For the past year, Donald Trump has been saying that “homicides are skyrocketing” and the country is “breaking down” with violence even as the data told a much different story. Now, as crime keeps declining, even Trump is finally changing his tune.
Data and analysis from the FBI, Council on Criminal Justice, and Major Cities Chiefs Association all show that, overall, crime went down significantly in 2024, with violent crime largely returning to pre-pandemic levels. The good news defies expectations: homicide rates in Baltimore, Detroit, and St. Louis declined even beyond pre-pandemic levels to historically low 2014 rates. Now, early data suggests that the crime drop is continuing under Trump’s second term. It is still too early in the year to talk with confidence about crime trends in 2025, but at least one researcher projects that 2025 is on track to follow 2024 in terms of continued declines in homicides and violent crime.
Until recently, the Trump administration avoided talking about progress on safety, using the image of a country under “invasion” and permeated with “lawlessness” to justify a brutal mass detention and deportation agenda along with “law-and-order” policies that will reduce police accountability, increase executions, and lengthen prison sentences.
But on June 5, President Trump spoke at a roundtable with the Fraternal Order of Police and said, “We’ve removed thousands of violent criminal, illegal aliens from our communities as part of the largest deportation effort in American history. And just a few months into office, the national murder rate has plummeted by 28 percent.” Conservative media has pushed this story as well. Just as the White House did with fentanyl seizures, which also began declining before Trump took office, he is trying to claim that the crime decline demonstrates his policies are working. As such, it’s crucial to set the record straight on Trump and crime.
Why Trump isn’t to thank for the crime decline
Despite Trump’s claim that “the previous administration allowed lawlessness to permeate our country,” the crime decline long predated his second term. After three decades of mostly continuous decline, crime spiked in 2020 amid the COVID-19 pandemic. But after a narrative of out-of-control crime firmly took hold, especially during the 2022 midterms, crime rates began subsiding rapidly in 2023.
Looking at crime rates across the country and across categories of crime, it is clear that the decline in 2025 is a continuation of a downward trend that began in 2023. Trump’s public safety policies do not reflect what we know about public safety. His war on immigrants and funding terminations to evidence-based violence-prevention strategies are both more likely to make the country more dangerous than less. It is also far too early to see any changes from many of the administration’s actions related to crime—like its executive order on policing or changes in federal prosecutions.
Who deserves credit for the crime decline
It’s difficult to determine why crime rises and falls. Researchers are still debating why crime fell in the 1990s, and they will likely debate the ongoing decline for years to come. So far, analysis suggests that crime likely spiked due to pandemic-driven social instabilities, including school closures and unemployment. This means that the reopening of society following the worst phases of the pandemic and the restoration of normal government and community functions were almost certainly key to crime dropping. But as crime still continues to decline in 2025 far beyond a simple “return to normal,” other critical factors are likely at work.
One explanation is greater government investment in community infrastructure, from jobs to streets to treatment programs. This included historic investment in comprehensive safety strategies like community violence intervention (CVI) and alternative crisis response thanks to the 2021 American Rescue Plan Act and the 2022 Bipartisan Safer Communities Act. There has been promising evidence on the effectiveness of such policies on reducing crime for years, but they have never been implemented at such scale.
Boston, a pioneer in CVI, ended 2024 with its lowest murder count since the 1950s. After experiencing the national crime spike in 2020, Boston poured money into CVI and other violence prevention strategies. Mayor Michelle Wu credits the crime decline to coordination between police and community-based organizations like CVI groups, as well as other preventative programs like providing 10,000 summer youth jobs. The city’s Plan to End Violence is a whole-of-government approach that involves coordination between public health entities, community groups, law enforcement, and many others—not only responding to violence but also taking factors that drive it.
Boston’s success is not an anomaly, with local leaders in cities like Baltimore, Detroit, and St. Louis also crediting jaw-dropping declines in violent crime to violence prevention efforts.
Importantly, even as it may take decades to fully understand the pandemic-era crime spike, we do know what didn’t drive crime up. Contrary to the claims of many politicians and pundits, research has made clear that the crime increase was not the result of criminal justice reforms like bail reform, police accountability measures, or releasing more people from jail and prison. While rising crime made easy targets of such policies that were already under attack, the pandemic allowed researchers and policymakers to demonstrate how safely such measures can be undertaken.
Why it matters whether Trump gets credit
The question of who or what gets credit for the crime decline will be critical in determining how the country approaches safety moving forward. Just as the country has shifted toward recognizing that safety requires more than police and prisons, it could easily go backwards.
The Trump administration has worked quickly to undo many of the programs and investments that likely helped drive down crime. It has slashed staff and funding for agencies across the government that deliver services proven to reduce crime, like mental health and substance use treatment and affordable housing. Of particular concern are more than $800 million in cuts to DOJ grant funding, of which more than $168 million went to community safety and violence prevention, along with looming cuts to Medicaid. The administration has signaled that it is more invested in things like “uplifting the image of the law enforcement profession” than community violence intervention.
And despite the historic pace of the crime decline, not everyone has felt the benefits. Austin, Louisville, and Memphis all ended 2024 with homicides significantly above pre-pandemic levels (though early numbers for 2025 look promising in all three cities). In New York City, while murder is declining and shootings are plummeting, violent crime in 2024 was nearly 30 percent higher than in 2019 (though also trending positively in 2025). And across the country, Black Americans are still reporting higher rates of victimization. Progress is by no means guaranteed, and much work remains to be done.
With a combination of rising crime and a government willing to pump money into evidence-based strategies, the pandemic may have been a once-in-a-generation chance to change how the country envisions safety. The crime decline may very well not survive the Trump administration at all—something that might not bother a president who prefers chaos and has a history of simply insisting that crime stats are false.
In the long term, Trump might prefer to maintain a narrative of disorder, as when he sent the military into Los Angeles. This may not be difficult, given that Americans tend to think crime is rising despite numbers that say otherwise, with perceptions of crime distorted by news coverage, economic-related social disorder, and political rhetoric.
But if Trump successfully takes credit for the crime decline, it will distort and undermine the country’s understanding of what creates safety.
How to sustain this historic progress on safety
All this underscores the urgent need to set straight the narrative on crime and safety—early, often, and loudly.
We must remain clear about what actually works to drive down crime and make communities safe. That means fighting to restore grants to lifesaving programs and research and to preserve this funding going forward. It means federal lawmakers defending their bipartisan work to build safer communities. It means local leaders—along with experts, nonprofit leaders, and law enforcement—speaking out on the state of crime and how federal cuts have affected their communities. And it means media scrutinizing any specious claims around crime stats.
When we see success, no matter how modest or local—like a Baltimore neighborhood going a full year with no homicides—we must champion it and continue to collect the data to understand what worked. In the longer term, we must continue to improve our understanding of crime and study the crime decline so that we can continue to benefit from its drivers.
The Trump administration has gone to great lengths to undermine safety and justice, and it must not be allowed to profit from or deride the hard work of so many people to reduce crime and deliver safety.
“CRIME IS DOWN IN 2025 – TRUMP DOESN’T DESERVE CREDIT”
But if crime was up you can bet Trump would’ve got the blame.
Whether he would or wouldn’t, something like 95% of the criminal justice system is based in the states and local counties and the president and federal government has almost no impact on it.
“something like 95% of the criminal justice system is based in the states and local counties and the president and federal government has almost no impact on it”
So then why is this article mostly about Trump? I have three letters for it, but the Vanguard will not allow me to say those letters in true Vanguard fashion.
Ask the author
That said, I think the author explains in the article pretty well why Trump is mentioned. “The question of who or what gets credit for the crime decline will be critical in determining how the country approaches safety moving forward. ” Do you read these articles before you comment?
“Do you read these articles before you comment?”
Most of the time. But when I see a headline like the one here I know exactly where it’s going and it honestly gets so tiresome. Those three letters again.
KO say: “Those three letters again.”
I thought ‘crisis’ was six letters
Keith O
If the trend in the declining crime rate had reversed in early 2025 and there is no apparent other explanation (e.g., a pandemic or a recession), then Trump probably would have deserved some degree of blame. However, right now he’s just surfin’ on good fortune. https://www.statista.com/statistics/191219/reported-violent-crime-rate-in-the-usa-since-1990/
Locking up criminals reduces crime – that’s been proven via recidivism rates when they’re released.
This isn’t rocket science.
As far as the other programs, I simply don’t trust any statistics I read from those opposed to incarceration. If those programs work, I’ll wait for actual analysis that’s not coming from activists. Eventually, it would be reported by mainstream media.
I’m pretty sure that the “I’m sowwy” programs (restorative justice) don’t work, however. The reason being that it makes no logical sense.
Simply put, there are people in the world who don’t care about others. Never have, and never will. As such, I don’t know why society needs to care about them. If they’re likely to re-offend, keep them in prison until they’re no longer a threat to those who AREN’T committing crimes against others.
Skepticism isn’t a substitute for evidence — especially when you refuse to look at any.
Like I said, I don’t consider evidence from biased sources – those with an agenda.
If there’s any truth to it, it will eventually be reported by less-biased sources.
Then again, the media itself is sometimes biased (or downright lazy), such as when it comes to reporting on and analyzing the fake housing crisis. Essentially repeating what they’re told FROM biased sources, without any analysis of their own.
I do believe that the media in general has become increasingly biased, more-lazy, etc. (The exact opposite of what I would have expected as a result of the Internet.)
There was a time when winning a Pulitzer Prize, for example, meant something. Also, a time when programs like 60 Minutes were more important.
But sure, if there’s actual programs that reduce crime (other than locking up criminals – which is PROVEN to work), then that’s great.
“I simply don’t trust any statistics I read from those opposed to incarceration.”
Bingo. Me neither.
Often times I’ll go to the institution’s home page and check out their mission statement. If I see the words progressive or social justice I pretty much disregard their findings.
Bingo me three
Ah yes, the ol’ spin it so the current administration doesn’t get the credit trick. Yes . . .
More complicated than that. Again, the federal government doesn’t have a lot of control over crime measures because most of the crime measures are dealt with by state and local. But while I understand why they framed it the way they did they handed you guys who aren’t gonna read this carefully a nice little cudgel.
Trump CAN theoretically take credit for deporting criminals, though I understand it’s only a handful so far. (Not enough to make a statistical difference.)
He might also take credit for changing the general “atmosphere” (e.g., returning to tough-on-crime stances).
As far as causes for any increase or decrease in crime (or any other issue), it’s almost always correlation, not cause that can be proven. (That’s often the only conclusion that can be derived from “evidence”. You already know that, as well.)
Though it’s pretty well-established that those in prison are not engaging in more crime outside of prison, while incarcerated. Unless they have an accomplice on the outside. In that case, you can actually PROVE a “cause” for a reduction in crime – at least for those individuals. (Actually, more than a “reduction” – more of an outright elimination.)
The death penalty is even more indisputable evidence of a “cause” of an elimination in crime by those individuals.
You understand that’s pretty thin. But again the op-ed handed you a bit of a cudgel.
Well, I don’t believe that Trump is responsible for any statistical change, anyway. I don’t believe that MOST of what politicians say they’re responsible for actually are what they’re responsible for.
I do know that Trump is responsible for tariffs, though I’m never sure what they are on a particular day. I guess it remains to be seen what Trump is responsible for in regard to Iran, Israel, Gaza, Ukraine, etc. (Other than some holes in the ground in Iran that I saw on the news.)
I do suspect that Trump is responsible for a significant decrease in illegal immigration, and has probably caused some immigrants to return to their home countries. Most of whom are probably not committing other crimes (besides entering the country illegally).
I’m increasingly-concerned, however, that Trump and his allies are going to be responsible for selling off enormous swaths of public land.
In any case, any statistics regarding crime are probably due to a variety of factors, as the article itself noted.
agree with most of what you said, especially with this – “ I don’t believe that MOST of what politicians say they’re responsible for actually are what they’re responsible for”
Studies on causes of crime rates show three prime factors: economic conditions and opportunities, high school graduation rates, and the share of the population under 19. The presence of a death penalty or a three-strikes law shows no effect based on cross-state analysis. If we want to decrease the crime rate, we need to educate and employ more young people.