During a debate on September 10th, former President Donald Trump, a Republican presidential nominee, made an astonishing statement. He claimed that immigrants were abducting and eating people’s pets in Springfield, Ohio. This assertion ignited immediate controversy and has been heavily debated ever since. But what exactly was Trump talking about? Where did this rumor originate, and why is his campaign doubling down on these claims?
The Backdrop of Anti-Immigrant Rhetoric
Immigration has been a cornerstone of Trump’s “Make America Great Again” (MAGA) movement since 2015. He and his allies have consistently amplified negative narratives surrounding immigrants. This includes the portrayal of migrant caravans traveling through Central America and Mexico towards the U.S. border as threats, and the exaggeration of crimes committed by undocumented immigrants, which Trump has termed “migrant crime.” For nearly a decade, depicting the southern border as chaotic and dangerous has been a central strategy in Trump’s political playbook.
Immigration remains a critical issue for Trump’s 2024 campaign and for Republicans in general. Public disapproval of the Biden-Harris administration’s handling of immigration and border security has been consistent and significant. An AP-NORC poll from August revealed that voters preferred Trump over Harris on immigration issues by a margin of 46-36%. This aligns with broader trends indicating a moderate but persistent advantage for Republicans on this topic. The Trump campaign has attempted to link both legal and illegal immigration to a range of societal issues, from housing costs to inflation and wage stagnation.
Donald Trump speaking at a rally
Springfield, Ohio: The Unlikely Epicenter of a Conspiracy Theory
Despite this broader context, the question remains: why did Trump fixate on the specific, unsubstantiated rumor about Haitian immigrants in Springfield, Ohio? Springfield, a city of approximately 60,000 residents near Dayton, has become a destination for Haitian immigrants who are legally in the United States. Many arrived under the Biden administration’s 2021 expansion of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Haitian citizens. This policy was opposed by Republicans, who have actively sought to criticize Democrats for implementing it.
The claim about Haitian immigrants in Springfield eating pets appears to have started with a Facebook post. This post was then amplified by influential social media figures within conservative circles, such as Charlie Kirk and Jack Posobiec, on platforms like X (formerly Twitter). The original Facebook post seems to stem from claims made by a local extremist at a public meeting with city officials. The presence of conspiracy theorist Laura Loomer on Trump’s plane on the day of the debate might also explain Trump’s willingness to publicly voice this claim.
Lack of Evidence and Official Denials
Following Trump’s statement, figures aligned with the Republican party, like Christopher Rufo of the Manhattan Institute, called for evidence to support the pet-eating claim on X. However, the only piece of “evidence” that surfaced was an unverified, year-old video appearing to show people grilling chicken. Fact-checking organizations quickly debunked the rumor. Politifact contacted city officials and Springfield police, who confirmed they had received no credible reports of pets being abducted and eaten by immigrants. Politifact subsequently rated Trump’s claim as “Pants on Fire,” their designation for completely false statements.
A Strategy of “Misdirection” and Media Manipulation?
Some analysts believe that Trump’s inflammatory claim was a deliberate tactic to keep immigration at the forefront of the political conversation leading up to the election. Kathleen Belew, a historian at Northwestern University, suggested in an interview with The New Yorker that Trump and Vance were using “an on-the-ground story with a lot of momentum behind it, basically a viral moment, to direct attention to the broader issue of immigration.” Joshua Green of Bloomberg described the story as “an effective act of misdirection.”
The Trump campaign has indicated that they are using this story to highlight immigration-related issues they believe are ignored by mainstream media. Vice presidential candidate J.D. Vance told CNN that the claim “comes from firsthand accounts from my constituents,” stating, “I say that we’re ‘creating a story’ meaning we’re creating the American media focusing on it.” Critics interpreted Vance’s comments as an admission that the story was fabricated, while supporters argued he was simply attributing the rumor to Springfield residents and emphasizing the campaign’s success in drawing media attention to immigration concerns.
In conclusion, Trump’s claim about immigrants eating pets in Springfield, Ohio, appears to be a baseless rumor originating from social media and amplified by conspiracy theorists. Despite being widely debunked by fact-checkers and local authorities, the Trump campaign has continued to promote the story, likely as a political strategy to maintain focus on immigration and energize their base. The incident highlights the use of misinformation and sensationalism in contemporary political discourse.
