Why Doesn’t Donald Trump Own Any Sheep?

Look, just listen to me. Please.

Mother Jones illustration; Getty, SAUL LOEB/Getty

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

Donald Trump has caught a lot of flak for disliking dogs. The president made his anti-canine sentiment known when he told an El Paso, Texas, crowd that getting a dog would feel “a little phony,” and he has repeatedly called people “dogs” as an insult. Stephen Colbert even listed Trump’s refusal to get a dog as one of the ā€œreasons Trump is a bad president,ā€ right up there with ā€œtried to ban Muslimsā€ and ā€œputs kids in cages.ā€ Trumpā€™s lack of a pet certainly doesnā€™t make him look caring and tender. But why does his companion have to be a dog?

Sure, it makes sense for politicians to have dogs. Everyone, regardless of political leaning, seems to love them, and every president since William McKinley has had one at one time or another. Dogs are more likely than cats to be comfortable with public appearances, and they make their owners come off as playful and nurturing. Some say dog owners tend to be happier than cat owners, but correlation doesn’t imply causation. Regardless, dogs have become such a fundamental part of the presidential package that several Democratic candidates are already publicizing their pups online. Elizabeth Warren’s golden retriever Bailey owns the Twitter handle @firstdogbailey, and Beto O’Rourke’s Artemis runs @First_Dog_USA.

However, the White House has hosted a number of non-canine animals that could potentially replace the First Dog as American traditions. Benjamin Harrison named his two pet opossums Mr. Reciprocity and Mr. Protection, after the 1896 Republican Partyā€™s trade policies, which arenā€™t too far off from Trumpā€™s own. Several presidents have had birds, and Woodrow Wilson kept a flock of sheep. Theodore Roosevelt, an unparalleled animal-lover, welcomed a bear, a lizard, guinea pigs, a badger, a pig, a macaw, a hen, a rooster, a hyena, a barn owl, a rabbit, a pony, snakes, and several dogs. Surely, of all the kinds of animals that have lived at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, Trump could find one he could get along with.

(Original Caption) 5/4/1918-Washington, DC: Sheep Grazing on the Whit House Lawn.

Bettmann/Getty

If all else fails, he could join the ranks of Abraham Lincoln and John F. Kennedy by adopting a cat. If Trump is too busy to take care of a dog, a cat would be a relatively low-maintenance solution. Maybe he could get a siamese cat, like Jimmy Carterā€™s Misty Malarky Ying Yang, or he could carry it on his shoulder, like Bill Clinton did with Socks. To be fair, Trump doesnā€™t strike me as a cat person.

President Bill Clinton with the First Pet, Socks the Cat, on December 20, 1993. Courtesy National Archives.

Photo via Smith Collection/Gado/Getty Images

To have no pets at all, though, is almost unheard of for a president. The otherwise petless Andrew Johnson fed white mice in the White House, which counts as animal companionship in my book. And Harry Truman briefly owned a cocker spaniel, which he gave to his physician because, according to the Harry S. Truman Presidential Library and Museum, ā€œthey preferred to be a pet-free family.ā€ But if Trump steers clear of even mice, he’ll be the first president since James K. Polk to have truly had no animal companionship at all.

But really, Trump’s aversion to animals comes as no surprise. As Purdue University animal ecology professor and director of the Center for the Human-Animal Bond, Alan M. Beck, commented to the New York Times, “His sons are trophy hunters.”

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We canā€™t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who wonā€™t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its futureā€”you.

And we need readers to show up for us big timeā€”again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We canā€™t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who wonā€™t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its futureā€”you.

And we need readers to show up for us big timeā€”again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate