Listen to the article
Newsom Challenges FBI Claims Over San Francisco Crime Rates Amid Federal Deployment Dispute
California Governor Gavin Newsom has publicly contradicted FBI Deputy Director Dan Bongino’s assertion that the federal agency deserves credit for San Francisco’s declining crime rate, intensifying the conflict over President Donald Trump’s plan to deploy federal troops in the city.
The dispute began when Newsom shared a San Francisco Chronicle headline on social media highlighting that the city’s homicide numbers are “on track to be the lowest since the 1950s.” Bongino quickly responded, attributing the decline to the FBI’s “early efforts” working with local police “to CRUSH violent crime.”
Newsom swiftly rejected Bongino’s claim with evidence that the city’s crime reduction predated the Trump administration’s interventions. “FACT CHECK: Donald Trump wasn’t even in office when crime started hitting historic lows,” Newsom wrote, sharing a December 2024 NBC headline. He added pointedly, “Podcaster Dan has no idea what’s going on,” referencing Bongino’s previous career as a conservative talk show host.
The governor’s press office amplified the rebuttal by sharing an ABC headline from the same month stating homicide rates had reached a “60-year low,” and suggested that Bongino should “go back to podcasting.”
This exchange comes amid broader tensions over federal law enforcement initiatives in California. FBI Director Kash Patel recently touted the results of “Operation Summer Heat,” a three-month initiative that reportedly led to over 8,000 arrests nationwide, along with the seizure of thousands of firearms and significant quantities of narcotics. However, the specific impact on San Francisco remains unclear, as the FBI has not released city-specific data.
The conflict escalated further when Trump confirmed plans for National Guard deployment in San Francisco during a Sunday interview with Fox News, claiming, “They want us in San Francisco.” Newsom, who served as the city’s mayor for seven years before becoming governor, forcefully rejected this characterization, responding that “nobody wants you here” and accusing the president of attempting to “ruin one of America’s greatest cities.”
Bongino, appearing on Fox & Friends the following day, took issue with Newsom’s response. “When he says this comment, nobody wants you here? Really? That’s kind of a BS remark! The people do want us there!” he said, restraining his language on air. However, his claim contradicts public opinion data – an August Reuters survey found that just 38 percent of Americans supported Trump’s plans to deploy federal troops in U.S. cities.
The FBI deputy director also dismissed the notion that state authorities could prevent federal deployment, stating firmly, “We don’t answer to the governor of California. We answer to the president, the American people, the attorney general and deputy attorney general. That’s the chain of command.”
This confrontation highlights the ongoing tension between federal and state authorities regarding law enforcement jurisdiction and approaches to public safety. It also reflects broader political divisions about urban crime policy and the appropriate role of federal agencies in local policing matters.
San Francisco has long been a focal point in national debates about urban crime and public safety. While the city has made significant progress in reducing violent crime, particularly homicides, it continues to face challenges with property crime and public disorder issues that have featured prominently in political discourse.
The FBI has not provided additional comment on the dispute between its leadership and Governor Newsom, nor has it offered specific details about its planned operations in San Francisco.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
10 Comments
Interesting back-and-forth between Governor Newsom and the FBI Deputy Director. It’s good to see the governor providing factual evidence to counter the federal claims. Transparency and accountability are important, especially when it comes to public safety data.
I agree. It’s concerning when officials make unsubstantiated claims about crime rates. Glad Newsom pushed back with verifiable information.
This highlights the ongoing tensions between state and federal authorities when it comes to law enforcement. It’s crucial that policy decisions are based on accurate, up-to-date data rather than political agendas.
Well said. Evidence-based policymaking is essential, especially on sensitive issues like crime and public safety.
This disagreement underscores the need for rigorous, nonpartisan analysis of crime data at all levels. Sensationalism and political point-scoring shouldn’t supersede the facts, especially when public safety is at stake.
Absolutely. Level-headed, data-driven discussions are crucial for developing effective policies to address complex issues like crime and law enforcement.
I’m glad Governor Newsom took the time to fact-check the FBI’s claims and provide the public with the actual data. It’s important for elected officials to hold federal agencies accountable, especially on issues that impact their constituents.
The dispute over San Francisco’s crime rates is an interesting case study in how data can be interpreted and spun for political purposes. I’m curious to see if this leads to any changes in federal-state cooperation on these matters.
Me too. Hopefully this encourages more transparency and collaboration between different levels of government when it comes to crime statistics and public safety strategies.
The governor’s firm rebuttal of the FBI’s claims is a reminder that we should be cautious about accepting official narratives at face value. It’s important to scrutinize data and look for independent verification, especially on topics with political implications.