Is a National Guard deployment the answer to urban crime, or are the numbers telling a different story? Former President Trump’s recent threats spark a heated debate, but official statistics reveal surprising trends in major US cities. What’s truly behind the call for federal intervention, and what does the data actually say about public safety? You won’t believe the full picture!

Former President Donald Trump has reignited national debate by threatening to deploy the National Guard to several major U.S. cities, citing what he describes as rampant crime. This bold assertion, aimed at municipalities like Chicago, New York, and Seattle, posits a federal solution to urban violence, raising significant questions about local governance and the true state of public safety across the nation.

However, an in-depth analysis of recent crime statistics paints a strikingly different picture than the one portrayed by the former president. Data compiled from various law enforcement agencies and public safety research centers indicates a general decline in most violent crime categories across many of these targeted urban centers in recent years, directly challenging the narrative of a widespread crime crisis.

The selection of cities for potential federal intervention appears to be politically charged. All six cities specifically mentioned – Chicago, New York, Seattle, Baltimore, San Francisco, and Portland, Oregon – are predominantly Democratic-led and reside in states that opposed Trump in the 2024 election. Notably, no major cities in Republican-leaning states, even those with comparable or higher crime rates, have been subjected to similar threats regarding National Guard deployment.

Experts in public safety and data analysis largely dismiss the notion of a national urban crime crisis that would warrant such a significant federal response. John Roman, director of the Center on Public Safety & Justice at the University of Chicago, emphasizes that while violence persists in certain neighborhoods, no U.S. city is experiencing a crisis level of crime. Critics argue that deploying the National Guard for municipal policing is not a sustainable, scalable, constitutional, or respectful approach to local law enforcement challenges.

Despite the data, public perception often diverges from reality. A recent survey revealed that a vast majority of Americans, approximately 81%, view crime as a “major problem” in large cities. This perception, potentially fueled by selective reporting and political rhetoric, often overlooks the nuanced improvements in crime rates, though support for federal control of local police remains much lower, at 32%.

Drilling down into specific crime trends reveals a more encouraging outlook. Aggravated assaults, which encompass non-fatal shootings, saw a decrease through June in cities such as Chicago, Portland, Seattle, Baltimore, and San Francisco, with New York experiencing negligible change. While reports of rape increased in New York and Chicago during the first half of the year, other cities like San Francisco reported significant drops, including a notable 51% decline. Property crimes, including theft and burglary, also mostly declined across these six cities.

Baltimore, once labeled a “hellhole” by Trump, serves as a compelling case study for effective local crime reduction strategies. The city has reported substantial drops in major crime, with homicides and rapes decreasing by 25% or more in the first half of 2025 compared to the previous year. This success is attributed to community-led initiatives focusing on mentorship, social services, and job opportunities for at-risk youth, demonstrating the efficacy of local, tailored solutions over external military intervention.

The former president’s selective focus on Democratic strongholds contrasts sharply with his silence on crime in cities within states that generally favor Republicans. For instance, Charlotte, North Carolina, experienced an increase in homicides, and Indianapolis reported a homicide rate more than four times higher than New York’s in 2024. The absence of threats to deploy federal troops to these cities underscores the apparent political motivations behind the National Guard rhetoric.

Ultimately, local elected officials in the targeted cities have strongly rejected the premise that their communities require federal military presence for policing. Leaders like San Francisco Mayor Daniel Lurie assert that “Crime is at its lowest point in decades, visitors are coming back, and San Francisco is on the rise,” emphasizing confidence in local law enforcement and community-driven initiatives to maintain public safety without the need for federal intervention.