How do U.S. mass shooting trends under Trump compare to Obama, Bush, and Biden when adjusted for population?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Comparing U.S. mass‑shooting trends across presidential terms is difficult because the underlying counts are small, definitions vary and year‑to‑year volatility is high; RAND and reporting note that chance variability and sensitivity to definitions make clear trend claims unreliable [1]. Multiple 2025 databases and news analyses show a sharp drop in mass killings/shootings in 2025 — for example, 17 mass killings in 2025 was reported as the fewest since 2006 by AP/Northeastern/USA Today [2] [3] while the Gun Violence Archive recorded roughly 381–388 mass shootings in 2025, down from 659 in 2023 [4] [5].
1. Why simple comparisons by president can mislead
Researchers and outlets warn that mass killings are rare events, so small absolute changes look large in percentage terms; RAND explicitly states chance variability and sensitivity to outliers/time frame make trend estimates unstable, which undermines straightforward comparisons between the Trump, Obama, Bush or Biden years [1]. Multiple reporters and experts quoted by AP and PBS reiterate the same point: because only a few dozen mass killings occur annually, fluctuations often reflect randomness rather than policy effects [2] [6].
2. Different databases, different definitions — and different stories
Analysts use at least two types of tallies: “mass killings” databases (AP/USA Today/Northeastern) that count incidents with multiple fatalities and the Gun Violence Archive (GVA) that counts incidents with four or more people shot, including nonfatal injuries. The AP/Northeastern database recorded 17 mass killings in 2025 — the lowest since 2006 — while GVA logged about 381 mass shootings in 2025 and Newsweek reported 388 through Dec. 11, showing the same downward direction but very different magnitudes because of definition differences [2] [7] [5].
3. What the recent drop (2024–2025) looks like in context
Multiple outlets documented a sharp decline in 2025 relative to recent peak years: Axios and AP note 2025’s mass killings were at their lowest since the dataset began in 2006, and GVA’s 2025 count is down substantially from 659 in 2023 [8] [2] [5]. Still, The Christian Science Monitor, PBS and others stress that a single‑year low is likely a return toward “typical” historical levels rather than definitive evidence of a long‑term reversal [4] [6].
4. What about population adjustment — and can we do it from available reporting?
Available sources emphasize volatility and definitional issues but do not provide per‑capita, president‑term‑adjusted rates in a consistent way across administrations. Pew’s overview notes age‑adjustment for CDC gun deaths but does not supply a cross‑presidential per‑capita mass‑shooting rate in the articles provided; therefore, sources here do not present a directly population‑adjusted comparison across Bush, Obama, Trump and Biden terms [1]. Not found in current reporting: a single accepted, population‑adjusted time series of mass‑shooting incidents tied to presidential terms drawn from the same uniform definition.
5. What researchers say about causes and policy links
Reporting suggests multiple hypotheses — from improved threat assessments in schools to broader community‑health efforts — but experts caution that causal attribution is premature because of low counts and definitional variance [6] [4]. Axios notes some policy shifts, such as the 2022 bipartisan gun safety bill, as potentially relevant to recent declines, but explicitly frames that as one possible factor among many rather than a proven driver [8].
6. Practical takeaway for comparisons across presidents
You can say that 2025 shows a notable dip in both mass killings (AP/Northeastern) and mass shootings (GVA) relative to recent years, but you cannot reliably conclude a sustained, president‑specific trend without standardized definitions, population adjustments and longer time windows; RAND and multiple journalists caution against overinterpreting single‑year swings [1] [2] [4]. Any authoritative claim that one president’s term had higher or lower per‑capita mass‑shooting risk than another would require a consistent dataset and explicit population adjustment not present in the current reporting [1] [5].
Limitations and next steps: use a single, transparent definition (fatalities threshold vs. victims shot), compute incidents per 100,000 population for each full presidential term, and run sensitivity checks for outlier years — none of which are provided in the sources cited here [1] [9].