An Ethnic Cleansing Averted (For Now)
An Update on Springfield, Ohio
A week ago I put together a brief study of Springfield, Ohio, which was on the brink of an ethnic cleansing of Haitians by the federal government. I use that term advisedly, since the deportations were to be directed at a specific group, defined by race, and racial defamed by the president and vice-president. Please see the essay of 1 February for the background.
Some media devoted attention to Springfield. Michelle Goldberg of the New York Times laudably visited the city, drew attention to civil society organizing, and then provided a summary of the events leading up the planned purge. Over the years the New York Times has done much of the work of a national newspaper, including with respect to Ohio. This explainer from 2024 about Springfield, for example, remains very useful.
The day after our story, on 2 February, there was news. In a remarkable ruling, District Court Judge Ana Reyes ruled that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) had wrongly interpreted the facts of the case and wrongly applied the law. Haitians in Springfield got a reprieve.
Haitians in the United States are able to live and work legally thanks to a Temporary Protected Status arising from natural disaster and political violence in Haiti. The DHS sought to remove that status, without providing any real reason, aside from the feelings of the president (this is laid out in last week’s essay). Judge Reyes noted a racial animus on the part of the Department of Homeland Security, in which the blustery repetition of stereotypes was supposed to do the work of factfinding.
As I showed in the essay, there is a very specific and documented history of racial animus, involving Nazis, the vice-president, and the president, specific to Springfield, Ohio.
In an op-ed in the Guardian that discusses the targeting of Somalis in Minnesota as well as Haitians in Springfield, the philosopher Jason Stanley rightly notes the racial underpinnings of the entirety of DHS deportation actions. There has been excellent reporting recently on the obvious white supremacy that defines the public profile of the Department of Homeland Security and other government departments under Trump. Trump himself just posted a video portraying Barack and Michelle Obama as apes.
It is clear that the emotional drive of DHS actions is racist, and that high government officials enjoy expressing racist sentiments as justification for them. The problem, for lawyers representing the federal government, is that this makes it obvious that federal actions are motivated by an intention to discriminate that is contrary to the Constitution and to law.
In Springfield, understandably, the ruling by Judge Reyes was received with relief, but only as the latest development in a continuing legal drama. The federal government has announced that it will appeal. Haitians in Springfield are still taking precautions, and churches and civil society organizations are still at work making preparations. They can be supported by donations; here is a brief and incomplete list: The Haitian Support Center; the United Way in Springfield; Second Harvest Food Bank.
Meanwhile, the Department of Homeland Security has not been idle. In Dayton, the large Ohio city nearest Springfield, it just sent agents to investigate a public high school where elections are held. In the broadest sense, all of this is connected: President Trump tells a lie about immigrants voting; this becomes an excuse to made it harder for citizens to vote; DHS is meant to be central to both. This can all be stopped, but we have to be aware of what we face.
Judge Reyes just proved what you documented: DHS targeted Haitians in Springfield based on racial animus, not law. The ruling confirms the regime fabricated justifications for ethnic cleansing while the president posted videos depicting the Obamas as apes.
This connects directly to what I have also written in “The Leverage Structure” and “How State Terror Becomes Normalized.”
The mechanism is identical whether it’s Epstein files or deportation operations: use state power to target specific groups, lie about the justification, ignore courts when they block you, appeal and continue anyway.
Springfield got a reprieve, not a victory. The regime learned from Minneapolis: move faster, hit multiple cities simultaneously, overwhelm judicial capacity to respond. Haitians are still preparing. Churches are still organizing. Because everyone understands what you documented: this isn’t about immigration enforcement. It’s racial targeting using federal apparatus.
The emotional drive is racist. The legal justification is fabricated. The operational goal is ethnic cleansing and voter suppression. Courts can slow it, but they can’t stop a regime that ignores rulings.
The question is whether courts blocking unconstitutional actions matters when the regime just appeals and continues operations anyway.
Springfield shows the structure: fabricate crisis, deploy federal force, get blocked by courts, ignore courts, escalate elsewhere. That’s not rule of law. That’s authoritarian capture of federal apparatus for racial purging.
Your work documenting this matters. Keep documenting and sharing.
—Johan
Behavioral Scientist / Foreign Policy
Thank you, for your work in defence of democracy in your own country and for your support for Ukraine.