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: Statistics of red vs blue states crime rates
Executive Summary
The data do not support a simple “red states are more violent” or “blue cities are to blame” narrative; recent analyses show cities with the highest homicide rates in 2024 were often located in Republican-led states, while rigorous statistical models that adjust for age, income, and racial composition find no independent partisan effect on homicide rates. Competing reports emphasize different slices of the same dataset—raw city-level homicide counts versus county- or state-level controls—and both political actors and commentators selectively cite findings to support partisan claims [1] [2] [3] [4] [5].
1. The Headline Claim: “Red States Have the Highest Murder Rates” — What the 2024 FBI Numbers Show
Publicized 2024 FBI figures and reporting highlighted that 13 of the 20 U.S. cities with the highest murder rates were located in states governed by Republicans, a framing that challenges messaging attributing the nation’s murder problem to Democratic-run cities alone. Journalistic accounts compiled city-level homicide rates and mapped them to state partisan control, producing a striking pattern that some high-homicide cities sit in Republican-led states [1] [3]. This raw-count approach is easy to communicate politically but does not account for population structure or socioeconomic differences that drive crime variation.
2. The Counterpoint: Adjusted Analyses Erase the Partisan Signal
Academic-style analyses that deploy multivariable models show the apparent red/blue homicide gap largely disappears once you control for age distribution, income, poverty, unemployment, and racial composition. Researchers note that these social characteristics are powerful predictors of homicide and violent crime; when included, partisanship of state or city officials adds little explanatory power to homicide rates. The implication is that partisan labels are acting as proxies for deeper structural factors rather than causing crime directly [2].
3. City vs. County vs. State: Geography Matters for the Narrative
Different studies measure different units—cities, counties, or states—and this choice materially alters conclusions. Reporting focused on the riskiest cities in 2024 finds many sit in Republican states, while other reports aggregating to counties or adjusting for metropolitan demographics show high-crime counties are often governed by Democrats and many high-murder cities have Democratic mayors. The mismatch stems from which geographic scale is chosen and whether political control is measured at the city, county, or state level [4] [5].
4. Recent Trends Complicate Simple Comparisons
Beyond cross-sectional snapshots, recent trends show violent crime in many large U.S. cities has been falling over the past two years, complicating claims of a persistent partisan pattern tied to contemporary governance. Some 2024–2025 reporting highlights declines in cities that are commonly cited as dangerous, undermining narratives that single-party policies are producing ongoing spikes. Short-term trends and year-to-year volatility mean that selective use of a single-year top-20 list can mislead about longer-term patterns [3].
5. Political Uses and Possible Agendas Behind the Statistics
Both conservative and progressive commentators deploy crime statistics to score political points: some conservative outlets emphasize high-homicide cities in Republican states to push a “red-state crisis” frame, while some progressive pieces highlight that many high-murder cities have Democratic mayors to argue the opposite. Each framing frequently omits the methodological caveats about controls and scale, suggesting that statistical slices are being used strategically rather than neutrally [4] [1].
6. What Stronger Evidence Looks Like: Controls, Time-Series, and Multiple Units
Robust assessment requires multivariable models, longitudinal data, and sensitivity checks across cities, counties, and states. Studies that include these elements show social and economic conditions explain most variance in homicide rates, not party labels. Analysts recommend combining controlled regression with time-series analyses and careful definition of political control (e.g., state governor vs. city mayor) to avoid conflating correlation with causation [2] [5].
7. Takeaway for Policymakers and the Public: Focus on Drivers, Not Labels
The evidence points to targeting underlying drivers—poverty, concentrated disadvantage, youth demographics, and policing resources—rather than relying on partisan shorthand. Policy debates that start from partisan claims often miss the structural interventions that research indicates matter for reducing homicide. Clearer public communication would present both raw counts and adjusted estimates so voters see how much of the partisan pattern survives rigorous controls [2] [5].
8. Final Assessment: A Mixed Picture That Demands Nuance
In summary, raw 2024 city homicide rankings show many high-rate cities in Republican-led states, but controlled analyses remove partisan effects, producing a nuanced conclusion: partisan labels alone are insufficient to explain crime patterns. Readers should view headline claims skeptically, demand clarity on geographic scale and controls, and recognize the potential political motives behind selective citations of crime data [1] [2] [3] [4] [5].