He Tells the Truth When He Lies: A JD Vance Primer on Building Conspiracies

By Allison Butler

Lately, I’ve had lyrics to ‘I’ve Got No Idols,’ by 1990s indie-darling Juliana Hatfield running through my head, particularly the line, “But I am a liar, that’s the truth, go home and think it through.” Why is this song, especially that particular lyric, taking up so much space in my brain these days?

I think it is because of JD Vance and his gift at being honest about being a liar.

Just about one year ago, during the presidential debate, when then-candidate Trump ranted about Haitian immigrants eating other people’s pets, it sounded like more of his bluster. In a rambling response to a question about immigration—arguably, one of his strongest and most popular campaign topics—Trump pounced on a rumor spread on the internet, “They’re eating the dogs … 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.”

Then-vice presidential candidate JD Vance swiftly came his future boss’s defense, defending the debunked rumors, stating, “If I have to create stories so that the American media actually pays attention to the suffering of the American people, then that’s what I’m going to do.” 

One year later, cut to the aftermath of the killing of Charlie Kirk and we see that Vance is following through on his promise. Weaving the beginnings of a baseless conspiracy, Vance announced, “We know Joe Biden’s FBI was investigating Charlie Kirk. Maybe they should have been investigating the networks that motivated, inspired, and maybe even funded Charlie Kirk’s murder. If they had, Charlie Kirk might be alive today.” Discussing this comment on his podcast The Bulwark, Tim Miller was shocked that no news organization picked up this thread or remembered Vance’s statement from just one year ago. The ignorance of Vance’s comment about “networks” may be because the legacy press are no longer able to do their jobs as watchdogs of the government when their corporate owners are more interested in protecting their mergers.  

As of this writing, all the information the public has about the alleged killer of Kirk is that he acted alone, drove his own car, used his grandfather’s rifle, and was turned in to law enforcement by his family. What network, then, “motivated, inspired” or “funded” the murder? Nearly 10 months into Trump 2.0, it is hard to fathom what threat Joe Biden could still play so that Vance needs to blame him for not protecting Kirk. One year ago, Vance told us clearly and with no equivocation what his role as Vice President would be: Creating stories to advance an agenda. How come we did not believe him? 

In response to the baseless—and frankly: racist—rumors about the eating of pets, the legacy press was quick to point out how easy it was for misinformation to spread in the digital environment without taking a frank examination into their own culpability. In response to the baseless—and frankly: cowardly—accusation that there are “networks” that funded an alleged murderer, the legacy press was … nowhere to be found. The words and actions of President Trump, Vice President Vance, and their administration are newsworthy. However, giving their words oxygen without question, without demand for evidence, without any degree of pushback, is the equivalent of giving them free rein to coax whatever falsehoods they desire into the public consciousness. In their desire for profit, the corporate press enable their poor behavior and, in not pushing back, passively allow the false information to become truth.  

Let us heed Juliana Hatfield’s advice and “go home and think it through.” As audiences, we have a lot to think about. I, for one, do not yet know how to live within an autocracy. I do know, however, that I cannot wait for corporate news organizations to catch on to the new playbook being used by Trump 2.0 where they are honest about their lies. 

Allison Butler is Senior Lecturer, Associate Chair, and the Director of the Media Literacy Certificate Program in the Department of Communication at the University of Massachusetts Amherst in Amherst, Massachusetts, where she teaches courses on critical media literacy and representations of education in the media.