I find it deeply troubling to see media figures like Tomi Lahren lend credibility to individuals who have been convicted of criminal activity under the guise of “animal rescue.”
If you haven’t seen it, you must watch this video where Fox News contributor, Tomi Lahren goes overboard elevating convicted felon, Wayne Hsiung, a co-founder of radical animal rights group, Direct Action Everywhere (DxE). Lahren ignores a fundamental truth that Hsiung’s actions have repeatedly been judged in court as unlawful, including felony convictions for conspiracy, trespass, larceny, theft and breaking and entering.
This is not a matter of differing opinions on animal care. This is about the deliberate violation of property rights and the rule of law. Labeling these actions as “open rescue” does not change the legal reality. Courts in multiple states have reviewed the facts and determined that Wayne Hsuing’s actions constitute crimes, NOT acts of heroism.
What makes this narrative even more dangerous is the complete disregard for the rigorous regulatory framework already governing animal use in the United States. Biomedical research involving animals is strictly regulated under the USDA’s Animal Welfare Act, enforced by federal oversight, inspections, and compliance standards that are among the strongest in the world. These safeguards exist to ensure humane treatment while enabling critical scientific advancements.
Ironically, many of the same voices criticizing U.S. biomedical research practices often cite controversial examples that occurred outside the United States, where such protections do not apply. Allegations involving Anthony Fauci and his overseas research only reinforce this point. When research is conducted beyond U.S. jurisdiction, it is not bound by the same stringent welfare standards. That is not a failure of American policy. It is evidence of why America’s system is in place.
Modern medicine, from vaccines to surgical techniques, has been built in part through responsibly conducted and regulated animal research. Without it, society would face an unthinkable alternative, advancing medical science through direct experimentation on humans. The ethical framework that governs research today exists precisely to prevent that outcome. A fact that Tomi Lahren clearly has not considered.
Americans should be asking a serious question. When media personalities celebrate individuals who break the law to push an ideological agenda, what message does that send about respect for science, due process, and the very systems that protect both human and animal welfare?
Advocating for animals should be grounded in facts, science, and the rule of law, not in the glorification of criminal conduct!
When it comes to the already contentious issues surrounding animal use of any kind, facts, science, and accountability should guide public discourse. Tomi Lahren’s commentary on this issue does more harm than good. By embracing a narrative that conflicts with established law and science, Tomi Lahren undermined her own credibility. The American public deserves voices that respect both the rule of law and the critical role that responsible animal research plays in saving lives.
