Peanut’s death came to symbolize the consequences when policy is steered by a meddling, overbearing impulse. The detention of his owners offers a distinctly different illustration.
The closing phase of the 2024 campaign brought a novel mascot into the spotlight at the last moment. Naturally, the token of the moment was an influencer—given the times, who else would fit the bill? He was small, cheerful, and his occasional accessories drew eyes as they popped up in feeds. The subject was a squirrel.
Indeed. Peanut is no longer with us. His premature end—marked by euthanasia ordered by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC)—ignited a Republican talking point as voters prepared to head to the polls. In October 2024, authorities swept into the home of Peanut’s owners, Mark Longo and Daniela Bittner, citing reports of “potentially unsafe housing of wildlife that could carry rabies and the illegal keeping of wildlife as pets.” (No one in the United States has ever contracted rabies from a squirrel.)
“The same government that turns a blind eye to thousands of illegal immigrant criminals crossing into our country doesn’t want us to keep pets,” said J.D. Vance at a rally, delivering one of his final pitches for the vice-presidential slot. “It’s the craziest, the craziest thing.”
What might be even more striking is how that remark later took on fresh significance. Exactly two years afterward, Bittner found herself in immigration detention, facing possible deportation to Germany, even though she was married to Longo, who is an American citizen.
“I’m pleading with the world to explain why this keeps happening to me,” Longo told the Associated Press, describing what he sees as repeated government overreach meddling in his life. “One incident, you could call it what it is. Two incidents, and it starts to feel like a pattern.”
In a statement, the Department of Homeland Security asserted that Bittner “chose to overstay her welcome in defiance of our nation’s laws.” Longo countered that the pair had simply made an error on one of her forms.
The needless euthanizing of Peanut fit neatly into a campaign arguing against government intrusion: a cute, harmless pet that brought joy to thousands, put down after a raid on his home, as if an animal named “Peanut” were implicated in a sophisticated fentanyl operation.
Likewise, Bittner’s detention two years later offers a timely reflection after the GOP’s historic midterm defeat. The reasons for that debacle are, of course, nuanced. Yet it is perhaps telling that 58 percent of voters felt the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement had gone too far, according to CBS exit polls. Across party lines, there is broad support for deporting immigrants convicted of violent crimes. But for an alleged paperwork violation? Carried out by someone married to an American citizen? Is that making the United States safer?
That question has lingered for some time. Peanut’s death was a stark, almost visceral example—perverse as it may sound—of what happens when government policy is shaped by a meddling impulse. It is easy to imagine Vance using it on the campaign trail. It forced voters to ask whether Democrats can identify a real threat when it exists and whether they can be trusted with broad government power. What question does he think Bittner’s detention raises?
