How “ag-gag” laws harm animals, workers, consumers and the environment

Listen to the audio version of this article (generated by AI).

When it comes to food, many people probably would prefer to have more information about where it came from and how it was produced. But for too long, the animal agricultural industry has been shrouded in secrecy. And if “Big Ag” and certain state legislatures have it their way, “ag-gag” laws will continue to help the industry benefit from a lack of transparency while trampling people’s constitutional rights.

Animal agricultural production facilities, often referred to as “factory farms,” have significant negative impacts on people, animals and the environment. Factory farms are a major food source in the US, but they can be dangerous places to work, the animals suffer from horrific living conditions and even abuse, and the facilities pollute our land, water and air. To make matters worse, the food they produce is sometimes contaminated and must be recalled.

Despite such harms, the industry benefits from government subsidies, exemptions from some laws and under-enforcement of many laws that do apply. This allows Big Ag to operate behind a veil of secrecy that keeps people from knowing more about where much of their food comes from.

The problems are not new. For over a century, journalists, activists and others have conducted undercover investigations at agricultural facilities to expose what happens at the facilities and to inform the public about how their food is produced. Big Ag has pushed back, with the support of some state legislatures, and some states have passed “ag-gag” laws to prevent people from investigating factory farms.

Ag-gag laws vary depending on the state, but in general, they may prohibit people from accessing the facilities through false pretenses, gaining employment at the facilities by misrepresentation or recording videos or taking photos at the facilities. Violations can result in civil or even criminal penalties, including fines and imprisonment. For example, part of Idaho’s ag-gag statute prohibits a person from obtaining employment by misrepresentation with the intent to injure the facility’s property, operations or business interests.

Effectively, ag-gag laws act as anti-whistleblower laws that prevent people from informing the public about factory farms and how they operate. Ag-gag laws also operate to the detriment of the animals and workers in factory farms by keeping potential abuses behind closed doors at the facilities.

Effectively, ag-gag laws act as anti-whistleblower laws that prevent people from informing the public about factory farms and how they operate.

In response, a series of lawsuits have challenged some of the states’ ag-gag laws, arguing that they violate the US Constitution, especially the right to free speech under the First Amendment.

The results have been mixed: courts have struck down certain ag-gag laws (in whole or in part), but courts have unfortunately decided that other ag-gag laws do not violate the First Amendment. Courts have found parts of the ag-gag laws in Kansas, North Carolina and Utah to be unconstitutional, but courts have upheld parts of Idaho’s and Iowa’s ag-gag statutes. In some instances, the mixed results are not too surprising because the laws vary quite a bit from state to state in terms of what they prohibit or allow, and parts of some ag-gag statutes may not offend the Constitution.

In other instances, however, the court decisions have been inconsistent in their application of the legal framework used to evaluate free speech claims, particularly when the ag-gag laws implicate false speech (lying). Over a decade ago, the US Supreme Court issued a fractured opinion (United States v. Alvarez) that considered the extent to which lying is protected speech. That opinion seems to have contributed to some of the inconsistent outcomes in the lawsuits against ag-gag laws. Arguably, some of the court decisions upholding ag-gag laws have chipped away at the foundational protections of the First Amendment—elevating the industry’s alleged property and privacy interests above people’s right to free speech.

Big Ag already benefits from a legal system that favors the industry, and efforts abound to further protect and bolster it. Several states still have ag-gag laws, and other state legislatures are proposing new or revised ag-gag laws. Animal agriculture also is exempt from many state and federal laws that arguably could improve the lives of the animals at the facilities.

At the federal level, the draft 2026 Farm Bill previously passed by the House of Representatives included provisions that could weaken states’ abilities to improve animal welfare in the agricultural industry. Fortunately, the recent discussion draft from the Senate omits those provisions. Whether the Farm Bill will ultimately include those or similar provisions remains to be seen, but their inclusion in the earlier draft signals that at least some legislators are trying to further insulate the animal agricultural industry.

But all hope is not lost. There are a variety of legal and non-legal opportunities to work toward improved transparency and better conditions for animals and people at factory farms. Given the inconsistent history of legal challenges, any future lawsuits against ag-gag laws could face uncertainty if using First Amendment claims and may need to lean more heavily on alternative legal claims. Existing ag-gag laws theoretically could be revised or repealed.

But all hope is not lost. There are a variety of legal and non-legal opportunities to work toward improved transparency and better conditions for animals and people at factory farms.

Increased inspections, monitoring, and enforcement by federal and state agencies also could improve conditions at factory farms. People have non-legal options to improve agricultural animal welfare too, including educating others about the issues at factory farms and using their purchasing power as consumers to influence the industry through their spending decisions.

Even seemingly small actions and choices can make a difference collectively in the long run. Ag-gag and other laws work to silence voices that seek to speak up about the industry, but people should be able to have their food and know where it came from too.

(Opinion columns published in The New Lede represent the views of the individual(s) authoring the columns and not necessarily the perspectives of TNL editors.)

The opinions expressed are those of the author in her personal capacity. This op-ed is largely based on a recent article by the author, “The Silence of the Farms”: Suppressing Speech and Trampling Transparency to Shield Big Ag.

Featured image: Getty Images/Unsplash +