Is sending in the National Guard the answer to urban crime? While political rhetoric heats up, recent data tells a different story about violent crime trends in major US cities. Delve into the stats and expert opinions. What truly makes our communities safer?
President Trump’s assertions regarding the need for National Guard deployments in major U.S. cities to combat crime starkly contrast with recent statistical evidence indicating a nationwide decline in violent crime, prompting a deeper examination of the actual state of public safety in urban centers.
The President has frequently vocalized intentions to deploy federal law enforcement and the National Guard to several prominent, largely Democrat-led cities, including Chicago, New York, Seattle, Baltimore, San Francisco, and Portland. This aggressive stance is predicated on the belief of rampant, uncontrolled crime, despite having already implemented similar federal interventions in Washington D.C.
However, comprehensive data from various sources, including AH Datalytics which meticulously tracks crime across the country, reveals a consistent post-pandemic trend of decreasing violent crime. Homicides, for example, were down significantly through the first six months of 2025 compared to the same period in 2024, challenging the narrative of escalating danger.
City-specific crime statistics further underscore this divergence. Aggravated assaults, which encompass nonfatal shootings, decreased in Chicago, Portland, Seattle, Baltimore, and San Francisco, and remained largely stable in New York during the first half of 2025. While localized increases in crimes like rape were noted, property crimes such as theft and burglary also largely saw declines in these targeted urban areas.
Experts in public safety, such as John Roman, director of the Center on Public Safety & Justice at the University of Chicago, acknowledge that some urban neighborhoods grapple with persistent violence. Yet, he asserts that no U.S. city is currently experiencing a widespread “crisis” that would necessitate federal military intervention, suggesting the President’s claims may be exaggerated.
Public perception often paints a different picture from the raw crime statistics; a recent survey indicated that 81% of Americans view crime as a “major problem” in large cities. However, support for federal control over local police departments is considerably lower at 32%, highlighting a clear distinction between public concern and a desire for specific federal intervention. Democratic officials in the cities singled out by Trump have publicly rejected the notion that their communities require the National Guard.
The President’s focus appears to carry a political dimension, as he largely overlooks crime rates in Republican-leaning states while targeting Democratic strongholds. Maryland Governor Wes Moore and other experts advocate for sustainable local solutions to urban crime, such as mentorship programs, social services, and job opportunities, rather than deploying troops for municipal policing purposes, which they deem unsustainable and potentially unconstitutional.
Vice President JD Vance has publicly supported governors and mayors in requesting federal assistance to address public safety concerns, while also asserting the administration’s potential “legal right to clean up America’s streets.” This stance raises critical questions regarding federal overreach and the delicate balance between federal and local jurisdiction in law enforcement matters, particularly concerning the use of military assets.
Ultimately, the ongoing debate illuminates the complex interplay between political rhetoric, public perception, and empirical crime statistics. It underscores a significant divergence between pronouncements of widespread urban crisis and the actual data reflecting a nuanced, often improving, landscape of public safety across the United States, prompting a reevaluation of federal intervention strategies.
