Reading mode Exit reading mode

MS-13 'Animals' and Dehumanizing Rhetoric: Using Gang Labels to Target Immigrant Communities

Trump's use of 'animals' to describe MS-13 members — and his conflation of the gang label with immigrants broadly — followed the same pattern documented in incitement to ethnic violence: dehumanization of a group, followed by calls for harsh treatment. Scholars of political violence noted the specific language echoed anti-Tutsi propaganda before the Rwandan genocide and Nazi propaganda before the Holocaust. Trump used similar dehumanizing framing for other immigrant groups, describing Central American migrants as an 'infestation' and an 'invasion.'

Record summary

Grade

Grade 4 of 5: Critical Rights and Rule-of-Law Concern

Systematic actions that undermine fundamental constitutional or international legal protections at the structural level. Scale and definitions

Status
Concluded
Incident date
Record updated
Location
Washington, D.C.
Category
Civil Rights
Legal posture
Reported
War-crime classification
Enabling conduct
Verification
Independently verified
ICC relevance
No
Sources
4 cited
Stable ID
trump-ms13-dehumanizing-rhetoric-racial
Victims
Immigrant communities broadly subjected to increased hate crimes and violence following dehumanizing rhetoric; specific individuals described using gang terminology who had no gang connection; victims of hate crimes by perpetrators who cited Trump's rhetoric
Alleged responsible parties
  • Donald Trump, President of the United States— White House

Key points

  • At a May 16, 2018 meeting with California sheriffs, Trump used the word 'animals' to describe MS-13 members; the context of the exchange was ambiguous enough that multiple news organizations initially reported it as applying to immigrants generally before clarifying
  • The Washington Post reviewed the transcript and found Trump had used dehumanizing language for immigrants broadly in multiple preceding contexts — not limited to gang members — using terms like 'infestation' and 'invasion'
  • Scholars of genocide and political violence noted the specific parallel: dehumanizing language that describes ethnic or national groups as less than human — as animals, vermin, or insects — is a documented precursor to mass atrocity, documented in the Rwandan genocide, the Holocaust, and other cases
  • Trump used the word 'infest' to describe Central American migrants in a tweet; immigration scholars noted 'infest' and related language appears in political violence literature as incitement
  • The El Paso shooter's manifesto used the phrase 'Hispanic invasion' — directly echoing Trump's characterization; hate crimes against Latinos increased significantly during the Trump years
  • Trump's dehumanizing rhetoric was not limited to gang members; he applied similar language broadly to asylum seekers, undocumented people, and refugee populations

Overview

The word "animals" is not neutral when used by a head of state to describe a national or ethnic group. Political scientists and genocide scholars have documented its role in incitement: dehumanizing language — calling human beings animals, vermin, insects, or cockroaches — is a documented precursor to mass violence. It creates the psychological permission structure that allows ordinary people to participate in atrocities by convincing them that the targets are not really human.

Trump used the word to describe MS-13 gang members. He also used dehumanizing language far more broadly — "infestation," "invasion," "animals" — for Central American migrants, asylum seekers, and undocumented people generally.

The Pattern

The specific language matters. "Infest" is a word applied to insects. "Invasion" is military language applied to a group of people most of whom are asylum seekers fleeing violence. "Animals" denies humanity. Each term, individually, might be dismissed as imprecision. The pattern — consistent, repeated, applied to an ethnic and national group — is what genocide scholars recognize as deliberate dehumanization.

The El Paso shooter's manifesto used the phrase "Hispanic invasion of Texas" before killing 23 people. He was not the first person radicalized by that framing; he was the first to act on it in that particular way.

The Defense

Trump's defenders argued the "animals" comment was specifically about violent gang members, not immigrants broadly. The Washington Post reviewed the full transcript and surrounding context and found the distinction was not as clear as the defense suggested. More importantly, the broader corpus of Trump's immigration rhetoric — "infestation," "invasion," repeated use of violent imagery for asylum seekers — made the defense of a single comment implausible as a description of Trump's overall approach.

The dehumanization was systematic. Its effects were measurable in hate crime statistics.

International law engaged

InstrumentProvisionWhat it protects or prohibits
International Covenant on Civil and Political RightsArticle 20Advocacy of national, racial, or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility, or violence shall be prohibited — dehumanizing rhetoric describing ethnic/national groups as animals meets this standard when it contributes to violence
International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial DiscriminationArticle 4States shall condemn propaganda promoting racial inferiority or hatred; public officials' use of dehumanizing language targeting ethnic groups violates ICERD obligations

Update log

  1. Updated with FBI anti-Latino hate crime statistics.

Sequence of events

  1. 'Animals' remark at California sheriffs meeting

    Trump says MS-13 members are 'not people' and calls them 'animals' at a White House meeting with California sheriffs. The comment generates international coverage; Mexico lodges a diplomatic protest, calling the language unacceptable.

  2. Trump tweets that immigrants 'infest' America

    Trump tweets: 'Democrats are the problem. They don't care about crime and want illegal immigrants, no matter how bad they may be, to pour into and infest our Country.' The use of 'infest' — typically applied to insects or pests — is widely noted as dehumanizing.

  3. El Paso shooting — manifesto echoes Trump rhetoric

    Patrick Crusius kills 23 people in El Paso targeting Latinos. His manifesto uses the phrase 'Hispanic invasion of Texas' — echoing Trump's characterization of Central American migration as an 'invasion.'

  4. FBI documents anti-Latino hate crime increase

    The FBI's annual hate crime statistics for 2019 show anti-Latino hate crimes increased significantly during the Trump years; advocacy groups document correlations with political rhetoric spikes.

Sources

  1. Trump Called Immigrants 'Animals.' Mexico Is Outraged. — The New York Times
  2. Trump referred to immigrants as 'animals' — not just MS-13 — The Washington Post
  3. Trump 'animals' remark echoes dehumanizing tactics of authoritarians — The Guardian
  4. Dehumanizing language and political violence: what research shows — Vox

How this record was published

Manually curated This entry was added directly and does not carry an automated audit trail.

About our editorial methodology →

Related records

Similar by category, grade and tags.

  • Grade 2 of 5: Major Abuse of Power

    Shithole Countries: Documented Racist Immigration Comments in White House Meeting

    The meeting was called to discuss a bipartisan immigration framework. Present were Senators Durbin (D-IL), Graham (R-SC), Flake (R-AZ), Perdue (R-GA), Cotton (R-AR), and others, along with DHS Secretary Nielsen. Multiple attendees confirmed the substance of the comments. The 'shithole' characterization was directed at Haiti and African nations; Trump contrasted them with Norway, where he had met with the prime minister the previous day. Nielsen testified to Congress that she did not recall the exact words used. Perdue and Cotton initially said they didn't recall the comments then claimed Trump hadn't used those specific words — a position contradicted by Durbin's direct confirmation and Graham's reported in-room response.

  • Grade 4 of 5: Critical Rights and Rule-of-Law Concern

    DACA Rescission: Ending Protection for 800,000 Childhood Arrivals

    DACA recipients — sometimes called Dreamers — had arrived in the United States as children, had lived here for years or decades, had submitted to background checks, and had registered with the government in reliance on the Obama administration's promise of temporary protection. Sessions announced the rescission by describing immigrants in terms that critics said echoed nativist rhetoric. The administration's stated legal basis was that DACA was an unconstitutional executive overreach; the Supreme Court did not reach this question, instead finding the rescission procedurally defective — the DHS Secretary had failed to adequately explain the agency's reasoning as required by the APA.

  • Grade 4 of 5: Critical Rights and Rule-of-Law Concern

    DACA Rescission: Ending Protections for 700,000 Dreamers

    DACA recipients — called 'Dreamers' — are people who arrived in the United States as children, grew up here, attended American schools, and in many cases speak no other language. The rescission announcement gave recipients a six-month wind-down period and urged Congress to pass legislation. Congress failed to act; the Supreme Court blocked the rescission in June 2020, ruling the administration's process was procedurally defective. DACA remained in legal limbo through the remainder of the first term.

  • Grade 4 of 5: Critical Rights and Rule-of-Law Concern

    Charlottesville: 'Very Fine People on Both Sides' After Neo-Nazi Violence

    The Unite the Right rally was organized by neo-Nazi and white supremacist groups, included marchers with torches chanting 'Jews will not replace us' on the night of August 11, and included violence against counter-protesters on August 12 before James Alex Fields Jr. drove into the crowd. Fields was later convicted of first-degree murder and federal hate crimes. Trump's August 15 press conference response defended those attending the rally as 'people who were very fine people' who were there because they 'protested the taking down of a statue' of Robert E. Lee, and drew a moral equivalence between the white supremacist rally and counter-protesters. Republican leaders including Paul Ryan, John McCain, Mitt Romney, and both former President Bushes publicly criticized the 'both sides' framing.