Analysis: Phony crime data won't stop Trump's troop deployments



President Donald Trump began his battle against urban crime when he federalized police and deployed National Guard troops in Washington, D.C., in August.

As if on cue, leftists pulled out statistics saying that crime in the nation's capital already had been decreasing, and they criticized Trump, calling his move dictatorial, a power grab, and overkill.

'Stay out of DC.'

After all, what's the point when Metropolitan Police Department stats say that, as of Friday, violent crime in D.C. is down 28% compared to 2024?

But those numbers essentially are meaningless. There are several reasons why.

RELATED: Democrats gloss over anti-ICE violence in Portland ahead of Trump's crackdown on 'domestic terrorists'

Photo by Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images

First, Blaze News recently published a fact-check noting that the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department has been accused by its own union of manipulating crime data. D.C. Police Commander Michael Pulliam reportedly was placed on paid administrative leave in May following the union's allegations.

What's more, Gregg Pemberton, chairman of the D.C. Fraternal Order of Police, told WRC-TV that higher-ups instructed officers to fudge data: "Instead of taking a report for a shooting or a stabbing or a carjacking, they will order that officer to take a report for a theft or an injured person to the hospital or a felony assault, which is not the same type of classification."

Pemberton noted that felony assaults aren't listed on the MPD's daily crime stats and aren't a requirement of the FBI's Uniform Crime Reporting program — and that there's "absolutely no way" crime in D.C. has declined as much as the department claims.

'Not a very livable place'

While violent crime in the nation's capital has received much of the attention of late, what about the far more frequent "petty" property crimes such as burglary, theft, and shoplifting?

The latest numbers from the FBI — which only account for reported crimes (and the less violent the offense, the more likely it will go unreported) — show only a marginal drop in property crimes in D.C. in 2024 compared to 2023.

For example, the FBI said larcenies dropped to 18,260 in 2024 from 19,752 in 2023, and motor vehicle thefts dropped to 5,328 in 2024 from 6,861 in 2023. Burglaries actually increased to 1,675 in 2024 from 1,666 in 2023.

The other factor is that overall crime in D.C. exploded in 2023. A compilation of the FBI numbers shows that violent crime in the nation's capital that year was a whopping 207.4% higher than the 50-state average, and property crime was 124.7% higher.

Yet, even the federal government's count shows that property crime didn't drop much in 2024 compared to 2023's historically bad numbers. So how much better have the D.C. streets really been of late when rampant theft and other property crimes still occur, and an untold number of incidents aren't even reported?

Even when crooks are arrested for 'petty' property crimes, in most cases — unless they involve high dollar amounts — they're misdemeanors that often aren't subject to bail, and the criminals are right back out on the streets.

Jeffrey H. Anderson — who served as director of the Bureau of Justice Statistics during Trump's first term — told Blaze News that the effects of not policing property crimes in D.C. "has only gotten worse" in the post-George Floyd and pandemic era.

In fact, Anderson said D.C. has been doing the "opposite" of broken-windows policing, which hits lower-level crime harder so more serious crime is less likely to get a foothold. But he said when items in stores in the nation's capital are "under lock and key" to prevent shoplifting and "lifestyle crimes" like turnstile jumping run rampant, it gives the impression that "nobody's in charge here" and sends a stark message: "Stay out of D.C."

Anderson added that it's all a "constant reminder that it's not a very livable place."

John R. Lott Jr., president of the Crime Prevention Research Center and former senior adviser for research and statistics in the Office of Justice Programs and the Office of Legal Policy at the Justice Department, told Blaze News about another disheartening factor: People overall seem "less confident" in the possibility of criminal convictions, and indeed citizens are "less likely to report crimes" as a result.

Lott added that it's more difficult these days to report crimes in some places, noting that often those who tell police about crimes after the fact are instructed to "come down to the station" to fill out police reports, which means they're less likely to go to the trouble — and thus fewer crimes are reported.

Anderson also noted that in regard to unreported crimes, people simply "don't trust police," and the National Crime Victimization Survey — which annually asks U.S. residents if they've been crime victims and explores related details and is far more reliable than FBI stats, he said — suggests that only half of the crimes that take place actually are reported to police.

RELATED: DC Dems are furious at Mayor Bowser for admitting Trump's troops are lowering crime

Photo by Eric Lee/Bloomberg via Getty Images

Fewer arrests, more crime

Anderson last September argued in a Wall Street Journal op-ed that "crime rates haven't been falling, and urban crime is far worse than it was in the pre-George Floyd era." And as far as the urban property-crime rate goes nationally, Anderson contended it's also getting worse. Property crimes "rose from 176.1 victimizations per 1,000 households in 2022 to 192.3 in 2023. That's part of a 26% increase in the urban property-crime rate since 2019. These numbers exclude rampant shoplifting, since the NCVS is a survey of households and not of businesses."

The result is easy to discern. In D.C. — and everywhere else — crooks commit property crimes significantly more often than violent crimes. And even when property crimes are reported, they're more likely to go unsolved, as stretched-thin law enforcement resources are more focused elsewhere.

In that vein, the Manhattan Institute published "Doing Less with Less: Crime and Punishment in Washington, DC" a little over a year ago, and part of it examines arrest numbers in the district in 2019 compared to a significant decline in certain arrests in 2023 — which, as noted, was a year in which D.C. crime exploded.

Yet, the study found that the steepest arrest declines were for "minor or quality-of-life crimes. Levels of arrests for prostitution, traffic violations, narcotics, disorderly conduct, liquor law violations, release violations, and driving while intoxicated, for example, have all collapsed." The study adds that such numbers indicate the "MPD has not only reduced its activity but focused the activity that remains on gun crimes (i.e., homicide and weapon violations)." In addition, the study notes that "the city has also experienced a decline in its capacity to investigate."

Plus, even when crooks are arrested for "petty" property crimes, in most cases — unless they involve high dollar amounts — they're misdemeanors that often aren't subject to bail, and the criminals are right back out on the streets. Then we'll soon see them once again ripping off stores with impunity.

In D.C., the consequences have been front and center. A few examples:

Trump's plan is working

In the meantime, Trump's federalization of D.C. police and infusion of National Guard troops appears to be working. Even Democrat Mayor Muriel Bowser — who's no Trump fan — acknowledged in August that the federal surge has helped drive down crime significantly. In fact, Bowser said carjackings fell by 87% during August's surge period, compared to the same period the previous year. Indeed, U.S. Customs and Border Protection agents stopped a D.C. carjacking.

But what about other cities to which Trump has been directing his attention? The president noted in August that he received calls from Democrats across the country asking him to clean up their cities like he's done in D.C.

Early on, Trump hinted that Chicago would be next, and predictably, leftist leaders like Mayor Brandon Johnson and Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker have been opposed to Trump's federal intervention. While the National Guard hasn't made an appearance there yet, the Associated Press said that "dozens of armed federal agents, in full tactical gear, walked the streets of some of the city's most prominent tourist and shopping areas" on Sunday.

RELATED: Pritzker and other libs melt down over Trump's 'Chipocalypse Now' meme, prompting a badly needed reality check

Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images

Left-wing pushback in Chicago mirrors the left-wing pushback in D.C. when it comes to crime stats.

NewsNation noted that Johnson and Pritzker said troops aren't necessary in Chicago "where homicides are down by 31%, shooting incidents have been reduced by 36% and crimes like robbery, burglary and car thefts are all down by between 21 and 36%, according to the Chicago Police Department." But tell that to residents of the Windy City who favor Trump's troops and federal agents.

NewsNation reported that even as leaders tout falling violent crime, Chicago faces a rash of smash-and-grab burglaries, store break-ins, and home invasions targeting the elderly. Sound familiar?

On to Portland and Memphis

National Guard troops are on their way to Memphis and Portland, and while the deployment in Portland is centered on violent anti-ICE activity, the move on Memphis looks to be a crackdown on overall crime.

But again, those same overtures in regard to crime stats have been ringing out loud and clear in regard to both cities. Reuters pointed out Monday that "violent crime in Portland has dropped in the first six months of 2025, according to preliminary data released by the Major Cities Chiefs Association in its Midyear Violent Crime Report." Memphis police in early September reported "historic crime reductions, with decreases across all major categories in the first eight months of 2025 compared to the same period in previous years."

No city seems to want Trump's federal deployments to help fight crime, despite his success in D.C.

Perhaps this thought-provoking TikTok message that user “thinkingnotsosimple2.0” posted in late August can help spell things out. The TikTok user — a black female — praised Trump's efforts in D.C., noting that she has gathered "video after video showing D.C., specifically Union Station, and how clean and safe it is" since Trump federalized police in the nation's capital.

"People don't understand how big of a deal this is, because the Capitol is right there within, like, a six- or seven-minute walk," she said, before adding that local residents "did not like walking there, whether in the daytime or the evening. Some people would take taxis just to avoid any type of encounters" with drug users and dealers.

She concluded: "People have been talking about cleaning this up for a decade. And you mean to tell me President Trump hasn't even had control for 30 days, and he cleaned it all up."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

EXCLUSIVE: SSA Rejects Whistleblower Claims, Slams Alleged Release Of Sensitive Data As ‘Highly Irresponsible’

'Actively mitigating the risk'

FDA Commissioner Faces Pressure To Limit Abortion Pill After Study Finds Increased Risks

[rebelmouse-proxy-image https://thefederalist.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/Screenshot-2025-04-29-at-9.01.30 AM-e1745938254545-1200x675.png crop_info="%7B%22image%22%3A%20%22https%3A//thefederalist.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/Screenshot-2025-04-29-at-9.01.30%5Cu202fAM-e1745938254545-1200x675.png%22%7D" expand=1]This isn’t the first time Makary has encountered questions about the status of mifepristone under his leadership.

Trump’s FBI Reforms Need To Include Ending Its Data Distortions On Crime

The FBI doesn't just have a transparency problem. They're actually distorting data to skew important crime statistics.

Ford's plan to turn the inside of your car into one big eavesdropping, ad-spewing smartphone



Be careful what you say while driving — your car may be listening.

Automaker Ford has recently applied for a patent for what it calls the“In-Vehicle Advertisement Presentation System.”

If this doesn’t anger you, wait till you're bombarded with texts, messages on your center screen, and more garbage emails.

This technology uses in-car microphones to listen to passengers’ conversations and display targeted advertisements. It can also analyze voice commands and navigation data to serve relevant ads, like promoting local businesses or services.

This is no doubt welcome news for those of us who can't get enough of billboards — or those of us who've always wished our vehicles could invade our privacy as much as our smartphones do.

The Ford patent is just one of the ways automakers are exploring ways to monetize user data — a sign that the days of the automobile as a sanctuary for private conversations are coming to a close.

But the Ford Global Technologies patent is particularly invasive, demonstrating insidious “systems and methods” to bombard you with personalized ads.

Not only would the new technology be able to listen to conversations, it would also capture and analyze data such as vehicle location, speed, and traffic conditions.

The system would also use information on the driver’s destination and location history to predict what kind and what length ads to show them.

Listening to passengers' conversations would also help the company learn how they react to the ads and the best times to run them through audio and human-machine interface systems installed in the car.

The application also mentions using historical user data and third-party app information to refine ad targeting.

Ford has shrugged off any privacy concerns.

"Submitting patent applications is a normal part of any strong business as the process protects new ideas and helps us build a robust portfolio of intellectual property," a Ford spokesperson told the Record. "The ideas described within a patent application should not be viewed as an indication of our business or product plans."

In other words: We're not really doing it ... and it's good that we're doing it.

In a follow-up statement, Ford said it "will always put the customer first in the decision-making behind the development and marketing of new products and services."

The patent application does not offer specifics regarding data-protection measures, likely adding to the unease expressed by privacy advocates.

While such a system would rely heavily on data, the patent doesn’t show the collected data would be protected. Nevertheless, as with many issued patents, the released document doesn’t guarantee that the invention will be implemented in the future.

It also should be noted that auto manufacturers have been found to sell data about drivers' habits behind the wheel to auto insurance companies, which is then used to set insurance rates. This suggests that they view user data as another revenue stream to market to interested parties other than advertisers.

If this doesn’t anger you, wait till you're bombarded with texts, messages on your center screen, and more garbage emails.

Ford has filed other patent applications that have raised privacy concerns. One recent example is a patent for "Systems and Methods for Detecting Speeding Violations." We have covered this on our channel.

And another controversial patent, which Ford later abandoned after widespread criticism, proposed a system for repossessing vehicles from owners who had missed payments. The system would either direct self-driving cars to repossession lots or disable standard vehicles by locking their steering wheels, brakes, and air conditioning.

For more on this, see the video below:

Drive carefully — your car is watching



It's coming from inside the car!

I've told you about the AI-enabled cameras that can tell if you're speeding — or on your phone. Now, car manufacturers are joining the assault on your privacy.

'Our investigation revealed that General Motors has engaged in egregious business practices that violated Texans’ privacy and broke the law. We will hold them accountable.'

Take Ford, for example. The iconic American company recently filed a not-so-American patent for technology that would allow a car to snitch on drivers.

Entitled "Systems and Methods for Detecting Speeding Violations" — not quite as catchy as "Built Ford Tough" — the patent filing details a system that would use vehicles' cameras and sensors to detect speeding motorists and report them to authorities.

The filing includes basic sketches and flowcharts illustrating how this technology senses speed violations, activates cameras to capture images, and transmits data to nearby "pursuit vehicles" or logs it to a server. The captured data, including speed, GPS location, and clear imagery or video, can then be sent to authorities for potential action.

According to Ford, it is developing this technology for police cars. In other words, don't worry: This invasive surveillance tech will be exclusively in the hands of the state.

And I'm sure the company would never think of adapting it so your own car can inform any nearby police that they should pull you over.

Then there's GM.

Did you know the company's so concerned about empowering you to keep your data secure that it just consolidated five different lengthy privacy statements into one disclosure document?

Talk about putting the customer first! Yeah, a massive lawsuit and widespread public backlash have a way of encouraging that.

Last month, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton filed suit on behalf of the state against GM, accusing the automaker of installing technology on more than 14 million vehicles to collect data about drivers, which it then sold to insurers and other companies without drivers’ consent.

The suit contends that the data was used to compile “Driving Scores” assessing whether more than 1.8 million Texas drivers had “bad” habits such as speeding, braking too fast, steering too sharply into turns, not using seatbelts, and driving late at night. Insurers could then use the data when deciding whether to raise premiums, cancel policies, or deny coverage.

The technology was allegedly installed on most GM vehicles starting with the 2015 model year. Paxton said GM’s practice was for dealers to make unwitting consumers who had just completed the stressful buying and leasing process believe that enrolling in its OnStar diagnostic products, which collected the data, was mandatory.

“Companies are using invasive technology to violate the rights of our citizens in unthinkable ways,” Paxton said in a statement. “Our investigation revealed that General Motors has engaged in egregious business practices that violated Texans’ privacy and broke the law. We will hold them accountable.”

This isn't the first time Texas has stood up for its drivers. In 2019 Governor Greg Abbott signed a bill to ban red-light cameras, two years after KXAN-NBC in Austin, Texas, reported that almost all cities with red-light cameras had illegally issued traffic tickets.

Their investigation also found that drivers paid the city of Austin over $7 million in fines since the cameras were installed, and cities in Texas made over $500 million from the cameras since 2007.

Blue Cities Like Philadelphia Feeds Citizens’ Private Data To Democrat Vote-Harvesting Outfit

Philadelphia has collected personal citizen information for years through a company now instructing Democrat get-out-the-vote foot soldiers.

How Gambling Explains Our Modern, Complex World

Nate Silver’s new book, On the Edge, uses poker and sports betting to help explain the risks of crypto, AI, and other complicated new ideas.

Is your car spying on you? Here's how to check



At least eight carmakers in the U.S. have admitted they would backtrack on a voluntary privacy agreement and turn over personal customer data to government and police, prompting calls for an investigation.

Automotive News reports 19 carmakers had voluntarily signed up for the Consumer Privacy Protection Principles in 2014 — standards that would require U.S government agencies (including police) to obtain a warrant or court order to access customer location data.

However, eight automakers misled customers about giving driver data to police, and now U.S. lawmakers are raising questions about whether automakers can be held to account for departing from promises made about user privacy.

So who is giving your information to others? Toyota, Nissan, Subaru, Volkswagen, BMW, Mazda, Mercedes-Benz, and Kia would turn over the data if a subpoena was produced — in violation of the standards they signed up for. More smoke and mirrors when it comes to your privacy.

These car companies are following the agreement they signed: General Motors, Honda, Ford, Stellantis, and Tesla require a warrant for location data, unless it is an emergency or customer consent was provided. Tesla is also the only brand to notify its customers of legal demands.

This has not only raised concerns about what other privacy promises carmakers have made that they won’t keep but has led two U.S. senators to call for the companies to be investigated by the Federal Trade Commission.

“Automakers have not only kept consumers in the dark regarding their actual practices, but multiple companies misled consumers for over a decade by failing to honor the industry’s own voluntary privacy principles,” said Senators Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and Edward Markey (D-Mass.) in a letter to the FTC.

“Vehicle location data can be used to identify Americans who have travelled to seek an abortion in another state, attended protests, support groups for alcohol, drug, and other types of addiction, or identify those of particular faiths, as revealed through trips to places of worship.”

Mercedes-Benz, Toyota, and Kia all defended their practices, while the Alliance for Automotive Innovation — a lobby group for the car industry — claimed government agencies only request location information when there is clear danger to an individual.

“Vehicle location information is only provided to law enforcement under specific and limited circumstances, such as when the automaker is provided a warrant or court order or in situations where there is an imminent threat of serious bodily harm or death to an individual,” an AAI spokesperson told Automotive News.

The calls for an investigation into the data-sharing habits of carmakers comes after General Motors ended its partnerships with two major data brokers, following accusations of sharing information on drivers without their consent.

In March, the New York Times published an in-depth investigation about a Chevrolet Bolt owner who had been quoted a significantly higher insurance renewal premium, later discovering his driving data was being sold to insurance firms by data broker LexisNexis.

This was followed by a second report, detailing a proposed class action lawsuit put forward by a Cadillac XT6 owner who claimed he was denied insurance by seven companies on account of his LexisNexis driving report provided to the firms without his knowledge.

Both of the vehicles were equipped with OnStar, GM’s connected services brand, which gathered data used by LexisNexis.

In the wake of the reports, General Motors subsequently ended its partnership with both LexisNexis and Verisk, a similar company that also sold driving data to insurance companies.

According to the New York Times, an internal document circulated within General Motors showed more than 8 million vehicles were actively supplying data through OnStar’s Smart Driver program as of 2022.

Here's how to find out what your car is revealing about you:

  • See the data your car is capable of collecting with this tool.
  • Check your connected car app, if you use one, to see if you are enrolled in one of these programs.
  • Do an online search for “privacy request form” alongside the name of your vehicle’s manufacturer. There should be instructions on how to request information your car company has about you.
  • Request your LexisNexis report.
  • Request your Verisk report.

Remember, you own your data, not these companies. Just because they make the software doesn’t mean they get to control what happens to your information. The problem is that you sign away your ownership when you use the systems. Keep an eye out for opt-out options and support government bills that protect your privacy.

Prolifers Sue Indiana For Records That Reveal Abortionist Atrocities

‘This isn’t about protecting women. This is about protecting dangerous abortion providers from public scrutiny and consequences for illegal activity.’