House Speaker Mike Johnson has defended Congressman Clay Higgins following significant backlash over Higgins’ comments regarding Haitian immigrants. Johnson’s remarks come in light of a now-deleted post from Higgins, originally shared on X (formerly Twitter), that sparked outrage for its derogatory tone.
Higgins, a Republican representative from Louisiana, made headlines after he described Haitians as ‘eating pets, vudu’ and referred to Haiti as the ‘nastiest country in the western hemisphere,’ among other offensive statements. The post, which was captured in a screenshot, accused Haitians of being involved in cults and organized crime.
When reporters inquired about the situation, Speaker Johnson stated he was unaware of the specifics of the tweet but described Higgins as a ‘dear friend’ and a ‘very principled man.’ He mentioned that several colleagues approached Higgins to express their disapproval of the post, leading him to reflect on his words.
Johnson commented, ‘He prayed about it, he regretted it, and he pulled the post down. We believe in redemption around here.’ This defense aligns with a broader theme from Johnson, who emphasized the importance of forgiveness in the context of political discourse.
Despite Johnson’s support, many in Congress condemned Higgins’ comments. Representative Mike Lawler of New York stated, ‘The Haitian people are good and honorable people, who contribute greatly to our country. No one should attack or disparage them. Let’s do better.’
Additionally, Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries called the remarks ‘vile and racist,’ reflecting the sentiments of many Democrats in the chamber. The Congressional Black Caucus is working towards a formal censure of Higgins, fueled by a collective discontent with his statements and the wider rhetoric surrounding Haitian immigrants.
The controversy surrounding Higgins follows a trend of anti-Haitian sentiment echoed by other political figures, particularly in connection with claims about Haitian migrants, which have been widely criticized for their inaccuracy and harmful implications.
As this situation develops, it raises questions about the implications of inflammatory rhetoric in politics and the challenge of fostering an inclusive dialogue within the legislative body.
