Two Swedish police officers interviewed for a documentary cited by Donald Trump as evidence of a link between crime levels and asylum policy in Sweden say their comments were taken out of context, accusing the interviewer of “bad journalism”.

At a Florida rally on Sunday the US president sowed confusion by seemingly referencing a non-existent terrorist attack in Sweden, later explaining on Twitter that the comment had been a reference to a news segment on the Fox News TV channel, which described an “incredible surge of violence” in Sweden.

But two police officers interviewed for the broadcast told Dagens Nyeter newspaper on Monday that their interview had been edited and “we were answering completely different questions in the interview”. They described the filmmaker who interviewed them, Ami Horowitz, as “a madman”.

Horowitz denied the accusations, saying he stood by his reporting and that the two policemen were “probably under a lot of pressure because of what they said”.

Fox’s nightly Tucker Carlson Tonight show featured the segment, introduced as “Filmmaker documents refugee violence in Sweden”, in which Horowitz appears to ask two off-duty policemen if they “see the violence really spreading across Sweden into cities”.

“At least one or two times a week,” one of the policemen said, seemingly in response to Horowitz’s question. “And, let’s say, five years ago, how often do you think it was?”, the filmmaker then asks. “Three times a year,” the other policeman responds.

“Really,” Horowitz says. “The increase in crime is exponential.”

The film then cuts to a close-up of the second policeman, who says: “I think we were caught off guard. We didn’t expect there to be so much increase.”

As presented on screen, the comments leave doubt as to whether the policeman is talking about an increase in crime levels or immigration.

In the remarks published on Monday, however, police officer Anders Göranzon said the interview had been about areas with high crime rates, and “there wasn’t any focus on migration or immigration”.

Asked about his reaction to seeing the edited segment, Göranzon said: “We don’t stand behind it. It shocked us. He has edited the answers. We were answering completely different questions in the interview. This is bad journalism.”

“It feels like hell,” Göranzon continued. “The real questions should be shown along with our answers. We don’t own the rights to the film, but the end result is that we don’t want to talk to journalists after this. We can’t trust each other.”

Reached by the Guardian, Horowitz denied that he had misled the Swedish police officers.

“I stand by everything I said,” he said. “The answers were accurate. I was clear about the intent of our interview and I’m pretty sure I told them what the entire piece was going to be about. If you see what I asked them it was mostly about gun violence and very little about immigration.”

“This is part of the problem that Sweden has, and the officers are probably under a lot of pressure because of what they said. It’s difficult in that environment to stand up to it, so I feel sorry for them.”

“They’re courageous guys, great guys, and these are unfortunate comments. What you hear say is accurate, and everything I asked them is what you see on the film.”

Asked about being described as a “madman”, Horowitz said: “I’ve been called that before. I’ve been called worse. At the end of the day, the issue is important and if this is the vehicle we need to get the issue out there, then I’m fine with it.”

