big ag and but what about wildlife? So of
course, there's a question of the wall. That's
one ecosystem ticking bomb. And then now there's
the question of clearing forests. How do we prioritize,
you know, this over that? So I know that your
focus is, you know, farm animals, but then you
see everything happening with wildlife and you
think, well, Should we also advocate for change
on that field? What is the priority and why and
how do we balance all of that? Well, by advancing
a plant -based food system and challenging the
dominance of animal agriculture through whatever
subsidies or bird flu or whatever. issue we choose
to focus on that we feel is the most resonating
to the public. We're also definitely thinking
about all of the other casualties and side effects
of that change. So by reducing animal agriculture's
power and growth, we're also reducing that effect
that it has on wildlife. And most people, of
course, don't realize just how routine it is
to decimate wildlife in regenerative agriculture,
but also in factory farming, where wildlife are
just seen as a threat to domestic animals. are
simply eradicated, poisoned, trapped. It's incredible.
I mean, you know, millions of wildlife, I can't
remember the last I heard, but it's very routine
even on small farms. I mean, I hear about small
scale farmers, hobby farmers saying, you know,
they had to... trap and poison all the foxes
and all the all the animals within a certain
range on their property to protect the handful
of pigs, you know, a group of 10 or 15 pigs that
they have or a flock of chickens. It's very routine
in the mindset of this industry to do that. So
by reducing their by reducing the power and dominance
of that industry were the one of the benefits
is more protection of wildlife. Yes, and we often
need to be reminded of that. I think you're right.
I think that's something that we should really
think about. Speaking out about more in our messaging,
because wildlife is important to a lot of people.
again across the political spectrum. So we could
be capturing interest and support from people
that that are wildlife sensitive. With the tariffs
now, and with America being caught off from lots
of foreign products because of those tariffs,
do you think that the farm activities will intensify
now in the US. Because of the tariffs? Yes, because
now the difference of the difference of prices
will make consumers prioritize, you know, products
made in the US instead of foreign products. Well,
that's the claim that that those you know, like
Trump that are promoting and enacting tariffs
is that, oh, it's definitely going to make us
stronger economically. You know, the reality
is, is that the economy is so global in nature
that there's, I don't really see how that that's
going to be possible. So like, I was listening
to some trade reps from like the soybean and
corn and sorghum industries, and they rely on
equipment that is made in other countries, parts
from other countries to make farm equipment,
which they absolutely, critically need to produce
that crop. So I think that it sounds really good
to say, yeah, we're gonna slap tariffs on this
country. punish them for the trade imbalance
that they have with us. But it's far more complicated
than it seems on the surface. And we're interdependent
on other economies. And so this tariff idea is
a black and white highly reductionist, simplistic
way of of it's more about if we're gonna make
America great again, then we have to level the
playing field and make it more fair for Americans,
for American industry. But it's really kind of,
it's more of a distraction than a reality. And
I'm not an expert in this. It's a very complicated
subject, but I know that When you hear from the
industry people, the ag industry people, they
say they don't want tariffs. They think that
it complicates things and it makes things more
expensive for them. Of course, they're very careful
about what they say and how they say it because
they don't want to get in trouble from the Trump
administration and get punished or something.
They're real careful about what they say, but
they don't want tariffs. Fascinating. Okay. So
I guess my last question, Robert is what, what
is on your radar right now in terms of, you know,
um, things coming from the Trump administration,
um, actions, um, um, organized by free from harm,
um, uh, you know, big conventions, um, you know,
what should we be on the lookout for in terms
of politics and the animal cause? Yeah, that's
a great question. I think what we'll be focusing
on, we started the year with a surprisingly active
February. We weren't really expecting that to
be the case, but these opportunities presented
themselves and we decided to seize upon the DC
events that came up at the end of February. So
one of them was an organization that is made
up of all of the 50 secretaries of agriculture,
the highest level officials in agriculture for
each of the 50 states. Speakers from the top
level of Congress people that are making just,
you know, deciding on the farm bill, the chairman
of the Committee on Agriculture. on the Senate
side, on the House side, these are the top level
people. So we said, oh, these are great opportunities
to get in front of them. But we also have to
balance that with also potential for media coverage
and media interest. So events that we know the
media is going to cover. And sometimes it's called
media jacking. There's a history of that. Somebody,
I don't know who coined that phrase, but media
jacking is the idea of not expecting the media
to cover you or your events and come to you,
but actually going to where you know they're
interested in covering and staging something
that gets covered because they're there. That
makes a lot of sense. It's funny how, you know,
for so many years you complain about, oh, you
know, the media doesn't care about these issues.
It's not that they don't care about those issues.
It's that they already have an agenda to cover
these other big events with big people's names.
And maybe we should just accept that and say,
okay, let's get access to these venues and stage
our actions there. So to me, that makes a lot
of sense. It's not easy, not easy work. It's
not always easy to get access. Sometimes you
just walk in and other times it's a lot more
difficult, but it's always worth a try. The problem
with this kind of style of activism is that there's
a lot of unknowns. And so most people doing activism
would prefer a very routine formulaic predictable
kind of action where they know they're going
to show up at this time, at this location, signs
are going to be provided. All they have to do
is kind of like maybe study their talking points
a bit, practice them. And then it's just having
these outreach conversations or holding a screen
and showing video like in a cube of truth. And
I understand why a lot of people are really attracted
to that kind of very structured a predictable
form of activism. But like Erika Chenoweth says,
that one of the key traits of a successful social
movement is to innovate and that expecting change
by doing the same thing over and over again is
a recipe for failure. You have to adapt and innovate
with the times and with what's happening and
seize on those opportunities that present themselves.
And that's hard because it means actually dropping
other plans that you may have spent a lot of
time and thought on and saying, oh my gosh, this
is coming up next week. We have to seize upon
this opportunity. So we like to think of ourselves
as being small enough and and resilient enough
to adapt to those things and seize on those opportunities.
And getting in front of the biggest players in
the food system and having conversations like
getting face to face is critical because of how
easily it is for them to ignore you, ignore all
of your supporters emails and phone calls. But
when you're in front of them and you're in front
of their audience of people that admire them,
they kind of have to listen to you. There's no
way around it. So being in those spaces of power
and being in front of those in power, it's not
a new concept. It's something that movements
across the globe have done and continue to do
because it is very impactful. And I think our
movement is in dire need of growing that effort.
Incredible. A great way to end the conversation.
And yes, innovation, so important. Professionally,
I always say innovation is not a luxury, it's
a necessity. You can't do business without innovation,
not in this highly competitive world. Yes, definitely.
So I, I, I agree with everything you said. Did
you want to add something, Robert, before we
stop the recording? I'm good, I think. Yeah.
Well, unless you have any. No, well, I'm good.
And thank you. Thank you so much for having,
you know, for coming back to the show. And I'm,
every time I talk with you, I learned something
new. And I'm you know, re -inspired by the cause.
Sometimes, you know, you look at activism and
you think you get very disappointed and uninspired,
but having, you know, someone who understands
things from a macro level, you know, explain
how, you know, we could make progress and making
things clear is, is very appreciated. So thank
you, Robert. Oh, my pleasure. Yeah, it's, it's
always a good learning experience both ways.
You know, I, I think we're all learning, hopefully,
and applying that. Because activism is a we like
to say activism is a craft. It's something that
that you refine and improve over time and through
experience, just like any other kind of craft
with your hands. And so it's not something you
just learn and then stop. And then I've mastered
this. I've become vegan and I've become a great,
been great at these arguments. I can defeat every
single argument that is thrown at me. I've mastered
the craft. It's done. It's never done. It's an
ongoing evolution, just like life. And I think
if we looked at it as a craft more that we'd
also be a lot easier on ourselves because yeah,
sometimes you only have one chance to get it
right. When you carve that piece of wood, if
you screw up and cut it too thin, it's going
to show and people are going to see you made
a mistake. Just like when you get up in front
of an audience and you don't say exactly what
you wanted to say, you got one shot. And maybe
it didn't work out exactly how you wanted it,
but you really remember the next time then, this
is how I really want to say it. So, you know,
it's a process, it's a craft and we should just
kind of embrace that and, you know, learn as
we go. and give of your time and of your money
to free from harm. I think it would be well invested.
Thank you everyone for listening. I kindly invite
you to share this podcast with the vegans you
know. Let's encourage more people to take action.
Again, thank you so much for caring and I will
see you next Tuesday for a new episode.