Trump’s Claims on Cashless Bail Policies Fail to Match Crime Data

President Donald Trump recently criticized state laws limiting cash bail during his announcement of a temporary federal takeover of law enforcement in Washington, D.C. However, his assertions about the impact of these policies diverge significantly from available crime statistics and misrepresent how such systems actually function.

Trump claimed that “every place in the country where you have no cash bail is a disaster,” suggesting these policies have directly worsened crime rates in major cities. Yet comprehensive data from jurisdictions that have implemented bail reforms tells a different story.

In Chicago, where Illinois’ SAFE-T Act eliminated cash bail in September 2023, year-to-date crime from January to August 2025 dropped 15% compared to the same period before the law took effect. Murder decreased by 37%, robbery by 36%, and burglary by 18%, according to Chicago Police Department statistics.

Loyola University of Chicago researchers found violent crimes decreased by 7% and property crimes by 14% in the first six months after implementation. The report noted that while this doesn’t definitively prove the law’s positive impact, it confirms what practitioners observed—that “the sky did not fall” when cashless bail was introduced.

New York has seen similar trends despite implementing bail reform in 2019. Studies from John Jay College of Criminal Justice and the Brennan Center for Justice found no evidence connecting bail reform to rising crime rates. Between January and May this year, only about 5% of those released pending trial were rearrested, with violent felony rearrests accounting for less than 1%.

In Washington, D.C., which has operated under the 1992 D.C. Bail Reform Act, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights reported that between 2015 and 2019, about 90% of individuals released pretrial appeared for their court dates, and approximately 99% were not rearrested for violent crimes during the pretrial period.

Research published in the Journal of the American Medical Association examining New Jersey’s bail reforms concluded that gun violence did not increase despite substantial reductions in jail populations—even as national rates of gun violence rose during the study period.

Perhaps most telling, the Brennan Center for Justice’s evaluation of crime trends across 22 cities with bail reform policies found “no statistically significant relationship between bail reform and crime rates,” suggesting that weakening these reforms as a crime-fighting strategy may be misguided.

Trump’s administration cited research from Yolo County, California, where an emergency pandemic policy setting bail at zero dollars for most misdemeanors and nonviolent felonies resulted in higher rearrest rates. However, this policy notably differed from most bail reforms by excluding risk assessments before release—it was primarily designed to reduce COVID-19 spread in jails, not as a comprehensive bail reform measure.

The county’s district attorney, Jeff Reisig, who initiated the study, clarified: “I actually do support smart bail reform. Zero-dollar bail is not smart bail reform.” He emphasized that judges should maintain discretion in release decisions rather than implementing automatic releases without risk assessment.

Trump’s claim that “somebody murders somebody and they’re out on no cash bail before the day is out” fundamentally misrepresents how these policies work. Most states with cashless bail systems specifically exempt violent felonies and murder charges, maintaining judicial discretion to deny release to defendants deemed high-risk.

In Illinois, judges retain discretion in every case. “Currently no one accused of murder has been released to the public,” noted David Stovall from the University of Illinois Chicago. While the White House pointed to a single case in Rockford where a murder defendant was released pending trial, such instances are exceedingly rare.

Adam Gelb, president of the Council on Criminal Justice, explained: “People charged with murder can certainly be released pending trial. While it might be rare, it is legally possible as pretrial release is supposed to be based on public safety risk and risk of flight.”

Trump’s vow to “end that in Chicago” through federal legislation faces significant constitutional barriers. The Tenth Amendment reserves powers not given to the federal government to the states, including bail policy authority. Legal experts note that Congress has limited authority to dictate state bail laws directly.

The administration could potentially pursue an indirect approach by tying federal funding to bail policies, as demonstrated by an executive order Trump signed on August 25. This order directs the attorney general to identify jurisdictions with cashless bail policies and instructs federal agencies to explore withholding funds from these areas.

As debates about bail reform continue, the evidence suggests that these policies are more nuanced than political rhetoric often indicates, with their impact on public safety far less clear-cut than Trump’s assertions would suggest.