Ohio Governor Mike DeWine (R) addressed growing concerns on Monday over a series of bomb threats that had caused widespread alarm in Springfield and across the state.

The threats, which led to school evacuations and heightened tensions, were later confirmed to be hoaxes, with many of them originating overseas, according to state officials.

In a press briefing, Governor DeWine sought to reassure Ohio residents, emphasizing that none of the 33 bomb threats were credible. “We have received 33 separate bomb threats, each one of which has been responded to, and each one has been found to be a hoax,” DeWine said. “I want to make that very, very clear. None of these had any validity at all.”

Trump Fighting For America Collectable Gold Coin - Fight! - Must See

The threats, which began earlier in the week, sparked panic and fueled political debate in Springfield, a city that has become a focal point in the national conversation surrounding Haitian migrants.

The issue gained further attention after former President Donald Trump and Ohio Senator JD Vance raised concerns about the growing number of Haitian migrants in the region during a political rally.

The situation was exacerbated when reports began circulating on social media claiming that some migrants had resorted to abducting and consuming local pets.

Trump referenced these claims during a recent ABC debate, saying, “In Springfield, they’re eating the dogs — the people that came in, they’re eating the cats… They’re eating the pets of the people that live there, and this is what’s happening in our country, and it’s a shame.”

However, these allegations remain unverified, and local officials, including DeWine, have urged for calm.

DeWine confirmed that while the bomb threats have been investigated, none were connected to migrant-related violence or criminal activity. “These hoaxes are coming from overseas,” DeWine explained. “We have people, unfortunately, who are looking for opportunities to mess with the United States.”

Despite the governor’s reassurances, political tensions remain high, with Republicans calling for accountability from media outlets and Democrats who promoted narratives linking the threats to Haitian migrants and the GOP’s stance on immigration.

Amid the ongoing situation, the role of the media in covering the threats and political rhetoric surrounding them has come under intense scrutiny. On the same day, DeWine addressed the bomb threats, MSNBC reporter Maggie Vespa found herself at the center of a heated confrontation with independent journalist Nick Sortor in Springfield.

The encounter followed remarks made by NBC’s Lester Holt, who had linked the recent turmoil to Trump’s rhetoric on the migrant crisis.

During a segment on NBC, Holt suggested that Trump and Vance’s comments had contributed to the increasing hostility in Springfield, even implying that Trump’s rhetoric was to blame for a recent assassination attempt against him. “Today’s apparent assassination attempt comes amid increasingly fierce rhetoric on the campaign trail itself,” Holt said, adding that Trump and Vance had made “baseless claims about Haitian immigrants in Ohio.”

Sortor approached Vespa during her reporting in Springfield, challenging her coverage and accusing her network of pushing false narratives. “It seems like a lot of the questions that you were asking don’t address the actual issues here,” Sortor said, questioning why the media wasn’t focusing on the real problems in the community, such as crime, and instead casting Trump as the villain.

Vespa attempted to avoid Sortor’s questions, but the confrontation escalated as another individual intervened, and Vespa ultimately called the police.

Sortor later posted about the incident on his X account, stating, “I PERSONALLY confronted the MSNBC ‘reporter’ here in Springfield, Ohio who is now on TV with Lester Holt blaming President Trump for his own assassination attempt. And she tried to have me ARRESTED.”

Sortor went on to criticize the media’s portrayal of the situation, accusing networks like MSNBC of fueling division and blaming Trump for incidents like the assassination attempt. “I attempted to ask Maggie Vespa why she is pushing VIOLENT, DIVISIVE rhetoric on behalf of the Harris campaign, which leads to leftist clowns attempting to kill Trump,” Sortor wrote.

NEW: I PERSONALLY confronted the MSNBC “reporter” here in Springfield, Ohio who is now on TV with Lester Holt blaming President Trump for his own ass*ss*nation attempt

And she tried to have me ARRESTED.

I attempted to ask @Maggie_Vespa why she is pushing VIOLENT, DIVISIVE… https://t.co/EoJ06Of9B8 pic.twitter.com/wXulsn1oAa

— Nick Sortor (@nicksortor) September 16, 2024

As the hoax threats have been discredited, Republicans have called for media accountability, accusing outlets like MSNBC of exaggerating the situation and falsely linking it to the rhetoric of Trump and Vance.

With DeWine’s confirmation that the threats were foreign-generated hoaxes, GOP figures are demanding that the media and Democratic leaders retract claims that Republicans were responsible for the unrest in Springfield.

The political debate surrounding Haitian migrants in Ohio continues to be a flashpoint in the larger national conversation about immigration and the role of political rhetoric.

Trump and Vance, both vocal critics of current immigration policies, have argued that the influx of migrants is creating instability in local communities.

However, Democrats have countered that these statements incite fear and contribute to rising tensions.

For now, the situation in Springfield appears to be under control, with no credible threats remaining.

Governor DeWine has vowed to keep schools open and maintain a strong law enforcement presence in the community. “We cannot let the bad guys win,” DeWine said during his briefing. “Our schools must remain open.”

As investigations into the source of the bomb threats continue, the broader debate over political rhetoric, media responsibility, and the treatment of migrants remains unresolved.

Both sides are likely to continue pushing their narratives as the 2024 election season ramps up, making Springfield a key battleground in the fight over immigration policy and public safety.

JD Vance issued a lengthy statement on X concerning both the illegal alien situation and the assassination attempt on Donald Trump.

Yesterday, Donald J. Trump nearly lost his life. An armed gunman waited for him in the bushes. He brought a go-pro camera to record it. A secret service agent spotted the barrel of a gun through a fence and shot at the gunman. The gunman fled. He was caught. And now we slowly…

— JD Vance (@JDVance) September 16, 2024

JD Vance’s full statement:

Yesterday, Donald J. Trump nearly lost his life. An armed gunman waited for him in the bushes. He brought a go-pro camera to record it. A secret service agent spotted the barrel of a gun through a fence and shot at the gunman. The gunman fled. He was caught. And now we slowly learn about him and his motive.

President Trump is my running mate, and my friend, but he is more importantly a father and grandfather to people who love him very much. I want him to have many more years with his family. (And selfishly, I’d like many more with my own.)

I admire the president for calling for peace and calm. The rhetoric is out of control. It nearly got Steve Scalise and many others killed a few years ago. It nearly got Donald Trump killed twice. But I want to say something about yesterday’s news, and how it illuminates the difference between vigorous debate and violent rhetoric.

Here is what we know so far: Kamala Harris has said that “Democracy is on the line” in her race against President Trump. The gunman agreed, and used the exact same phrase. He had a Kamala Harris bumper sticker on his truck. He was obsessed with Ukraine’s “fight for Democracy” and absorbed many unhinged views about the Russia-Ukraine war. HIs name is Ryan Routh, and he donated 19 times to Democrat causes and zero to Republican ones.

How do you think the Democrats and their media allies would respond if a 19-time Republican donor tried to kill a Democratic official? It’s a question that answers itself. For years, Kamala Harris’s campaign surrogates have said things like “Trump has to be eliminated.” And how have their media allies responded to the second assassination attempt on Donald Trump in as many months?

NBC News called the attempted assassination a “golf club incident.” The LA Times told us “Trump Targeted at Golf Club.” The USA Today’s top of the fold headline is “Hope in America,” and they published a preposterous letter to the editor arguing that Trump “brings these assassination attempts on himself.” CNN’s Dana Bash–who just yesterday bizarrely accused me of inciting a bomb threat–said today that Harris campaign rhetoric didn’t motivate Routh even though he echoed their rhetoric explicitly.

PBS’s weekend show perfectly illustrates the double standard of Kamala Harris’s media friends. After spending 30 seconds on the second assassination attempt on President Trump, they then focused on the real danger: me and President Trump, who are, according to them, personally responsible for bomb threats against Springfield. Of course, I repeatedly condemend those threats. And reports today suggest they came from a foreign country, not–as the media suggested–a deranged Trump fan.

The double standard is breathtaking. Donald Trump and I are, by their account, directly responsible for bomb threats from foreign countries. Why? Because we had the audacity to repeat what residents told us about the problems in their town. Meanwhile, Harris allies call for Trump to be eliminated as the media publishes arguments that he deserved to be shot.

This seems like a double standard. But at a deep level, it is entirely consistent.

Consider Springfield. Citizens are telling us that there are problems. These include the undeniable truths of higher car accidents, unaffordable housing, evictions of residents, overcrowded hospitals, overstressed schools, and rising rates of disease. They also include the infamous pet stories–which, again, multiple people have spoken about (either on video or to me or my staff).

Kamala Harris’s first strategy was to ignore these people and their concerns. Yes, she had prevented the deportation of millions of illegal aliens, and some of them made their way to Springfield. But it was a small town with no voice. Some of the local leadership even loved the cheap labor. So the suffering of thousands of American citizens went ignored.

Their next move with these stories is censorship. In Springfield, a psychopath (or a foreign government) calls in a bomb threat, so they blame that on President Trump (and me). The threat of violence is disgraceful of course, yet the media seems to relish it. They cover a bomb threat, but not the rise in murders. They cover the threat, but not the HIV uptick. They cover the threat, not the schools overwhelmed with new kids who don’t speak English. They cover the threat, not rising insurance rates or the car accidents that caused them. They cover the threat, not the failures of Kamala Harris’s leadership.

The purpose is not to turn down the rhetoric. If anything, covering the bomb threats gives whoever makes them exactly what he wants: attention. The purpose is distraction and shame. How dare you talk about the problems of Haitian migration in Springfield? You’re endangering people, simply by discussing the problems of Kamala Harris’s policies. It’s a form of moral blackmail, designed not to make anyone safe but to shut everyone up.

Springfield is the most recent, but hardly the most egregious example. There was the Hunter Biden laptop story, censored by BigTech. And who can forget that anyone who didn’t support Kamala Harris’s Ukraine policy was drenched in the blood of Ukrainian children. That last one appears to have had some effect on Routh–the most recent would-be assassin. The message is always the same: don’t you dare express an opinion on the public affairs of your nation. The message is: shut up.

This is the difference between debate–even aggressive debate–and censorship. It is one thing to attack Kamala Harris for “destroying the country” and quite another to say that President Trump should be “eliminated.” It is one thing to criticize overheated rhetoric, and another to say that a former president has invited an assassination on himself. It is one thing to say that Donald J. Trump’s arguments about the election of 2020 are wrong; it is another thing to attempt to remove him from the ballot over it.

It is one thing to say that pets are not, in fact being eaten, and another thing to say that anyone who disagrees is trying to murder people. Dissent, even vigorous dissent, is a great tradition of the United States. Censorship is not.

For the next 7 weeks of this campaign, I will vigorously defend your right to speak your mind. I believe you have every right to criticize me and Donald J. Trump, even if you say terrible or untrue things about us. But when I ask you to “tone down the rhetoric” it’s not about being nice–our citizens have every right to be mean, even if I don’t like it–or empty platitudes.

Instead, I’m asking all of us to reject censorship. Reject the idea that you can control what other people think and say. Embrace persuasion of your fellow citizens over silencing them–either through the powers of Big Tech or through moral blackmail.

I think this will make our public debate much better. But there’s something else. Reject censorship and you reject political violence. Embrace censorship, and you will inevitably embrace violence on its behalf.

The reason is simple. The logic of censorship leads directly to one place, for there is only one way to permanently silence a human being: put a bullet in his brain.

The opinions expressed by contributors and/or content partners are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views of LifeZette. Contact us for guidelines on submitting your own commentary.