Americans are worried about crime. Here’s how politicians leverage it

Summary of Americans are worried about crime. Here’s how politicians leverage it

by NPR

17m•January 31, 2026
Listen to Episode

Overview of Code Switch — "Americans are worried about crime. Here’s how politicians leverage it"

This episode of NPR’s Code Switch (host Gene Demby) explores the gap between Americans’ fear of rising crime and the long-term reality of falling crime rates, and how politicians — especially in the Trump administration — exploit crime rhetoric to advance policies (federal policing, ICE operations, deportations) that often target communities of color. Reporter Meg Anderson (NPR National Desk) draws on reporting from Minneapolis and Washington, D.C., to show how visible disorder, high‑profile cases, and media narratives shape public perception and policy.

Key points and main takeaways

  • Crime trends vs. perception

    • Violent and property crime in the U.S. have declined dramatically since the 1990s; some sources estimate roughly a 50% drop in many categories.
    • Despite this, many Americans believe crime is increasing; perception often moves opposite to actual data.

  • Why the disconnect?

    • People conflate "disorder" (homelessness, litter, poorly maintained public spaces, loud groups of teens) with crime. These visible signs make people feel unsafe even when local crime rates are down.
    • High‑profile incidents and media amplification (often conservative media) create powerful narratives that shape public opinion (examples: the Lake and Riley case used to link crime and immigration).

  • Political leverage

    • The Trump administration has frequently used crime rhetoric to justify federal interventions: sending federal officers and National Guard to cities, ICE crackdowns, mass deportations, and laws like the Lake and Riley Act (mandating detention for immigrants convicted of crimes).
    • On the ground reporting from Minneapolis and D.C. suggests many of these operations focus on racialized policing (targeting Black, Latino, Somali communities) rather than solving underlying safety issues.

  • Local impacts and civil‑rights concerns

    • Reported tactics include stopping people in parking lots, asking for papers, vehicle ramming incidents, and aggressive enforcement that residents say feels like a "police state."
    • Legal challenges are underway — e.g., ACLU litigation alleging racial profiling and Fourth Amendment violations. First Amendment and other civil‑rights concerns have also been raised.

  • Solutions people want

    • Residents and young people in affected neighborhoods often call for social investments (mental health services, recreation centers, community policing) rather than large, militarized federal deployments.

Topics discussed

  • Long-term crime trends in the U.S. and internationally (Western Europe, Japan, Korea)
  • COVID-era crime spike (particularly homicides) and the post‑pandemic decline
  • The difference between visible disorder and criminal activity
  • How high‑profile crimes shape policy and public fear
  • Federal interventions in cities (Minneapolis, D.C., Chicago, etc.) tied to immigration and crime rhetoric
  • Racialized enforcement and constitutional civil‑rights implications
  • Community-based alternatives to militarized policing

Notable quotes and insights

  • "People confuse crime with disorder." — Meg Anderson (paraphrased)
  • "High‑profile cases are narratives that scare people." — Meg Anderson
  • "You are not actually unsafe" — perspective offered to distinguish discomfort from objective danger
  • Crime as a "load-bearing word" — the conversation notes how terms like "crime" or "urban" carry broader coded meanings that policymakers exploit

Actionable recommendations / what to watch for

  • Check the data: compare local and national crime statistics over time before accepting headlines that crime is rising.
  • Scrutinize policy justifications: ask whether proposed "tough on crime" measures address root causes (poverty, mental health, housing) or primarily expand enforcement power.
  • Follow litigation and oversight: monitor ACLU and civil‑rights lawsuits and local oversight investigations into federal deployments and racial profiling.
  • Support community solutions: evidence from residents suggests investments in services, youth programs, and neighborhood policing can be more effective than militarized responses.
  • Be skeptical of high‑profile narratives: one case (amplified by media) can reshape public debate and policy even when it’s not representative.

Episode metadata / credits

  • Host: Gene Demby (Code Switch)
  • Guest/Reporter: Meg Anderson (NPR National Desk, covers criminal justice; reporting from Minneapolis and D.C.)
  • Produced by: Xavier Lopez
  • Edited by: Dalia Mortada
  • Additional Code Switch team: Christina Kala, Jess Kung, Leah Dinella, B.A. Parker
  • Context: discussion prompted by recent federal operations in Minneapolis after the killing of Renee Good and broader national debates about crime and immigration

If you want the main point in one sentence: fear of crime is often driven by visible disorder and amplified narratives, and political actors use that fear to justify enforcement-first policies that can infringe on civil rights and rarely address underlying community needs.