When Crime Stats Collide: How D.C.'s Youth Violence Crisis Got Lost in the Media's Coverage of Trump Sending in the Guard
Visit Washington, D.C. Navigate the Metro after a Nationals night game, or simply try to enjoy dinner in Navy Yard, and you'll understand why District of Columbia residents desperate for safety don't care whether crime statistics suggest a downward trend—they care that crime remains random and that groups of teenagers are terrorizing their neighborhoods with impunity while the media debates talking points.
Juvenile crime, statistics that are not represented in the now-voluntary crime-reporting statistics compiled by the FBI, is at issue in Washington, D.C., and in cities across the country. It is an incredibly difficult subject to report. For that, I point to big-city politics.
So it is important to find objectivity where it exists, and that requires a lot of digging.
Here is something to consider: According to reporting from local NBC affiliate WRC-TV's in April, the number of juveniles arrested in D.C. has risen each year since 2020, with more than 2,000 arrested in both 2023 and 2024.
More troubling still, according to that WRC report: Juveniles accounted for 51.8% of all D.C. robbery arrests in 2024, and about 60% of all carjacking arrests made through April 2025. Nearly 200 juveniles arrested in 2024 for violent crimes had prior violent crime arrests, the definition of a revolving-door system that fails to deter repeat offenses.
Look at the problems with trusting crime stats, but then–wherever possible–the data within the data. It’s telling, and allows us to peer inside national aggregated crime data.
This explains in no small part why President Trump’s federal takeover of D.C.’s police force resonated with many Americans who understand their own hometown’s crime challenges, even as most mainstream media coverage focused primarily on contradicting his claims.
The divergent press coverage of this unprecedented intervention reveals fundamental differences in how news organizations view their role in serving the American public. Let’s talk about that.
The Tale of Two Journalisms
News happens in real time, and reporting moves just a half-step behind. This is important to consider in any comparison of work. And, for the sake of comparison of approach, consider the differences between how The Center Square newswire (TCS) and the New York Times (NYT) covered Trump’s move to allocate additional crime-enforcement resources to D.C.
The New York Times is a contradiction in terms—the most consistent, arguably best-programmed news product in the world, rarely wandering off-brand, with exquisite editing that delivers sharp, convincing writing. The New York Times maintains a consistent editorial framing that aligns with progressive policy perspectives. Watch any Sunday morning politi-talk show and you'll almost certainly hear repackaged NYT stories published earlier in the week, spun further left, spoken as truth.
NYT’s predictability was clear in its coverage of Trump's D.C. takeover. Coverage challenged Trump’s narrative from the jump, headlining its main bar: “Trump Takes Control of D.C. Police, Citing ‘Bloodthirsty Criminals.’ But Crime Is Down.” Their extensive coverage included charts, street interviews with skeptical residents, and, of course it’s somehow related, reminders about Trump’s pardoning of January 6 rioters. It had nothing to do with anything related to crime in D.C., but whatever.
Though detailed, this framing clearly aimed at validating NYT’s readers’ existing skepticism rather than helping all Americans grasp a complex situation.
It is this real-time capture of how stories are told that reveals the difference between journalism that seeks to inform and journalism that seeks the satisfaction of an audience.
At The Center Square, we believe news should inform all Americans, not just those who share particular political viewpoints. Each day, more than 141 million American adults—53 percent of U.S. residents over 18—read a story provided by The Center Square newswire. This reach reflects our newsroom’s commitment to straightforward reporting that respects readers’ ability to evaluate information for themselves.
Our coverage exemplified this approach. We reported Trump’s ”Liberation Day” announcement, included Metropolitan Police Department statistics showing a 35% decline in violent crime, included Mayor Bowser’s response calling the action “unsettling and unprecedented,” and provided reactions from officials across the political spectrum—from Virginia’s Republican Gov. Glenn Youngkin’s praising the move to Maryland’s Democrat Gov Wes Moore calling it, “deeply dangerous.”
Beyond Fact-Checking: The Real Story
Crime reporting data is almost unfathomably imprecise. Since the FBI replaced its Summary Reporting System with the National Incident-Based Reporting System, widespread underreporting has plagued crime data collection.
These inherent inconsistencies underscore why every journalist covering crime should know– and explain to their readers– that recent stats should be considered beneath a massive asterisk.
For example, in 2021 and 2022, New York and Los Angeles city police departments reported no information to the FBI, per the FBI. None. No report was filed. Major cities such as Chicago, San Francisco, and Miami have since failed to submit complete data due to differences in local reporting systems or challenges aligning with FBI standards.
This isn’t about which outlets get facts right or wrong— reported crime statistics are fundamentally flawed. As an industry, media continues to get crime stats wrong for one reason: we provide them without context.
What’s more important is this: Journalism serving all Americans must present information in ways that zero in on what is known. When half the robbery arrests and 60% of carjacking arrests involve juveniles (again, whose crimes are not reported as part of the data), dismissing concerns about youth crime because overall statistics have improved fails to acknowledge why many D.C. residents—regardless of political affiliation—share concerns about public safety.
A Washington Post poll in April 2024 indicated that 65 percent of D.C. residents said crime is ‘extremely serious’ or ‘very serious’ and 10 percent said they felt less safe than the year before. WaPo’s headline on that story? “Poll finds growing public concern over safety in D.C. despite drop in crime.” This apparent disconnect between statistics and public sentiment reflects how lived experience shapes perceptions of safety more than reported aggregate crime rates. Try to find that in the NYT story or, for that matter, WaPo’s coverage of the D.C. police takeover.
U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro's explanation deserved prominence in coverage: Youth under 18 can only be federally prosecuted for murder, rape, armed robbery, or first-degree burglary. “Even if they shoot a gun but don’t kill you, I can’t get it,” she said in a news conference that was included in TCS’s reporting. This jurisdictional limitation helps readers understand why federal intervention might appeal to those frustrated by repeat juvenile offenders.
The NYT fact-checking was rigorous—Trump probably did overstate D.C.’s crime rates compared to global cities. Again, pencils have erasers for a reason. Who knows how good global crime-stat keeping is. But focusing primarily on debunking claims risks missing why the intervention resonated with Americans who’ve witnessed brazen daylight carjackings, group attacks on vulnerable victims, and young offenders operating with perceived impunity in hometowns from Boston to Seattle.
There is a reason why so many Americans are disillusioned with the news and why trust is challenging.
Trust the Reader
Our approach at The Center Square trusts readers to weigh competing claims.
We presented Trump’s D.C. policing announcement, the contradicting statistics, and diverse official responses. We included procedural details about the 30-day limitation under the Home Rule Act and explained how 800 National Guard troops and 500 federal officers would supplement D.C. police. Readers can evaluate whether this approach might address crime overall, juvenile crime, or prove overall ineffective.
We’re not here to tell anyone what to think. Fact is we’re journalists, not sociologists.
The media landscape increasingly divides between outlets producing intramural journalism for their own audiences and those committed to informing all Americans. When news organizations prioritize placating their existing readership over fairly presenting complex issues, they abandon journalism’s fundamental purpose: helping citizens understand their world and make informed decisions.
The New York Times’ predictability serves its audience well—they know exactly the progressive perspective they’ll receive on any political story. But this consistency comes at a cost: Important stories that don’t fit the brand go unreported (because, somehow, they don’t matter), and complex issues that do matter and do fit get packaged into predetermined narratives that then become the feedstock for an entire ecosystem of unchallenged political commentary. Again, what’s in the NYT daily becomes the soundbyte on Sunday mornings.
Want to talk Capital-D Democracy? That approach lacks the diversity of thought that a healthy democracy requires and is a result of an abdication of responsibility to accuracy.
The Reality on the Ground
Washington’s crime reality defies simple narratives. It is complex. It is also scary, as the 2024 WaPo poll suggests. Overall, crime may have declined – or it may not have. Depends on how much you trust the statistics.
Yet juvenile crime’s persistence explains why many D.C. residents – and Americans who have experienced or know someone who has experienced the randomness of city crime – believe something must change.
Journalism serving all Americans must acknowledge both realities without privileging one narrative over another.
The question isn’t whether Trump’s takeover will solve D.C.’s challenges, but whether American journalism can help the person riding that Metro after the Nationals game understand both why they feel unsafe AND what exists within the statistics that suggest they should feel safer.
The future for Jimmy Kimmel, Jimmy Fallon, and the rest of late-night TV is primed for either a significant reinvention or all-out elimination. Waiting until 11:35 p.m. to watch anything, unless the target demographic is second-shift workers, doesn’t seem like anything that anyone would need to do.
Stephen Colbert didn’t lose his show because he mocked Trump. He lost it because he forgot the first rule of show business: you need an audience to have a show and stay in business.
When you spend every night telling half of America they’re idiots, don’t be shocked when they change the channel. Or stop watching the entire network associated with your show.
When you demand viewers show up at 11:35 PM for appointment television in the age of TikTok, don’t be surprised when they don’t. And when you’re bleeding out, $40 million a year, while your competition on cable is beating you with a smaller budget and smarter shows that draw in more diverse ideological audiences, don’t blame politics for your cancellation.
The Late Show died the same way Blockbuster did—not from some grand conspiracy, but from refusing to read the room. Carson knew you don’t divide your audience. Netflix knows you give everyone something to watch. Gutfeld knows you can win late night without alienating half the country.
Colbert’s epitaph won’t read “Silenced by Trump.” It’ll read “Killed by Math.”
Chris Krug is the publisher of The Center Square. The Center Square newswire service partners with more than 1,250 local news partners across the United States, providing taxpayer-centric coverage of local, state, and national government accountability reporting as part of Franklin News Foundation’s 501c3 nonprofit mission.