Sen. J.D. Vance, the Republican nominee for vice president, recently came under fire for amplifying reports about Haitian migrants in Springfield, Ohio, eating cats.
In late summer, Vance and former President Donald Trump repeated the claims and drew additional criticism, though it now appears that former President Barack Obama once used a similar tactic, as the Washington Examiner reports.
The controversy began when a rumor surfaced on social media about Haitian migrants allegedly eating cats in Springfield. This claim quickly gained traction after Sen. Vance publicly referenced the rumor, encouraging its spread. Not long after, Trump echoed a version of the same story during a debate with Vice President Kamala Harris.
The rumor was soon disputed, as local authorities were quoted saying that they had received no concrete evidence to support the claims. Even so, Vance and Trump received intense criticism for promoting the narrative.
Springfield City Manager Bryan Heck publicly condemned the spread of what he called misinformation, stating that such rumors cause harm to the community. "It induces panic and fear and depletes resources. We’re living the danger that misinformation and created stories lead to," Heck said, expressing frustration over the toll that the false story had taken on local resources and public morale.
Sen. Vance, however, defended his actions during an interview with CNN's Dana Bash. He pointed to the strain on local services in Springfield stemming from the migrant influx, attributing his comments to the broader challenges the city is facing.
“The hospitals are overwhelmed, Dana. The schools are overwhelmed. The local services are completely overwhelmed,” Vance remarked during the interview, attempting to shift the focus toward the issues affecting the community. According to Vance, the media had largely ignored Springfield's struggles until he and Trump began drawing attention to them, albeit through the controversial cat story.
In the same interview, Vance dismissed criticism over his role in amplifying the false claim, asserting that the media neglected the town’s problems until it became the center of a viral rumor. “The American media totally ignored this stuff until Donald Trump and I started talking about cat memes,” he stated, implying that the attention brought to Springfield’s challenges, regardless of the accuracy of the claims, was the more important outcome.
Yet, despite his defense, critics remained focused on the consequences of spreading the story, with many arguing that it only deepens distrust in political discourse and damages local communities.
In an effort to justify his actions, Vance claimed he had learned the tactic of pushing controversial narratives from former President Barack Obama, President Joe Biden, and Vice President Harris. He argued that Democrats had often employed similar strategies to advance their political agendas, citing several examples from recent election cycles.
One such example he highlighted was Obama’s 2012 re-election campaign, which falsely characterized Mitt Romney’s stance on the auto industry’s bankruptcy. Vance contended that this was one of several instances where Democrats used misleading stories to create a larger political narrative.
He also referenced the controversy over Paul Ryan’s inclusion of the term "forcible rape" in a bill, which Vance claimed Democrats had exploited for political gain. Additionally, Vance mentioned the ongoing use of disputed cases related to abortion bans by Harris and the Democratic Party.
While these examples were used to draw parallels, critics argue that employing misleading narratives -- whether from the left or the right -- only further erodes public trust in government and media. For many, Vance’s defense raised concerns about the broader implications of promoting unverified information.
The cat story serves as a reminder of the dangers of trumpeting disputed information, especially when it involves prominent public figures. Although the initial claim was the source of disagreement, its spread led to unnecessary panic, and the focus on Springfield’s real challenges was overshadowed by controversy.
As the vice-presidential nominee, Vance’s role in discussing rumor may continue to be a point of contention in the months leading up to the election. Whether the strategy he says mimics that used by past political figures will be effective remains to be seen.
In Springfield, the community is left grappling with the consequences of the rumor, and local leaders like Heck are now tasked with rebuilding trust.
