Donald Trump’s assertion that immigrants were eating pets in the U.S. forms part of his broader anti-immigration rhetoric, particularly targeting those crossing the southern border. Here’s a breakdown of how these claims emerged and evolved.
During a presidential debate on September 10 (early morning September 11 in India), Trump remarked, “In Springfield, they are eating the dogs. The people that came in (illegal immigrants), they are eating the cats… They are eating the pets of people living there.” This statement was quickly fact-checked by David Muir of ABC, one of the debate moderators. Muir reported that the Springfield city manager denied any credible claims of immigrants harming or abusing pets, emphasizing that such reports were unfounded.
Kamala Harris, the Democratic vice-presidential nominee, responded to Trump’s rhetoric by highlighting its diversion from pressing issues affecting American citizens, asserting that the choice in the upcoming election should be clear.
What Sparked the Controversy in Springfield, Ohio?
The controversy in Springfield, Ohio, appears to stem from several isolated incidents. During a city commission meeting on August 27, a local resident claimed immigrants were “grabbing ducks from the park” and “eating them.” Additionally, a Facebook group reported that Haitian immigrants had killed a cat. There were also unrelated reports of a woman in Canton, Ohio (about 175 miles from Springfield), being arrested for killing and eating a cat.
These disparate incidents were woven into a larger narrative by some Republicans, suggesting that the influx of Haitian immigrants in Springfield—estimated to number around 20,000 in recent years—was linked to pet consumption.
On September 9, the House Judiciary GOP’s Twitter account, associated with the Republican Party’s House Committee on the Judiciary, posted an AI-generated image of Trump with a duck and a cat, captioned, “Protect our ducks and kittens in Ohio!” Additionally, Trump’s running mate, Senator J.D. Vance, shared a video from the Springfield city commission meeting, framing it as evidence of the negative impacts of illegal immigration. Vance also claimed that his office had received numerous inquiries about pets and local wildlife allegedly abducted by Haitian migrants.
How Did the Claims Gain Traction?
The narrative of pets being harmed by immigrants was amplified by Trump supporters and right-wing activists. On September 11, Charlie Kirk, founder of the conservative organization Turning Point, posted a video of Springfield residents discussing the issue, captioned: “EVERYONE they spoke to has heard stories of people’s pets being eaten as well as ducks and geese disappearing.” On September 10, Donald Trump Jr. shared an image of his father with an assault rifle and a large cat, urging: “Save our pets!!!!!”
Trump’s Stance on Immigration on Pet-Eating Claim
This pet-eating claim feeds into Trump’s broader opposition to immigration, particularly from the southern border. Trump’s 2015 campaign focused on building a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border, and his current campaign continues to emphasize fears of crime and disease associated with immigration. In September 2023, Trump promised to undertake “the largest deportation operation in the history of our country” if re-elected. The Republican platform advocates for securing the border, deporting illegal immigrants, and reversing what it describes as the Democrats’ “Open Borders Policies.”
Trump and Vance have repeatedly criticized Kamala Harris, labeling her as a “border tsar” and blaming her for illegal border crossings and related issues.
Harris’s Response on Pet Eating
Kamala Harris has been a central figure in addressing immigration issues. Appointed by President Joe Biden to tackle the root causes of migration from El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras, Harris has worked to address the complexities of immigration. In her campaign, she supports a bipartisan border security bill designed to strengthen border security and refine asylum conditions. Trump has opposed this bill, describing it as detrimental to the Republican Party, while Harris has criticized him for obstructing its passage.
In summary, Trump’s claim about immigrants eating pets has been used to reinforce his anti-immigration stance, despite being based on unverified and exaggerated reports.