Fact check: US cities with Democrat mayors have higher crime rates than those with Republican mayors

1. What advocates of the claim actually say—and what they omit

Proponents of the claim point to city-level crime tallies and the fact that many large, high-crime cities currently have Democratic mayors, implying causation from party to crime. This framing omits critical context: large cities concentrate poverty, inequality, and housing instability—factors strongly correlated with crime independent of mayoral politics. Fact-checking organizations note that raw FBI tallies cannot be used to rank law enforcement effectiveness or to assign causation without controlling for these variables ^[3]. The omission of socioeconomic and geographic confounders creates a misleading association between party and safety.

2. The strongest empirical challenge: three-decades, 400-city studies

Two peer-reviewed analyses published in January 2025 used data spanning nearly three decades across about 400 U.S. cities and applied multiple causal inference methods to isolate mayoral party effects. Both studies conclude the partisanship of mayors has little to no impact on police employment, spending, arrests, or crime rates. Authors explicitly tested for causal effects and found results robust to alternative specifications, undermining claims that Democratic mayors systematically preside over higher crime ^{[1] [4]}. These studies represent the best-available, large-N evidence on the question.

3. Independent fact-checks and newsroom analyses reinforce the null finding

Major fact-checks and data journalism outlets reviewed the academic evidence and official crime data in 2025 and reached similar conclusions: cities led by Democratic mayors often report higher crime counts, but that pattern is explained by city size and structural factors, not mayoral party. Fact-checkers also highlight the FBI’s own warnings about using its UCR data to create competitive rankings, noting reporting differences and local context matter greatly ^[3]. These independent reviews add credence to the academic studies by situating them within real-world reporting complexities.

4. Why simple comparisons mislead: the multiplicity of confounders

Crime is influenced by a complex mix of factors—poverty, unemployment, segregation, police staffing, drug markets, housing policy, and regional trends—that correlate with both urbanization and political control. Large, diverse cities tend to vote Democratic and also face concentrated disadvantage, producing a spurious correlation if one compares party labels without adjustment. Researchers designed causal tests precisely to address these confounders and found the party label itself did not move the crime needle ^{[1] [2]}. Ignoring confounders risks attributing causality to political identity rather than structural drivers.

5. Where partisan narratives survive despite the evidence

Political actors and some media outlets continue to deploy crime data selectively to advance narratives about “soft-on-crime” governance by one party. Such framing often relies on cherry-picked cities or short time windows and amplifies volatility in year-to-year crime rates. Fact-checkers flagged these tendencies, noting possible agendas—political messaging aims to mobilize bases or justify policy proposals—while the empirical literature calls for policy-specific evaluation rather than blanket partisan judgments ^{[5] [3]}. Recognizing these incentives helps explain why the claim persists despite contrary research.

6. Important limits and remaining research questions

While large-sample studies find no average partisan effect, that does not preclude heterogeneous local impacts: specific policies, institutional arrangements, or mayor-police relationships might matter in particular cities. The existing research measures average effects across many contexts and years; targeted case studies could reveal how local choices interact with structural conditions. Fact-checks and scholars therefore caution against over-generalization: the absence of a detectable average effect does not mean politics never shapes public safety at a local level ^{[1] [4]}.

7. Bottom line for readers and policymakers

The evidence converges on a clear conclusion: the partisan label of a city’s mayor is not a reliable predictor of higher or lower crime rates when robust methods and controls are used. Claims that Democratic mayors cause higher crime rest on incomplete comparisons and omitted-variable bias, not on the weight of empirical research. Policymakers and voters should focus on concrete policies and local conditions—poverty reduction, housing stability, policing strategy—rather than partisan shorthand when assessing public safety ^{[2] [3]}.