Marty Irby, once a prominent lobbyist for the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) and Animal Wellness Action, has recently launched a new lobbying organization aimed at persuading conservative politicians to vote in favor of animal rights-driven policies. This new effort follows a controversial chapter in Irby’s career, including a failed attempt to align himself with the conservative think tank Freedom Works. Irby’s trajectory has raised significant concerns among conservative circles, especially given his past with animal rights groups that advocate for policies often at odds with conservative values.
Last year, Marty Irby made headlines for his short stint as Chief Operating Officer (COO) at Freedom Works, a well-known conservative think tank that advocates for limited government and free-market principles. His hiring came as a surprise to many, as his background with animal rights organizations like HSUS was conspicuously absent from his biography when he took the position. For over a decade, Irby had been an outspoken advocate for animal rights, working with organizations that many conservatives view as hostile to traditional American values, such as free enterprise, property rights, and animal agriculture.
It did not take long for this discrepancy to come to light. Just weeks after starting his role with Freedom Works, Irby was let go. It’s safe to assume that his termination stemmed from the misalignment of his animal rights ideology with the conservative values that Freedom Works advocates. For an organization that champions personal choice and individual freedom, Irby’s long-standing advocacy for animal rights—a movement that many see as restricting personal liberty—was ultimately a deal-breaker.
Humane Watch, a watchdog group that keeps a close eye on animal rights organizations, recently reported that Irby has launched a new group called the Wilberforce Institute. This development might not have attracted much attention under normal circumstances, as animal rights activists often form new organizations. However, the Wilberforce Institute is notable because it is making an unprecedented effort to appeal to politically conservative legislators—a demographic that typically resists the animal rights ideology in policy.
Named after William Wilberforce, the 19th-century British politician who fought to abolish the slave trade, the Institute’s choice of name has raised eyebrows. Some critics wonder if the organization will attempt to draw parallels between animal rights and human rights issues, such as slavery, in an effort to sway conservatives.
One of the key reasons why the Wilberforce Institute’s approach seems puzzling is that the fundamental tenets of the animal rights movement are in direct conflict with core conservative principles. Conservatives tend to advocate for free markets, individual choice, and the protection of traditions such as hunting, farming, and pet ownership. The animal rights movement, on the other hand, has its roots in left-wing politics and often seeks to impose restrictions on individual freedoms in the name of protecting animals.
For example, many animal rights groups aim to pass laws that restrict meat, eggs, and other animal products that can be sold to consumers. They advocate for plant-based diets and the elimination of practices like hunting, fishing, and livestock farming and ranching. While many conservatives support animal welfare in husbandry practices, the broader animal rights agenda, which seeks to phase out all forms of animal agriculture and ban the use of animals in entertainment, transportation, research, or even companionship, is often seen as extreme and un-American by those on the right.
Despite these contradictions, Marty Irby has positioned himself as a conservative figure in recent years. On social media, he frequently wraps himself in pro-Trump “MAGA” messaging, giving the impression that his values align with those of the conservative movement. However, this attempt to rebrand himself as a friend to farmers and rural Americans seems disingenuous, especially considering his past work for organizations that lobbied to pass legislation harmful to these very groups.
Irby’s previous employers, the HSUS and Animal Wellness Action, have long sought to curtail the practices of animal agriculture. Their campaigns have included efforts to ban certain farming practices, ban horse-drawn carriages, ban the sale of puppies and kittens in pet stores, impose costly regulations on livestock producers, and limit the use of animals in industries ranging from food production to entertainment, including rodeo. Irby himself has made no secret of his support for such measures, which puts him squarely at odds with the interests of many conservatives who rely on animal agriculture for their livelihoods.
In addition to his work with animal rights groups, Irby has also taken money to lobby for the Environmental Working Group (EWG), a radical environmentalist organization known for pushing policies that many conservatives view as harmful to economic growth and individual freedom. Irby’s association with the EWG further underscores the inconsistency between his professed conservative values and the policies he has spent his career advocating for.
One of the most troubling aspects of Irby’s new lobbying organization is its potential to confuse or mislead conservative lawmakers and voters. By cloaking the animal rights ideology into conservative rhetoric, the Wilberforce Institute may attempt to sway legislators who are otherwise skeptical of the animal rights movement. However, as Humane Watch, Protect The Harvest, and The Cavalry Group, have pointed out, the animal rights agenda is fundamentally incompatible with the values of freedom, personal responsibility, and limited government that conservatives hold dear.
In the end, Marty Irby’s new lobbying organization may simply be the latest example of a broader trend: animal rights extremists attempting to infiltrate conservative circles under the guise of “shared values.” But as history has shown, the conservative movement has little patience for ideologies that seek to control personal freedoms—especially when it comes to the animals we raise, breed, and work with every day.
