Former FBI Deputy Director Dan Bongino didn’t hold back Thursday evening, unleashing a sharp critique of major media outlets over their portrayal of the Trump administration’s impact on violent crime.
On an appearance with Hannity, Bongino highlighted a significant drop in violent crime rates for 2025, citing data from the Council on Criminal Justice (CCJ) showing a 21% decrease in homicides across nearly three dozen major U.S. cities, alongside declines in aggravated assaults, gun assaults, robberies, and carjackings. He accused outlets like Axios and The New York Times of downplaying or misrepresenting these gains. His remarks previewed content for his podcast, set to return on Feb. 2.
The debate over crime statistics and media narratives has stirred strong opinions. Supporters of the administration argue that the numbers reflect effective policy, while critics in the press seem to question the causal link. Let’s dig into the details and see where the disconnect lies.
Bongino’s frustration was palpable as he tore into what he sees as biased reporting, the Daily Caller reported. He pointed to an Axios headline noting homicide rates at their lowest since the early 1900s, only to claim the article offered endless excuses for why the Trump administration shouldn’t get credit.
“I was like, ‘Wow, OK.’ Start reading down the article like, well, ‘There’s a thousand excuses as to why President Trump and his administration didn’t do it,’” Bongino said on Hannity.
His point is clear: why can’t the media just report the numbers without a spin that undercuts the administration’s efforts? The CCJ data speaks for itself—homicides down 21%, robberies down 23%, carjackings slashed by 43%. That’s not a small achievement to gloss over.
President Donald Trump moved swiftly on crime, issuing an executive order hours after taking office on Jan. 20, 2025, directing the Department of Justice to pursue the death penalty more assertively. Later, on Aug. 11, he announced a federal takeover of Washington, D.C.’s Metropolitan Police Department to tackle crime in the nation’s capital.
That D.C. decision followed a high-profile incident where Edward Coristine, a Department of Government Efficiency staffer nicknamed “Big Balls,” was severely injured while stopping a carjacking attempt by a mob. The administration framed these moves as decisive action, not mere posturing.
Yet, media outlets like The New York Times ran headlines suggesting the FBI under Kash Patel has made the country less safe. Bongino called out this contradiction—how can murder rates hit historic lows if safety is supposedly declining?
The CCJ report for 2025 paints a picture of progress: aggravated assaults dropped 9%, gun assaults fell 22%, and domestic violence incidents decreased by 2%. Even with drug-related crimes ticking up by 7%—the only category to rise—the overall trend is downward. These aren’t abstract figures; they reflect real lives impacted.
Bongino hammered the media for ignoring this reality. “This isn’t hard to figure out… murder rates all-time low, the country’s less safe. Do these people even hear themselves?” he asked pointedly.
His argument cuts to a deeper frustration: if violent crime is plummeting, why the constant narrative of doom? The disconnect between data and headlines feels like a deliberate attempt to shape public perception against measurable gains.
Bongino didn’t stop at crime stats; he listed other national improvements like near-zero unauthorized border crossings, contained inflation, GDP growth projected at 5% or even 6%, and shrinking trade deficits. These, he argued, are ignored in favor of apocalyptic framing.
The media’s lens seems stuck on criticism, even when the numbers suggest a different story. While no administration is perfect, and drug crime’s uptick deserves scrutiny, shouldn’t the broader context of safety and economic stability get a fair shake? It’s a question worth asking as we navigate these polarized times.
