Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Fact check: Crime rates from Republican and Democratic stars
Executive Summary
A clear pattern in the supplied analyses shows that homicide and violent crime trends do not map neatly onto a blue-versus-red political divide; multiple recent data points indicate high murder rates in some Republican-led states and cities, while overall national homicide and violent crime rates fell in 2024 and continued declining into 2025 [1] [2] [3]. Claims that “Democratic-run cities are uniquely driving crime” are contradicted by city- and state-level rankings that place many high-homicide jurisdictions in Republican states and by studies that emphasize multiple crime metrics beyond homicide [1] [4] [5].
1. Why the “Red States vs. Blue Cities” Claim Looks Appealing — and Misleading
Political narratives often simplify crime as a partisan outcome, but the data in the supplied analyses show mixed geographic patterns: Axios identified 13 of the 20 U.S. cities with the highest murder rates located in Republican-run states, undermining a simple blue-city = high-crime frame [1]. At the same time, other sources stress that cities with high violent crime include both traditionally Democratic-led and Republican-led jurisdictions, which points to complex local drivers such as poverty, policing policy, drug markets, and social services rather than statewide party control alone [5] [6]. The persistence of this simplification in political messaging appears driven by selective use of city examples on both sides [7].
2. The Broad Picture: National Homicide and Violent Crime Trends Are Improving
Multiple recent reports document a meaningful decline in homicides and violent crime nationally: the FBI recorded a drop in homicide rates to about 5 per 100,000 residents in 2024 and reported decreases in intentional homicides and violent crime overall, while the Council on Criminal Justice found homicides fell further in early 2025 [1] [2] [3]. These near-concurrent findings from independent sources indicate a national trend of falling violence that contradicts narratives of an ongoing national crime wave driven by Democratic governance, and instead suggests year-to-year variation and local factors are central to current changes [2] [3].
3. State Rankings and Composite Measures Tell a Nuanced Story
Analyses that aggregate multiple indicators of crime and justice performance produce different state-level pictures than single-metric comparisons. The Independent Institute project cited places California lower in some composite measures despite Governor Newsom noting California’s comparatively low homicide rate, while poorer-performing states include New Mexico, Alaska, and Tennessee and higher-performing states include Maine and New Hampshire [4]. This underscores that single measures—like homicide rate alone—can obscure broader criminal justice performance, and composite indexes can shift which states appear “better” or “worse” on crime [4].
4. City-Level Lists Reveal Cross-Party Problems, Not a One-Party Cause
Multiple city-level lists consistently include municipalities led by different parties: Memphis, Detroit, Baltimore, and Kansas City appear on high-crime lists, illustrating both blue and red jurisdictions are affected [5]. Axios’s finding that many top murder-rate cities are in Republican states complicates the claim that Democratic municipal policies are the primary driver of crime. At the same time, CNN’s reporting that some Republican governors’ states have higher violent-crime rates than DC highlights that political leadership at the state level does not guarantee uniformly lower city crime [7] [1].
5. What the Data Omit: Local Contexts and Nonhomicide Crime Trends
The supplied analyses repeatedly caution that focusing solely on homicide misses other dimensions: aggravated assault, robbery, and nonviolent offenses also shape perceptions and realities of crime, and they vary by jurisdiction [4]. Reports emphasizing falling homicides do not automatically mean every locality is improving, and some cities or neighborhoods can see persistent violent crime even while national rates decline. This gap suggests that policy discussions should integrate multiple offense types and local socioeconomic context rather than drawing broad partisan conclusions from a single metric [4] [6].
6. Competing Agendas and How They Use the Same Data
Different actors use overlapping datasets to advance opposite narratives: governors or commentators invoke city lists to blame opposing-party cities, while analysts cite national declines to argue policies are working [4] [7]. The sources show this selective framing: Axios and independent researchers emphasize geographic distributions and composite measures, while media pieces compare particular city rates to political decisions like National Guard deployments [1] [7]. The pattern indicates both sides selectively highlight favorable slices of data, making cross-source synthesis essential.
7. Bottom Line: Crime Is Real, Partisanship Alone Is Not the Cause
The supplied evidence demonstrates that crime patterns are geographically and temporally complex: national homicide and violent crime fell in 2024 and into 2025, many high-homicide cities are in Republican states, and composite state rankings differ from single-metric rankings [1] [2] [4]. Policymakers and the public should prioritize localized analysis, multi-metric measurement, and attention to socioeconomic drivers rather than attributing crime trends solely to whether leaders are Republican or Democratic [4] [3].