How do crime trends vary between large cities and suburban/rural areas since the Trump administration?
Executive summary
Since 2017 the geography of crime in the United States has shown two durable patterns: large urban areas consistently record higher violent- and property‑victimization rates than suburban or rural areas, and the post‑pandemic years saw sharper upticks in urban violent victimization than elsewhere even as long‑term declines since the 1990s remained the backdrop [1] [2] [3]. However, the timing and size of those increases vary by year and data source, and reporting, survey methodology and political framing have all shaped perceptions of where crime rose most [4] [5] [6].
1. Urban areas: higher baseline and sharper pandemic‑era spikes
Data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics’ National Crime Victimization Survey show urban violent‑victimization rates substantially exceed rural ones throughout the period, with the urban rate at 24.5 per 1,000 in 2021 versus 11.1 in rural areas—a gap of more than double—and urban property victimization similarly higher than suburban or rural rates [1] [2]. The NCVS recorded a pronounced rise in urban violent victimizations from 2020 to 2021 and again from 2021 to 2022, with the urban rate rising 36% between 2021 and 2022 in one report, signaling that cities experienced larger year‑to‑year rebounds after the pandemic low [2] [6].
2. Suburbs and rural areas: lower rates but notable increases and different risks
Suburban and rural communities have lower victimization rates on average, yet some reporting shows significant percentage increases in certain offenses—Time documents large percentage jumps in robbery and aggravated assault in nonurban areas in 2022—and rural areas have seen troubling rises in specific places and types of offending, even if their absolute levels remain below urban figures [7] [8]. Rural violence and intimate‑partner and domestic‑violence challenges are also under‑resourced and underreported, which can make comparisons less straightforward [9] [8].
3. Long‑term decline versus short‑term volatility
Despite the pandemic‑era blips, the long‑running trend since the mid‑1990s has been a substantial fall in serious violent victimizations across urban, suburban and rural locales; the NCVS and Office for Victims of Crime materials emphasize dramatic declines since 1995 even while acknowledging more recent fluctuations [3] [5]. Thus the recent increases should be read as a reversal of a short‑term trough rather than a return to 1990s peak crime levels, though some 2022–2024 readings show meaningful increases in specific urban measures [6] [10].
4. Measurement, reporting and revision caveats that shape the story
Comparisons across place and time are complicated by methodological issues: the NCVS captures unreported crimes and changed in small ways in 2020–2021, the FBI shifted reporting systems, and many outlets caution against overinterpreting single‑year preliminary FBI numbers—factors that can magnify perceived urban spikes or mask suburban/rural shifts [4] [11] [5]. Analysts who emphasize urban spikes often point to NCVS patterns for 2021–2022, while others urge caution about year‑to‑year variance and reporting lags [2] [4].
5. Racial disparities, regional and resource context
Place‑based differences are layered atop regional and racial disparities in arrests and policing; academic research finds rural and small‑town areas can exhibit sharp racial arrest disparities and that resource constraints—fewer investigators, social services and shelters—shape both victimization and reporting in nonurban communities [12] [8]. These systemic factors mean that similar rates can conceal very different lived experiences and service gaps across urban, suburban and rural settings [9] [8].
6. Political narratives and incentives
Crime data have been aggressively politicized since 2017: some commentators and advocacy groups focus on urban spikes to press law‑and‑order agendas, while others highlight declines or local heterogeneity to counter nationalized panic; both sides selectively invoke NCVS or police data that best fit their message, so readers must weigh methodological caveats and local context when hearing claims about where crime rose most [6] [10] [4].
7. Bottom line for policymakers and the public
The evidence shows cities start from a higher baseline of violent and property victimization and experienced sharper post‑2020 increases in many measures, while suburbs and rural areas saw important localized rises and distinct problems—especially around underreporting and resource deficits—so policy responses require geographically targeted remedies rather than one‑size‑fits‑all claims about a national crime “wave” [1] [7] [3].