Are Murder Rates Plummeting Under Donald Trump? What We Know
Co-Founder of AH Datalytics, Jeff Asher, found that as of early May 2025, murders have fallen by 31.6 percent in Baltimore, 34.5 percent in St. Louis, 36.8 percent in Cleveland, 63 percent in Denver, 30.6 percent in New Orleans, 26.8 percent in New York, and 23.7 percent in Chicago.
The White House is taking credit for this fall. However, this reduction in homicides is part of a larger trend. In June 2024, homicide rates were down nearly 20 percent from 2023, and in 2023, homicide rates dropped by 13 percent from 2022.
Asher told Newsweek: "I think that it would be hard to give credit towards administration action, given that it really just a continuation of trends [and continuing on] momentum from things that were happening before."
Homicide rates skyrocketed during the pandemic, and are now falling to lower than pre-pandemic levels, signaling a positive move away from the lingering impacts of COVID-19 on American society.
In 2020, during President Donald Trump's first term, the U.S. saw the fastest spike in murders in recorded history, with cities seeing an average rise in homicides of 30 percent, per the Brookings Institution.
More than 24,000 Americans died by homicide in the U.S. in 2020. These numbers remained high in 2021 and 2022.
Data analysis by the Brookings Institution found that homicide spikes occurred alongside spikes in unemployment in low-income areas, pointing to how a significant rise in people out of work could lead to higher crime rates.
Since then, homicide rates have been falling year on year. If rates continue to fall this year, then 2025 could see the lowest murder rate ever recorded in the U.S. As of mid-2025, the lowest recorded murder rate was in 2014.
In a post to Bluesky, Asher said: "It's still not clear how much it'll hold up for the rest of the year, but the drop in murder so far in 2025 is remarkable."
Asher told Newsweek that federal funding of community resources and construction can lead to a reduction in crime rates. In general, he is skeptical of the impact that any federal government can have on murder rates.
He added that, given the newness of the Trump administration to office, it is difficult to determine what impact it may have had on current homicide rates.
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told the Daily Signal: "American families were promised their communities would be safer and President Trump swiftly delivered by vocally being tough on crime, unequivocally backing law enforcement, and standing firm on violent criminals being held to the fullest extent of the law."
Jeff Asher told Newsweek: "I think it's generally beyond the scope of any piece of legislation or any piece of federal action that tends to be a major driver [in homicide rates]."
If homicide rates continue to fall, 2025 could see the lowest murder rate in recorded history.
Related Articles
Trump's Second-Term Agenda Faces Early Test In New Jersey PrimariesDonald Trump Speaks About Elon Musk's Drug UseLA's Only Elected Republican Reacts to National Guard Troops, ICE RaidsCalifornia Republican: Gavin Newsom Should 'Absolutely Not' Be Arrested
2025 NEWSWEEK DIGITAL LLC.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
15 minutes ago
- New York Post
Zohran Mamdani mentions Andrew Cuomo in same breath as Jeffrey Epstein in new video
Mayoral front-runner Zohran Mamdani is going nuclear on rival Andrew Cuomo — attempting to link the ex-governor to Jeffrey Epstein in a new scorched-earth campaign video. In the 90-second TikTok-style spot, Mamdani, looking into the camera, demands that Cuomo release his list of consulting clients, noting the ex-gov once worked on a luxury marina project with a pal, Andrew Farkas, whose former business partner was Epstein. 'In June, the New York Times found out that Cuomo worked with his longtime friend Andrew Farkas on a luxury marina project in Puerto Rico. Farkas' previous partner on Caribbean luxury marinas was none other than Jeffrey Epstein,' Mamdani says. 8 Democratic mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani released a scathing new attack ad against his rival former Gov. Andrew Cuomo. YouTube/@ZohranforNYC 8 The video lists of a number of alleged scandals involving the ex-governor — even linking him to Jeffrey Epstein. SARAH YENESEL/EPA/Shutterstock The mud-slinging from Mamdani comes days after Cuomo hammered the socialist for snagging a $2,300 rent-stabilized apartment in Astoria despite his family's apparent wealth. Cuomo even proposed 'Zohran's Law' to prevent well-to-do residents from obtaining rent-restricted apartments. The new spot starts with Mamdani noting that Cuomo 'resigned in disgrace and you probably know why' — then shows footage and articles about women who accused the then-gov of sexual misconduct and the controversy surrounding his nursing home policies during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Democratic mayoral nominee demands that Cuomo release the list of clients from the consulting firm he launched in 2022 after he exited the governor's office, Innovative Strategies LLC. Mamdani gripes in the video that Cuomo has not divulged who paid him. But published reports have said Cuomo worked for a crypto currency exchange based in the Seychelles that eventually pleaded guilty to operating illegally in the US. The Democratic socialist Queens assemblyman also notes that Cuomo did not initially disclose $2.6 million in stock options from a nuclear company to the New York City Conflicts of Interest Board. 8 The ad mentions that Cuomo worked on a luxury marina project in Puerto Rico with friend Andrew Farkas — who was a business partner with Epstein. New York State Sex Offender Registry via AP 8 Mamdani's ad highlights a Bloomberg article showing a link between Epstein and Farkas. YouTube/@ZohranforNYC 'His excuse? The stocks were technically owned by Innovation Strategies LLC – where Cuomo is the sole member,' Mamdani says. 'That's the thing about Andrew Cuomo: once you think you've learned all the scandals, you find out there's another. And another. And another. ' Cuomo can clear the air, Mamdani says, adding: 'Habibi – release your client list.' 8 A photo of Cuomo with Farkas shown in the Mamdani ad. YouTube/@ZohranforNYC A rep for Cuomo gleefully responded that they could 'smell the desperation from conspiracy peddling' in Mamdani's attack. '[Cuomo] didn't know Epstein, but you can smell the desperation from conspiracy peddling Zohran,' said Cuomo campaign spokesman Richard Azzopardi. The former governor — who is running as an independent in the November election after getting soundly bested by Mamdani in the Democratic primary — also has vehemently denied he sexually harassed anyone. 8 Mamdani also bashed Cuomo over his COVID-19 book scandal. YouTube/@ZohranforNYC One campaign strategist said Mamdani's ad was a 'gutsy move' — and likely a response to Cuomo scoring points by hitting him for his rent-stabilized apartment. 'It's a gutsy move. Mamdani is defining Cuomo to general election voters on his terms,' said O'Brien 'OB' Murray, who has run campaigns for Republicans and Democrats. He said Mamdani is not leaving it to campaign surrogates to do the dirty work and is willing to go toe-to-toe with Cuomo. 8 Mamdani also took a shot at Cuomo's performance in the city's Democratic mayoral primary. YouTube/@ZohranforNYC 'It's a page out of Donald Trump's playbook. When the candidates say something about an opponent, voters pay attention to it,' Murray said. But Mamdani risks 'tarnishing' his image by getting in the mud with Cuomo, even if he wants to keep the focus on the ex-gov's past scandals, said Lee Miringoff, director of the Marist University Institute for Public Opinion. 'The Cuomo people are probably happy to draw a response. They want to engage Mamdani,' Miringoff said. 'Zohran risks tarnishing his image.' 8 Mamdani called on Cuomo to release the list of clients involved with his consulting firm Innovative Strategies LLC. YouTube/@ZohranforNYC Azzopardi dismissed the video as 'nothing more than a temper tantrum from an insecure child of privilege who knows his tenuous lead is slipping away.' He said the project in question with Farkas never got off the ground, and in regards to his consultancy business, Cuomo does not comment on those 'private client matters' and has not represented anyone with business before a New York city or state agency. Azzopardi also said the stock options were publicly disclosed in Federal Communication Commission files for years. 'There was a question about if and how they were required to be disclosed on city filings, which, after consulting with the Conflict of Interest board, we corrected the same day the matter was brought to our attention,' the Cuomo rep said. 'Try as he might, Zohran can't distract from the rank hypocrisy of growing up wealthy, owning hundreds of thousands of dollars of land in a country that has the death penalty for LGBTQIA people and making more than $140k a year for a job he doesn't show up to while taking a rent stabilized apartment meant for a working New Yorker, not to mention his flip flopping on the defund the police and supporting pro-Hamas criminals like the Holy Land Five,' Azzopardi said. 'He's a total fraud and with every passing day New Yorkers see it.'
Los Angeles Times
15 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
Tariff ‘Mission Accomplished' hype is just that
On May 1, 2003, George W. Bush announced, 'Major combat operations in Iraq have ended.' He was standing below a giant banner that read, 'Mission Accomplished.' At the risk of inviting charges of understatement, subsequent events didn't cooperate. But it took a while for that to be widely accepted. We're in a similar place when it comes to President Trump's experiment with a new global trading order. 'Tariffs are making our country Strong and Rich!!!' proclaims Trump, making him not only the first Republican president in living memory to brag about raising taxes on Americans, but also the first to insist that raising taxes on Americans makes us richer. MAGA's mission-accomplished groupthink relies primarily on three arguments. The first is that Trump has successfully concluded a slew of beneficial trade deals. The truth is that some of those deals are simply 'frameworks' that will take a long time to be ironed out. But Trump got the headlines he wanted. The second argument is a kind of populism-infused sleight of hand. The 'experts' — their scare quotes, not mine — are wrong once again. The White House social media account crows, 'In April, 'experts' called tariffs 'the biggest policy mistake in 95 years.' By July, they generated OVER $100 BILLION in revenue. Facts expose the haters: tariffs WORK. Trust in Trump.' But the high-fivers are leaving things out. The most-dire predictions of economic catastrophe were based on the scheme Trump announced on April 2, a.k.a. 'Liberation Day.' Trump quickly backed off that plan ('chickened out' in Wall Street parlance) in response to a bond and stock market implosion. Saying the experts were wrong under those circumstances is like saying experts opposed to defenestration were wrong when they successfully convinced a man not to jump out a window. The third argument, made by the White House and many others — that tariffs are working because they're raising money — is a response to a claim no one made. To my knowledge, no expert claimed tariffs wouldn't raise money. The estimates of these revenues from Trump world are stratospheric. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick expects somewhere between $700 billion and $1 trillion per year. Last month, the government collected $29 billion. It's likely this number will significantly increase as more tariffs come online and businesses run down the inventory they stockpiled earlier this year in anticipation of more tariffs to come. Normally, Republicans don't exult over massive revenues from tax hikes. But Trump's defenders get around this problem by insisting that money is 'pouring' and 'flowing' into America from someplace else. It's true that tariff revenue is pouring into the Treasury, but that money is coming out of American bank accounts, because American importers pay the tariff. Even Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent cannot deny this when pressed. So yes, tariffs are 'working' the way they're supposed to; the problem is Trump thinks tariffs work differently than they do. It's possible some foreign exporters might lower prices to maintain market share, and some American businesses might absorb the costs — for now — to avoid sticker shock for inflation-beleaguered consumers, but what revenue is generated still comes from Americans. Ultimately it means higher prices paid here, reduced profits for businesses here or reduced U.S. trade overall. Sometimes, when pressed, defenders of the administration will concede the true source of the revenues, but then they say the pain is necessary to force manufacturers and other businesses to build and produce in the United States. It's backdoor industrial policy masquerading as trade policy. That, too, might 'work.' But all of this will take time, no matter what. And, if it works, that will have costs, too. Manufacturing in America is more expensive — that's why we manufacture so much stuff abroad in the first place. If this 'reshoring' happens, our goods will be more expensive, and less money will 'pour in' from tariffs. It's difficult to exaggerate how well-understood all of this was on the American right until very recently. But the need to grab any argument available to declare Trump's experiment a success has a lot of people not only abandoning their previous dogma but leaping to the conclusion that the dogma was wrong all along. Maybe it was, though I don't think so. The evidence so far suggests that problems are looming. The dollar is weakening. Prices continue to rise. The job market is reeling. The stock market (an unreliable metric, according to MAGA, when it plummeted after Liberation Day) is holding on, thanks to tech stocks. The truth is we won't have real evidence for a while. It's worth remembering that Americans don't live by headlines and press releases and they don't live in the macro economy either. Declaring 'Mission Accomplished' for the macro economy won't convince people they're better off in their own micro-economies when they're not. @JonahDispatch
Scientific American
15 minutes ago
- Scientific American
Trump Order Gives Political Appointees Vast Powers over Research Grants
US President Donald Trump issued an expansive executive order (EO) yesterday that would centralize power and upend the process that the US government has used for decades to award research grants. If implemented, political appointees — not career civil servants, including scientists — would have control over grants, from initial funding calls to final review. This is the Trump administration's latest move to assert control over US science. The EO, titled 'Improving Oversight of Federal Grantmaking', orders each US agency head to designate an appointee to develop a grant-review process that will 'advance the President's policy priorities'. Those processes must not fund grants that advance 'anti-American values' and instead prioritize funding for institutions committed to achieving Trump's plan for 'gold-standard science'. (That plan, issued in May, calls for the US government to promote 'transparent, rigorous, and impactful' science, but has been criticized for its potential to increase political interference in research.) Impacts might be felt immediately: the latest order directs US agencies, such as the National Institutes of Health (NIH), to halt new funding opportunities, which are calls for researchers to submit applications for grants on certain topics. They will be paused until agencies put their new review processes in place. On supporting science journalism If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today. Trump's EO comes after the US Senate — which, along with the House, ultimately controls US government spending — has, in recent weeks, mostly rejected his proposals to slash the federal budget for science, totalling nearly US$200 billion annually. The White House did not respond to questions from Nature about the EO. Negative reaction Trump, a Republican, has previously used EOs, which can direct government agencies but cannot alter existing laws, to effect policy change. In January, on his first day in office, he signed a slew of EOs with wide-ranging effects, from pulling the United States out of the Paris climate agreement to cutting the federal workforce, which had included nearly 300,000 scientists before he took office. Scientists and policy specialists have lambasted the latest EO on social media. 'This is a shocking executive order that undermines the very idea of open inquiry,' Casey Dreier, director of space policy for the Planetary Society, an advocacy group in Pasadena, California, posted to Bluesky. Also on Bluesky, Jeremy Berg, a former director of the NIH's National Institute of General Medical Sciences, called it a 'power grab'. Speaking to Nature, he said: 'That power is something that has not been exercised at all in the past by political appointees.' In a statement, Zoe Lofgren, a Democratic member of the US House of Representatives from California, called the EO 'obscene'. It could lead to political appointees 'standing between you and a cutting-edge cancer-curing clinical trial', she said. The EO justifies the changes to the grant-awarding process by casting doubts on past choices: it accuses the US National Science Foundation (NSF) of awarding grants to educators with anti-American ideologies and to projects on diversity, equity and inclusion, which are disfavoured by the Trump team. It also points to senior researchers at Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and Stanford University in California who have resigned over accusations of data falsification. To 'strengthen oversight' of grants, the EO imposes several restrictions, including prohibiting grants that promote 'illegal immigration' and prohibiting grant recipients from promoting 'racial preferences' in their work or denying that sex is binary. In some cases, the restrictions seem to contradict Congressional mandates. For instance, the NSF has, for decades, been required by law to broaden participation in science of people from under-represented groups — an action that takes race into consideration. In addition to these broader restrictions, the EO directs grant approvals to prioritize certain research institutions, such as those that have 'demonstrated success' in implementing the gold-standard science plan and those with lower 'indirect costs'. As part of its campaign to downsize government spending and reduce the power of elite US universities, the Trump administration has repeatedly tried to cap these costs — used to pay for laboratory electricity and administrative staff, for instance. It has proposed a flat 15% rate for grants awarded by agencies such as the NSF and the US Department of Energy, but federal courts have so far blocked such policies. Some institutions with the highest indirect-cost rates are children's hospitals, Berg told Nature. 'Does that mean they're just not going to prioritize research at children's hospitals?' he asks. Out for review At the heart of the grant-awarding process is peer review. Project proposals have typically had to pass watchful panels of independent scientists who scored and approved funding. 'Nothing in this order shall be construed to discourage or prevent the use of peer review methods,' the EO notes, 'provided that peer review recommendations remain advisory' to the senior appointees. The EO worries many researchers, including Doug Natelson, a physicist at Rice University in Houston, Texas. 'This looks like an explicit attempt to destroy peer review for federal science grants,' he says. Programme officers at agencies, who have been stewards of the grant-review process, are similarly alarmed. 'The executive order is diminishing the role of programme officers and their autonomy to make judgments about the quality of the science,' says an NSF employee who requested anonymity because they are not authorized to speak with the press. 'That's disheartening, to say the least.'
