The Danger of Disinformation: Trump and Vance Criminally Charged for Springfield Pet-Eating Conspiracy
Springfield, Ohio has been subject to chaos and scrutiny after Republicans popularized a conspiracy theory that Haitian migrants in the town were eating cats and dogs. Source: Poynter
On Tuesday, September 24th, the leader of a nonprofit Haitian organization filed criminal charges against former President and Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump and his running mate, Senator J.D. Vance, for their role in perpetuating falsehoods about immigrants eating pets in Springfield, Ohio.
Guerline Jozef, founder and executive director of the Haitian Bridge Alliance, invoked the private-citizen right to file criminal charges against Trump and Vance, claiming they are guilty of the following: disrupting public services, making false alarms, telecommunications harassment, and aggravated menacing. Jozef’s attorney Subodh Chandra writes: “Like those who falsely shout ‘fire’ in a crowded theater, Trump and Vance do not color within the lines of the First Amendment. They commit criminal acts.”
This story finds its roots in a now deleted Facebook post made by Springfield native Erika Lee, who warned her fellow citizens that Haitian immigrants had abducted her neighbor’s cat, hung it from a tree, and eaten it. Prominent Republicans lawmakers, such as Vance, Ted Cruz, and even the GOP House Judiciary Committee, caught wind of Lee’s post and further invigorated the allegations by posting their concerns on X. One day later during the September 10th ABC Presidential Debate, Donald Trump brought the rural town of Springfield, Ohio to the forefront of American politics.
“In Springfield, they’re eating the dogs. The people that came in, they’re eating the cats. They’re eating, they’re eating the pets of the people that live there.”
The former president’s nonsensical tirade against Haitian migrants was perhaps the most replayed sound bite of the night for both its absurdity and humor. However, the implications of amplifying this debunked conspiracy theory to over 70 million viewers was anything but funny. According to NBC News, at least 33 bomb threats were made in Springfield to schools, hospitals, and government buildings. Children were evacuated from school, colleges were forced online, and city offices were shut down.
As a Haitian immigrant living in Springfield, Jacob Payen expressed his worry of the lasting impacts these meritless rumors might have: “I’m terrified. If I’m at home, I should be at peace. If we’re not safe at home, where else are we going to be safe?” Payen additionally voiced concerns over the effects this will have on Haitian children in the town. After the presidential debate, his six-year-old son was asked by friends at school if his family eats cats and dogs. This situation is not exclusive to Payen—dozens of Springfield residents have indicated similar sentiments and experiences.
Lee, the original poster, has since recanted her statements and expressed regret at initiating a disproven rumor and putting her small Ohio town at the center of the national news cycle. “I didn’t think it would ever get past Springfield,” she said.
Ohio Governor Mike DeWine and Springfield Mayor Rob Rue condemned the accusations of pet-eating in Springfield as baseless and denounced the false narrative pushed by the top of the Republican ticket. They emphasized support for their Haitian constituents, the majority of whom are in Springfield legally through the Temporary Protected Status program. Nevertheless, Trump and Vance have persisted in spreading the rumor and labeling the Haitian group as “illegals,” even after their own campaign determined the claims were erroneous.
For Republicans, the Springfield lie is part of an attempt to gain some electoral ground against Democratic opponent Vice President Kamala Harris in a key policy area. A recent NBC poll found that 54% of registered voters think Trump would be better at controlling immigration. The Haitian pet-eating conspiracy—even if completely untrue—is a politically advantageous opportunity for the Republican nominee. It’s an attempt to scare Americans to the ballot box by convincing them that migrants are the source of this country’s problems. This most recent talking point is simply another string in the web of anti-immigrant, fear-mongering rhetoric that is fueling the Trump-Vance campaign.
While this situation is certainly indicative of the electoral significance of immigration, the Springfield story is also symbolic of a new dimension in contemporary politics. It seems we’ve entered an era in which some of our nation’s most powerful people unapologetically imbue the masses with disinformation. And even when the validity of these statements are discredited, political elites like Donald Trump and J.D. Vance will double down on their claims instead of offering remorse. In the post-debate spin room, Vance insisted that “[Springfield city officials] have not said it’s not true,” even after his own campaign confirmed the story was fabricated. Additionally, Springfield has become a consistent talking point for Trump during his rallies, where he has recently called for the deportation of Haitians from the town: "The fact is—and I'll say it now—you have to get them the hell out. You have to get them out. I'm sorry. But get them out. Can't have it. They've destroyed it."
Evidently, the danger of political disinformation is no longer constrained to simply electoral impacts. Rather, consistently spreading lies of this magnitude can have palpable, egregious consequences for innocent people. The remedy, perhaps, could come in the form of criminally charging those who knowingly disseminate false information—such as the recent actions by Guerline Jozef and the Haitian Bridge Alliance. But fundamentally, the solution should come in the form of holding our politicians accountable for their words and, most importantly, instilling truth back into the fabric of American politics.