Listen to the article
US President Donald Trump’s claims that Democrat-run cities experience higher crime rates have come under scrutiny in a comprehensive analysis by DW’s fact-checking team. When responding to a reporter’s question about deploying the National Guard to Republican-led cities with high crime rates, Trump asserted, “If you look at the top 25 cities for crime, just about every one of those cities is run by Democrats.”
This narrative has been consistently pushed by the Trump administration, with the White House previously stating on social media that “Democrat-run cities are plagued with crime because they choose for it to be that way.” During his presidency, Trump deployed the National Guard to Washington, D.C., claiming crime was “out of control,” and sent military forces to Los Angeles to respond to protesters—a move later ruled illegal by a California court.
An examination of the political landscape reveals that among America’s 100 largest cities in 2024, 65 have Democratic mayors while 23 are led by Republicans. This disparity reflects broader political patterns documented by the nonpartisan Pew Research Center, which has found that urban areas tend to vote Democratic while rural regions lean Republican.
The apparent correlation between Democratic leadership and higher crime rates in major cities might seem to validate Trump’s assertions at first glance. However, a deeper analysis reveals a more nuanced reality that challenges this simplistic view.
The FBI explicitly discourages using its crime data to create city rankings or measure law enforcement effectiveness. According to the agency, such comparisons fail to account for crucial variables that influence crime rates, including population density, economic conditions, urbanization, and differences in crime reporting practices. Crime rates can also vary dramatically within individual cities, with some neighborhoods remaining safe despite citywide statistics suggesting otherwise.
When examining cities of similar size, the political affiliation of mayors shows little correlation with crime rates. For instance, Memphis, Tennessee and El Paso, Texas—both led by Democratic mayors—have drastically different violent crime rates, with Memphis experiencing approximately ten times more violent crime than El Paso. Similarly, Irvine, California, a Democrat-led city, had the lowest violent crime rate among major U.S. cities in 2024, comparable to Republican-led Virginia Beach, Virginia.
A comprehensive study published in January 2025 by researchers from Harvard, University of Washington Tacoma, University of Pittsburgh, and George Washington University analyzed data from 400 medium and large U.S. cities spanning nearly three decades. Their conclusion challenges Trump’s narrative: “Electing a Democrat rather than a Republican as mayor leads to no detectable impact on police staffing or expenditures on criminal justice, nor does it lead to changes in crime or arrest rates.”
Justin de Benedictis-Kessner, an associate professor at Harvard Kennedy School and co-author of the study, noted that “over the last 30 years, nearly every city in the United States has seen a big decrease in crime, both violent crime and property crime.” This trend continues, with FBI data showing national violent crime decreased by an estimated 4.5% in 2024 compared to 2023, while murder and non-negligent manslaughter dropped by nearly 15%.
The long-term decline in crime is significant. Between 1993 and 2022, violent crime in the U.S. fell by 49%, including a 74% reduction in robbery, a 39% drop in aggravated assault, and a 34% decrease in murder and non-negligent manslaughter.
Despite these improvements, public perception often contradicts reality. Pew Research Center has found that many Americans believe crime is increasing even when statistics demonstrate the opposite. This perception gap has created fertile ground for political narratives that attribute crime to partisan leadership rather than acknowledging the complex array of factors that actually influence crime rates.
Year-to-year fluctuations in individual city crime rates further undermine the assertion that a mayor’s party affiliation determines crime levels. These variations persist despite mayors typically serving multi-year terms, suggesting other factors play more significant roles in crime trends.
The evidence from both current data and long-term research does not support the claim that Democratic leadership inherently leads to higher crime rates. Instead, crime appears to be influenced by a complex interplay of socioeconomic factors, geographic considerations, and cultural elements that transcend partisan politics.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
10 Comments
The relationship between crime rates and political affiliation is not straightforward. I’d be interested to see analysis that accounts for population size, poverty levels, and other key variables that can influence public safety.
Absolutely, a more holistic view is needed to properly understand these complex dynamics.
Thanks for sharing this fact check. I agree it’s important to be cautious about oversimplified narratives around crime and politics. A deeper dive into the underlying drivers and trends would be valuable.
This is a nuanced topic that deserves an objective, data-driven approach. I’m curious to see a more comprehensive review of crime statistics across different cities and regions, controlling for relevant socioeconomic factors.
Crime is a serious issue that requires thoughtful, evidence-based solutions. Oversimplifying the problem or making partisan accusations is unlikely to lead to meaningful progress.
Interesting analysis. It’s important to look at the full context and data, rather than relying on cherry-picked claims. Crime is a complex issue with many contributing factors beyond just political leadership.
This is a contentious topic, but I believe we need to move beyond political point-scoring and focus on data-driven policies that can actually improve public safety for all communities.
Well said. An objective, non-partisan approach is crucial for addressing complex societal challenges like this.
Thanks for the fact check. I agree we should be cautious about making definitive claims about the links between crime, politics, and urban vs. rural areas. A more nuanced analysis is needed.
Absolutely, the reality is likely more complicated than simplistic narratives. A deeper dive into the data and root causes would be valuable.