For a moment, it seemed like Donald Trump was using his Tucson, Arizona, rally to return to his typical immigration programming after a shaky debate performance. Then he went there — again.

Trump repeated the baseless claim that Haitian migrants are eating pets in Springfield, Ohio — remarks that became the stuff of endless social media memes soon after his debate.

“A recording of 911 calls show that residents are reporting that the migrants are walking off with the town’s geese. They’re taking the geese. You know where the geese are? In the park, in the lake. And even walking off with their pets. ‘My dog’s been taken. My dog’s been stolen," Trump said Thursday night in Arizona.

The former president spent much of his campaign stop in the border state warning about an influx of migrants and the threats he says immigration poses to the country. He said he won in 2016 because of his message about the border — and that he knows it’s one of his top issues this year. He encouraged GOP candidates running in Arizona to talk about little else besides the border.

But after two days of unflattering headlines and Republicans squabbling over him pushing an anti-immigrant conspiracy theory, Trump once again couldn’t resist veering off into the outrageous.

Thursday marked Trump’s first rally since his Tuesday debate with Vice President Kamala Harris, during which he strayed from his usual talking points on an issue that has long been seen as a political sweet spot for the Republican, made all the more relevant by voters’ heightened concerns around border security. But instead of capturing headlines for his dominance on one of his more politically favorable subjects, the former president again elevated the false claims about Haitian immigrants eating pets in Ohio.

And instead of reversing course, Trump is further attaching himself to the pet hoax. On Thursday, he posted five digitally doctored photos on Truth Social depicting cats supporting or being rescued by Trump — including a cat at a Trump rally holding a sign that read “Kamala hates me.”

Now, some Republicans say Trump’s embrace of a social media conspiracy about migrants is an example of how he could aid Harris on one of her greatest political vulnerabilities, while potentially turning off undecided voters he could capture with a consistent, steady message on immigration and crime. Prior to his pushing of the pet-eating hoax, Trump had begun to regularly mention the fictional serial killer Hannibal Lecter as he discussed immigration at his rallies.

Trump, said Barrett Marson, a Republican strategist in Arizona, “has an uncanny ability to take a popular issue that he can really score points on, and turn it into wild conspiracy theories that make voters scratch their head.”

“He just can’t help himself by veering into conspiracy theory territory,” Marson said, “when he actually has some really good examples that could scare people and make people question Harris’ commitment to a secure border.”

For some Democrats, Trump’s fixation on pets in Ohio this week has come as a relief. First, it allowed Harris to walk away mostly unscathed from Tuesday’s debate on an issue that has long vexed the Biden administration — and a topic Harris prepared for heavily during debate prep. Instead, she was able to hit Trump for his role in killing the bipartisan border deal, while mostly avoiding having to play defense on immigration. On Thursday, he raised it again, even as he appeared in a battleground border state.

“He just became so discombobulated from the get go that it wasn’t the challenge that I think we were all expecting it was going to be,” said Democratic strategist Maria Cardona, speaking of the debate.

And “instead of being concise and direct on his strongest issue,” said Mike Madrid, a political consultant with expertise on Latino voting trends, who co-founded the anti-Trump Lincoln Project, Trump is muddling the issue by “playing into this delusional area of a policy that he actually has a decided advantage on.”

In an acknowledgment of how challenging the issue remains for Democrats, Harris has been more aggressive on the border since the launch of her campaign, highlighting Trump’s role in the collapse of the border security bill, while also attacking some of the more controversial policies he supported as president, including family separation. It’s part of her team’s effort to lure in undecided voters worried about the border and eager for policy solutions, even as voters trust Trump more to handle immigration.

“[Undecided voters] see one candidate in Harris who is talking about bipartisan solutions, and they see another candidate in Trump who is just rambling about racist, unproven conspiracy theories. That doesn’t look very presidential to an undecided voter,” said Matt Barreto, president of BSP Research, which conducts Latino polling for the Harris campaign.

Still, Harris did not discuss immigration on Thursday as she kicked off her post-debate swing with two rallies in North Carolina. Instead, she dinged the former president on the economy, abortion and Project 2025, the conservative Heritage Foundation’s controversial blueprint for the next Republican administration that Trump has sought to distance himself from. She said the candidates “owe it to the voters to have another debate,” as her opponent declared there won’t be another face-off.

In the months since President Joe Biden’s clampdown on asylum, border crossing numbers are now lower than during Trump’s last month in office. This hasn’t fully broken through to voters, said Celinda Lake, who did polling for the Biden campaign. But it does help Democrats, she said, that the news isn’t filled with footage of an overwhelmed southern border, and that Republican governors aren’t busing migrants to Democrat-led cities. Instead, Trump is focusing the public on conspiracy theories.

While conservative media figures and some Republican elected officials have pushed blatant misinformation about Haitian migrants in Springfield stealing and eating local residents’ household pets, the city is, in many ways, facing a strain on resources due to an influx of immigrants.

Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine this week deployed state troopers to the city, where he said there has been a surge of traffic problems and “dangerous driving in Springfield by inexperienced Haitian drivers.” DeWine is also allocating $2.5 million in state funds to boost healthcare services in the city, while saying the “federal government has not demonstrated that they have any kind of plan to deal with the issue.” Local officials have welcomed the migrants, saying they are helping to revitalize the economy of what had been a shrinking city, while asking for help to pay for the strain on schools and other resources.

“There’s a place called Springfield, Ohio you’ve been reading about,” Trump said at his rally Thursday. “Twenty thousand illegal Haitian immigrants have descended upon the town of 58,000 people, destroying their entire way of life. This was a beautiful community, and now it’s horrible what’s happening.”

DeWine and local officials in Springfield have said there is no evidence, however, of Haitian migrants there eating dogs or cats — allegations that may have been conflated with the arrest of an Ohio-born woman in Canton after allegedly eating a cat, or a photo taken of an unidentified man in Columbus carrying a dead goose.

Instead of shouting about Haitians eating pets, Marson said Trump should stick to talking about things like the high-profile killings of innocent people by migrants in the country illegally — victims like Lakin Riley of Georgia and Rachel Morin of Maryland, whom Trump has repeatedly discussed.

“Besides there not being any evidence of this,” Marson said of the pet-eating claim, “it’s just weird and crazy to discuss. The normal people don’t want to talk about this.”

Some Republicans have continued to defend Trump and his running mate’s discussion of debunked claims, arguing that the actual details matter less than the overarching themes — including that some American cities are facing strain from illegal immigration.

“In broad terms, if you are talking about the immigration situation, if that is what people are talking about, then you are winning,” said Gregg Keller, a Republican strategist and former executive director of the American Conservative Union, speculating that some viewers at home Googled the city name when Trump mentioned there was a problem.

“There are now millions of Americans who are learning for the first time what’s going on in Springfield, Ohio,” Keller said.

Vice President Kamala Harris on Wednesday called the shooting at a Georgia high school an “outrageous” and “senseless tragedy,” telling a crowd in New Hampshire that gun violence is one of the issues at stake this November.

“This is just a senseless tragedy on top of so many senseless tragedies, and it’s just outrageous that everyday in our country, in the United States of America, that parents have to send their children to school, worried about whether or not their child will come home alive. It’s senseless,” Harris said.

“We’ve got to stop it, and we have to end this epidemic of gun violence in our country once and for all. You know it doesn’t have to be this way.”

Yet Harris, who has regularly called for an assault weapons ban and universal background checks, did not mention any specific policy changes in her remarks.

Harris addressed the shooting during a campaign event in New Hampshire, hours after a shooter opened fire Wednesday morning at Apalachee High School in Winder, Georgia, about an hour outside of Atlanta. At least four people are dead and an additional nine have been taken to hospitals with injuries, according to the Georgia Bureau of Investigation. The suspect is alive and in custody.

The tragedy came just weeks into the high school’s new school year, making it the 385th mass shooting of this year, in which four or more people were injured or killed, according to the Gun Violence Archive.

The vice president, who was briefed on the incident before leaving Washington, has been heavily involved in the White House’s response to gun violence. President Joe Biden tapped her to lead the Office of Gun Violence Prevention, which helps coordinate policy across the federal government, aid communities in the aftermath of a tragedy and identify new executive actions while gun safety legislation remains stalled in Congress.

Harris on Wednesday said that during her monthlong tour of college campuses last year she heard from young voters who told her about their experiences with active shooter drills — now routine practice in American schools.

“Our kids are sitting in a classroom where they should be fulfilling their God-given potential, and some part of their big beautiful brain is concerned about a shooter busting through the door of the classroom. It does not have to be this way,” Harris said.

Ahead of Harris’ event, Biden called the shooting a “horrific reminder of how gun violence continues to tear our communities apart.” He noted that’s why he signed the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act into law, established the White House guns office and announced dozens of executive actions since taking office.

“Republicans in Congress must finally say ‘enough is enough’ and work with Democrats to pass common-sense gun safety legislation. We must ban assault weapons and high-capacity magazines once again, require safe storage of firearms, enact universal background checks, and end immunity for gun manufacturers,” he said in a statement. “These measures will not bring those who were tragically killed today back, but it will help prevent more tragic gun violence from ripping more families apart.”

The nation’s top gun control groups are awkwardly avoiding talking about Hunter Biden’s gun conviction — and his widely expected appeal on Second Amendment grounds.

In the day since President Joe Biden’s son was found guilty of owning a gun while being a drug user and lying about his drug use on a purchase form, POLITICO asked seven top gun control groups how they are navigating the verdict and likely appeal. Several advocates were asked directly if they believe — as the president’s son argues — that it is unconstitutional to ban drug users from possessing guns.

Not a single one commented on the case or the broader legal question, underscoring how uncomfortable the politics around the case are for the gun control groups pushing hard for Biden’s reelection.

“That’s all about politics,” said a gun violence prevention activist, granted anonymity due to the political sensitivities. “This is just: ‘No, we’re not going to get in the middle of this shitstorm. Nothing good can come of it.’”

The tension was never more apparent than on Tuesday, when just hours after Hunter Biden was found guilty on three felony counts stemming from his 2018 purchase of a handgun, the president delivered remarks at a high-profile event for Everytown for Gun Safety to mark national gun violence prevention month.

His son’s lawyers tried, to no avail, to have the charges thrown out before trial on Second Amendment grounds, and they are virtually certain to renew that argument when they appeal the conviction. They are trying to harness recent court rulings, led by the Supreme Court’s conservative majority, that have taken an increasingly expansive view of gun rights.

The president, in his remarks Tuesday, did not mention his son. Instead he touted progress stemming from historic gun legislation he helped pass and a drop in crime, while reiterating previous comments that the Second Amendment does not mean anyone can own a gun no matter what.

“There’s never been a time that says you can own anything you want,” the president said, speaking at Everytown’s Gun Sense University convening at the Washington Hilton.

The movement for tighter gun laws has seen substantive policy success under the Biden administration, progress attributable both to the shift in politics around the issue but also the president’s personal interest in combating the gun violence crisis. A coalition of major gun control groups threw their support behind Biden’s reelect last fall, calling him and Vice President Kamala Harris the “strongest champions for gun violence prevention to ever take residence in the White House.”

The Biden administration has issued numerous executive actions restricting the purchase and possession of guns and worked with Congress to pass the first gun-related law in nearly three decades. That law toughened background checks for young gun buyers, helped states implement red flag laws and kept firearms from a wider swath of domestic violence offenders. He also launched the first-ever federal office of gun violence prevention, while making moves to further expand background checks. And on Tuesday, he reiterated his calls for additional restrictions, including a federal ban on assault weapons.

His campaign sees the issue as a fruitful one — both as a way to energize base voters and court suburban independent women. It’s a messaging strategy that clashes with his son’s legal advocacy for a broader view of the Second Amendment.

The centerpiece of the three felony counts that Hunter Biden was convicted of is a longstanding provision of the federal Gun Control Act that bars people from having guns if they are users of, or addicted to, “any controlled substance.” But the constitutionality of that law has been part of the swirl of legal questions surrounding gun restrictions since 2022, when the Supreme Court announced a new approach to the Second Amendment in a landmark case known as New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. 

In that decision, the court said restrictions on gun purchases are valid only if they are consistent with gun laws that existed at the nation’s founding — a decision that both gun control groups and the president decried. Bruen spawned a slew of conflicting lower-court rulings about how closely today’s gun laws, including the drug-users prohibition, must mirror those from the late 1700s.

In reaction to the Bruen ruling, the president issued a statement saying he was “deeply disappointed” and that it “contradicts both common sense and the Constitution.” He added that the “Second Amendment is not absolute,” language that is a staple of his messaging around guns.

But the president’s son relied heavily on Bruen in seeking to have his charges tossed out before trial.

“Gun control is a politically charged topic,” his lawyers wrote last December. But the drug-users prohibition in the Gun Control Act is “indefensible under the Bruen framework” and must be struck down as unconstitutional, they argued.

Judge Maryellen Noreika, a Donald Trump appointee who oversaw the trial, rejected Hunter Biden’s bid to have the provision struck down wholesale. Shortly before the trial, he mounted a modified effort for a judge-ordered acquittal on Second Amendment grounds. Noreika has not yet ruled on that long-shot motion.

Hunter Biden’s best chance of success for his constitutional argument will be on appeal, where he is virtually certain to ask higher courts — including, perhaps, the Supreme Court — to declare the drug-users prohibition unconstitutional and to set aside his conviction.

Meanwhile, his team is closely watching for a Supreme Court ruling, expected by the end of this month, in another high-stakes gun rights case, United States v. Rahimi. The defendant, Zackey Rahimi, was convicted of illegally possessing a gun while under a domestic violence restraining order. He has argued that the ban is unconstitutional on similar history-based grounds that Hunter Biden and others have used to challenge the drug-users prohibition.

A ruling in favor of Rahimi would be a boon for Hunter Biden. It would be another sign of the high court’s radically expansive view of gun rights, and it would portend that the drug-user prohibition may be the next gun control measure to fall. But such a ruling would also draw horror and condemnation from the president — once again pitting the White House’s policy positions against the president’s son’s legal defense.

“This is such a frenzied time for gun law, and we may know as soon as tomorrow what the Supreme Court has to say about at least one of the violations he was convicted of. And so I think a lot of people are anxious to see how Rahimi turns out and whether or not it gives clarity to the application of Bruen,” said Thomas Chittum, the former associate deputy director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and now a law professor who teaches a course on the Second Amendment.

Second Amendment advocates have been much more vocal on the conviction than their restrictionist opponents. The National Rifle Association issued a statement obliquely praising the conviction.

“The National Rifle Association has always stood for the lawful use and possession of firearms. Mr. Biden’s documented lifestyle choices at the time of purchasing a firearm made him a prohibited person under current law,” said Randy Kozuch, executive director of the NRA Institute for Legislative Action, in a statement to POLITICO. The NRA did not respond to a follow-up question on whether the organization believes the Second Amendment allows for bans on drug users from having guns.

Other gun rights organizations used the verdict to bolster their push for looser gun laws. The Firearms Policy Coalition reiterated an offer to aid Hunter Biden in his challenge.

“Countless lives are destroyed every year under the federal government’s unconstitutional and immoral regulations. We proudly work to eliminate these laws and create a free world. Just as we have in many other cases, we stand ready to assist Mr. Biden in his challenge of federal gun laws,” said FPC President Brandon Combs.