MSNBC's Nicolle Wallace falsely blamed Trump’s rhetoric for bomb threats in Ohio, only for officials to reveal they originated from a foreign actor—marking yet another instance of Wallace falling for misinformation while pushing her anti-Trump agenda.
MSNBC host Nicolle Wallace once again found herself at the center of controversy on Monday, falsely linking former President Donald Trump’s rhetoric to political violence during her show “Deadline.” Wallace claimed the connection between Trump’s language and political violence is “undeniable,” specifically citing recent bomb threats in Ohio schools. However, Ohio officials quickly debunked her claims, revealing that the threats originated from a foreign actor attempting to incite the very kind of reaction Wallace peddled on national television. It was another glaring example of her penchant for falling for sensationalized narratives that fit her anti-Trump agenda—hook, line, and sinker.
Wallace’s record of embracing falsehoods is well-established. She was one of the loudest voices pushing the now-discredited Clinton-funded Russian dossier, which falsely accused Trump of colluding with Russia during the 2016 election. Later, she eagerly supported the widely debunked notion that Hunter Biden’s laptop, which contained incriminating information, was part of a Russian disinformation campaign—a claim that even mainstream outlets have since walked back. Despite her history of being wrong, Wallace continues to pontificate about the supposed dangers of Trump’s rhetoric without considering her own reckless spread of misinformation.
On Monday’s show, Wallace referenced bomb threats in Ohio that led to the closure of elementary and middle schools, attributing the threats to a “racist smear” about Haitian Americans—while pinning responsibility on Trump and Ohio Senator JD Vance for creating the so-called "threat environment" through their rhetoric. In her typically unhinged style, Wallace asked her guest if there had been any indication that Trump or Vance were reconsidering their language. The response? A simple "No."
But just as Wallace jumped to conclusions, Ohio officials announced that the bomb threats she breathlessly warned about came not from domestic political actors but from a foreign country looking to stir up fear. Once again, Wallace had fallen for a manufactured crisis, and in doing so, demonstrated the very gullibility she accuses others of when it comes to misinformation.
This is not the first time Wallace has sought to demonize Trump and his supporters without basis. Throughout the years, she has drawn direct lines between Trump’s words and acts of violence, even when the facts don’t support her claims. On Monday, she expanded her baseless accusations, linking Trump’s rhetoric to a slew of tragic mass shootings. She cited the Buffalo, Tree of Life, and El Paso massacres, claiming that the shooters in these cases had pledged allegiance to the "Great Replacement Theory"—and tied it all back to Trump, painting him as the central figure responsible for creating an atmosphere of hate.
But Wallace’s accusations ignore a critical fact: the Ohio bomb threats she referenced had nothing to do with Trump or his rhetoric. Instead, they were another attempt by foreign actors to exploit the country’s political divisions, something Wallace, ironically, helps fuel. Her inability to critically assess these facts underscores her willingness to accept any narrative that blames Trump, regardless of its veracity.
Wallace’s dangerous rhetoric only adds to the toxicity of the current political climate, where facts often take a backseat to inflammatory accusations. By continuously promoting unfounded claims and refusing to acknowledge her past mistakes, she exacerbates the very problem she claims to fight: the spread of disinformation. If anyone needs to recalibrate their rhetoric, it’s Wallace herself, who seems more intent on attacking Trump than on presenting accurate, thoughtful analysis.
As the nation grapples with real threats, Wallace’s continued reliance on fearmongering and discredited narratives only serves to further polarize an already divided country. And in doing so, she becomes part of the very problem she so frequently decries.
.png)