In the lead-up to the 2022 midterm elections, right-wing politicians and influencers amplified an outlandish claim that schools were installing litter boxes in bathrooms for students who identified as cats. This absurd narrative spread rapidly across social media and conservative news outlets, despite being consistently debunked by school officials and fact-checkers.
Now, in 2024, we’re in the midst of another election cycle, facing a similarly bizarre and baseless claim: Haitian immigrants in Springfield, Ohio, were allegedly kidnapping and eating local residents’ pets. Within hours, prominent politicians, including vice presidential candidate J.D. Vance, were amplifying this baseless story, which even made its way into official Trump campaign messaging.
These two incidents, separated by two years but linked by their absurdity and rapid spread, are prime examples of the weaponization of misinformation. But how do these false stories take root and spread so quickly?
The Springfield case offers a disturbing glimpse into the anatomy of modern misinformation campaigns. It reveals a complex mix of social media dynamics, political opportunism, and cultural anxieties that can instantly transform a local rumor into a national talking point.
Perhaps most troubling is how these stories echo historical hate-based conspiracy theories. The baseless claim about Haitian immigrants eating pets bears a striking resemblance to blood libel—the centuries-old antisemitic canard that accused Jews of kidnapping Christian children for ritualistic purposes. Both narratives prey on fear of the “other” and attribute grotesque behaviors to marginalized groups, stoking xenophobia and justifying discrimination.
And these incidents are not isolated. On August 30, former President Donald Trump made a similarly outlandish and baseless claim about transgender youth during a speech to the conservative group Moms for Liberty. Trump asserted, “Your kid goes to school and comes home a few days later with an operation. The school decides what’s going to happen with your child.”
This claim, like the others, is entirely false. There is no evidence of U.S. schools sending children for gender-affirming surgeries without parental knowledge or performing such surgeries on-site. Medical experts (and anyone familiar with how transition-related health care works) have emphasized that any gender-affirming care, especially surgery, requires parental consent and extensive screening, and can often take years to get. Trump’s claim is obviously false, but it serves a political purpose to the people pushing it.
The pattern of demonizing marginalized groups through false, often outlandish accusations is not new, but the speed and reach of modern communication platforms have supercharged its impact. As the story spreads, traditional media outlets may report on the claims, often framing them as a “controversy” or “debate,” inadvertently lending credibility to the lie. Even after thorough debunking, these narratives tend to persist, continuing to circulate and shape public discourse.
In this case, according to the Springfield News-Sun, the claim that Haitian migrants are stealing people’s pets is a complete and total fabrication. The Springfield Police Division said Monday morning it has received no reports related to pets being stolen and eaten.
A social media post originally from a Springfield Facebook group went viral nationally in recent days. The original poster did not cite firsthand knowledge of an incident. Instead they claimed that their neighbor’s daughter’s friend had lost her cat and found it hanging from a branch at a Haitian neighbor’s home being carved up to be eaten.
The poster also claimed “Rangers” and police told them that “they have been doing it” at Snyder Park, too, with ducks and geese. Springfield Police said they were aware of the social media post but that this was “not something that’s on our radar right now.” The post received tens of thousands of impressions.
Other news outlets have followed this by reporting that the claim is false, as shown by these headlines:
- “Trump Campaign Amplifies False Claim About Haitian Migrants in Ohio” (The New York Times, Chris Cameron, 9/9/24)
- “Ohio police have ‘no credible reports’ of Haitian immigrants harming pets, contradicting JD Vance’s claim” (NBC News, David Ingram, 9/9/24)
- “Police Deny Claims Of Haitian Immigrants Eating Pets In Ohio—Spread By JD Vance And Right-Wing Commentators” (Forbes, Conor Murray, 9/9/24)
- “Vance pushes false accusations of Haitians eating pets” (The Hill, Rafael Bernal, 9/9/24)
- “Republicans spread unsubstantiated slurs about Haitian migrants in Ohio city” (The Guardian, Rachel Leingang, 9/9/24)
- “Ohio City Responds to Claims of Animal Sacrifices by Haitian Migrants” (Newsweek, Dan Gooding, 9/9/24)
But these stories (and especially the headlines) aren’t enough. Simply calling these claims “unsubstantiated” or noting that the city “respond[ed] to claims of animal sacrifices” helps serve the goals of the people pushing the lie by allowing partisans to go, “Well, that may not be true, but …” while pivoting to another attack on the group being targeted.
For instance, look at how the right-wing New York Post used the story. The piece acknowledges that while the “eating pets” aspect of it may not be true, the Haitians’ presence in Ohio is still a problem that needs to be dealt with.
This is the exact strategy conservative groups used with Trump’s false claim about gender transition surgeries. They’re fine with lies because they get the group they’re trying to demonize into the news. Check out this excerpt from CNN’s fact-check of those comments:
Tiffany Justice, the Moms for Liberty co-founder who conducted the public conversation with Trump, said in a Tuesday interview: “Are kids getting surgery in school? No they’re not.” But she continued that she was still “thankful to President Trump” for making the claim—since, she said, his remark has drawn attention to the important issue of schools facilitating children’s social transitions without parental consent.
Justice said of Trump’s claim: “It grabbed your attention, and we’re talking about it now, and that makes me very happy.”
See? It doesn’t matter if it’s true that kids are getting “transed” in schools or Haitian immigrants are eating pets so long as those stories can be used to demonize trans people and migrants, respectively.
Given this landscape of rampant misinformation, journalists have an important role to play—one that goes beyond fact-checking. It’s time for the media to make politicians pay a real price for spreading outrageous lies.
Journalists have a responsibility to consistently remind the public of these lies in future coverage. Every article about Vance should mention his willingness to spread xenophobic misinformation. Every piece on Trump should reference his history of transgender fearmongering. These lies should color all future coverage of these candidates, becoming an integral part of their political identity.
By doing this, journalists would be accomplishing several things at once. It holds politicians accountable for their words, creating a lasting consequence for spreading misinformation. It provides important context for readers, helping them evaluate the credibility of these figures on an ongoing basis. It may deter politicians from spreading future lies, knowing that doing so could tarnish their reputation long-term. Perhaps most importantly, it helps combat the normalization of misinformation in political discourse.
Some may argue that this approach compromises journalistic objectivity. However, consistently reporting on a politician’s documented history of spreading lies isn’t a form of bias—it’s responsible journalism. Facts aren’t partisan, and the public deserves to know when their leaders have a track record of dishonesty.
Moreover, this strategy could help break the cycle of misinformation we’re currently trapped in. If politicians know that spreading lies will damage their credibility, they may think twice before amplifying unverified claims for short-term political gain.
Of course, this approach requires courage from news organizations. They must be willing to withstand accusations of bias and potential loss of access to these political figures. But the alternative—allowing politicians to spread harmful lies without consequence—is far more damaging to our democratic discourse.
