‘I Heard a Thunderous Sound’: Woman Tells Inspiring Story of Surviving Terrorgram Collective Attack In Bratislava, Slovakia

BRATISLAVA, SLOVAKIA, OMIKAMI TV- On the evening of Oct. 12, 2022, Radka Trokšiarová and two of her friends sat talking outside Tepláreň, an LGBTQ+ bar they frequented in Bratislava, Slovakia.

“Tepláreň was a free and safe harbor for me,” Trokšiarová says in the video above. “Many people found their second family there, especially those not out to their families.”

So when she saw someone standing in the shadows that night, not far from the bar, Trokšiarová recalls saying hello to him.

“First, we thought he was standing there because he was maybe also queer, just too shy to come in,” she says.

He had come there with a different plan.

In the above video documentary "The Rise and Fall of Terrorgram", Trokšiarová describes what happened that night as the man pulled out a gun and aimed directly at her and her two friends, Matúš Horváth and Juraj Vankulič.(25/3/2025).

“There was no chance. I heard this roaring sound of nine shots that blended into one,” says Trokšiarová. “The only thing I know is that Juraj fell down just in front of us, and Matúš, as he was shot, fell against me, taking us both down.”

The shooter, 19-year-old Juraj Krajčík, fired twice more. Horváth and Vankulič were killed; Trokšiarová had been shot twice in the leg.

The attacker fled into the night and later killed himself. As The Rise and Fall of Terrorgram explores, earlier that day, he had posted a hate-filled manifesto online claiming that white people were facing a “critical situation” and that Jews and gay people should be eliminated. Slovak authorities believed he was a so-called lone wolf, and that no one else had been involved in the attack. 

But as the documentary goes on to examine, the manifesto contained clues that, in fact, the young shooter had been radicalized by a global community of online extremists who encouraged him to commit an act of 21st-century terror.

“The Bratislava attack is important because it’s a pure example of how influencers today can encourage and inspire other people to go out and commit acts of terrorism,” A.C. Thompson, a correspondent on the documentary along with his ProPublica colleague James Bandler, says in the above video. “It explains and shows how terrorism works today.”

Authorities in several countries, including the U.S., would eventually arrest around a dozen people allegedly tied to Terrorgram — including a Slovakian and two Americans whom the investigative team reports may have helped groom the Bratislava shooter to kill.

Telegram says it has always screened postings for problematic content and that “Calls for violence from any group are not tolerated on our platform.”

Ultimately, the documentary and related reporting examine what the Terrorgram Collective’s rise and fall suggests about the evolution of far-right extremism on loosely-moderated tech platforms in a rapidly changing digital age.

In the meantime, for Radka Trokšiarová, questions remain.

“I don’t see into the heads of radicals. What in their brain tells them to load a gun and fire at people? I just don’t get it,” she says in the documentary.

“Someone incited him into doing the wrong thing and he followed,” she adds. “The question is, why?”

(Patrice Taddonio) OMIKAMI TV 

Strengthening the Military by Cutting Budgets, What’s Next for Strategy with a Focus on US Defense Spending?

USA, OMIKAMI TV - The United States faces a rapidly evolving security and political landscape, demanding a defense budget that strikes a careful balance between readiness, modernization, and fiscal responsibility. As President Donald Trump begins his second term with Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth at the helm of the Pentagon, the administration has signaled a significant shift in budget priorities, advocating for a restructuring of the U.S. military through targeted spending cuts and reallocations.(20/3/2025). 

The secretary of defense has ordered officials to write proposals to cut and reallocate $50 billion—about 8 percent of this year’s defense budget—while Republican lawmakers seek to boost spending by $150 billion over a decade, eventually pushing it close to $1 trillion.

During a recorded, on-camera address from the Pentagon today, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth discussed his priorities of strengthening the military by cutting fiscal fraud, waste and abuse at DOD while also finding ways to refocus the department's budget.

Hegseth began his remarks stating the Defense Department owes the American people transparency related to steps DOD is taking to accomplish its mission while being good stewards of taxpayer dollars. 

"We shoot straight with you. We want you, the American people — the taxpayers — to understand why we're making the decisions that we're making here," Hegseth said, adding that DOD is working as quickly as possible to execute the priorities of achieving peace through strength by rebuilding the military, restoring the warrior ethos and reestablishing deterrence.  

Prior to getting in-depth on issues related to the department's finances, Hegseth cautioned viewers to take anything they've heard and/or read on the topic with a "gigantic grain of salt." 

"Ever since I've taken this position, the only thing I've cared about is doing right by our service members — soldiers, sailors, Marines, airmen and guardians," Hegseth said." In short, we want the biggest, most badass military on the planet." 

Hegseth then touched on three areas related to the Pentagon's finances. 

First, Hegseth said to tackle excess spending and address the issue of fraud, waste and abuse within DOD, the department would be relying on the recently established Department of Government Efficiency.

"[DOGE is] here, and they're going to be incorporated into what we're doing at DOD to find fraud, waste and abuse in the largest discretionary budget in the federal government," Hegseth said. 

He added that DOGE would be given access to systems — with proper safeguards and classifications — to first find redundancies and identify previous priorities not core to the department's current mission and then get rid of them.  

"With DOGE, we are focusing as much as we can on headquarters and fat and top-line stuff that allows us to reinvest elsewhere," Hegseth said.  

He then pivoted to the topic of reorienting the defense budget inherited from the previous administration.

Hegseth said beginning immediately, the Pentagon will pull 8% — or roughly $50 billion — from nonlethal programs in the current budget and refocus that money on President Donald J. Trump's "America First" priorities for national defense. 

"That's not a cut; it's refocusing and reinvesting existing funds into building the force that protects you, the American people," Hegseth said.

He also said there are certain areas where funds will not be refocused — border protection, fighting transnational criminal organizations, nuclear modernization, submarine programs, missile defense, drone technology, cybersecurity, core readiness and training and the defense industrial base among them. 

The secretary then turned to his third topic: the reevaluation of the Defense Department's probationary workforce.  

Hegseth pushed back on recent reports that DOD would do across-the-board cuts of all probationary employees.  

He said leaders are reevaluating probationary employees "carefully and smartly," and future manning decisions would be based, in part, on quality of performance. 

"We're starting [cuts] with the poor performers among our probationary employees because it's common sense that you want the best and brightest," Hegseth said.  

"So, when you look at headcount, we're going to be thoughtful; but we're also going to be aggressive up and down the chain to find the places where we can ensure the best and brightest are promoted based on merit," he continued. 

Hegseth added DOD will implement a hiring freeze to take time to identify better hiring practices as they relate to finding the most "hard charging" employees that are central to the department's core warfighting mission.   

The secretary finished his remarks by returning to the topic of transparency and the value he sees in communicating directly to the people. 

"Our warfighters and taxpayers deserve no less, and we'll keep reporting back to you from time to time on what we're seeing," Hegseth said.  

"We appreciate your support as we move out … on making our military once again into the most lethal, badass force on the planet to keep our country safe."

As the new administration sets its defense agenda, critical questions must be addressed. Which programs should be prioritized, and where should cuts be made? How will this refocusing affect military readiness and force structure? What level of investment is needed to strengthen and modernize the military—as well as the defense industrial base itself?

On March 20, the Strobe Talbott Center for Security, Strategy, and Technology at Brookings hosted an analytical discussion about the key challenges and opportunities shaping the future of U.S. defense strategy and spending. 

(Matthew Olay) OMIKAMI TV 

Ebrahim Rasool's Webinar Criticism of US President Donald Trump Leads South Africa to Scramble for New Top US Diplomat

SOUTH AFRICA, OMIKAMI TV - South Africa is scrambling to appoint a new ambassador to the US after the expulsion of its top diplomat last week, according to three people familiar with the matter.(18/3/2025).

South African government leaders were let down by Ebrahim Rasool’s “indefensible” criticism of US President Donald Trump at a webinar on Tuesday, said the three senior members of the African National Congress, the largest party in the ruling coalition.

On Friday US Secretary of State Marco Rubio accused Rasool of being a “race-baiting politician” who hates the US and Trump. In the webinar on Mar. 11, Rasool told participants that Trump is leading a “supremacist” movement disrupting long-established political norms.

Media Crew first reported last week that Rasool, a veteran diplomat who also served as ambassador during the Obama administration, was struggling to secure crucial meetings in a Republican-led Washington. 

He is likely to have been frozen out for his prior vocal criticism of Israel in support of Palestine, a South African diplomat told Semafor. But several right-wing Washington sources also said Rasool’s previous Trump criticism, including tweets dating back to 2017, were also of concern.

“Ambassador Rasool was on the verge of an engagement with strategic officials in the White House,” a spokesman for South Africa’s foreign affairs ministry, Chrispin Phiri, told Semafor Africa. “This regrettable development has scuttled the significant progress.”

KNOW MORE

The expulsion is the latest controversy in deteriorating relations between Pretoria and the US, South Africa’s second-largest trading partner, since Trump returned to the White House in January.

In February, Trump criticized South Africa’s land expropriation law as discriminatory, incorrectly asserting that land was being seized from white South African farmers. The law, enacted in January, aims to address inequalities dating back to apartheid: Most private land in South Africa is owned by white people, who make up around 7% of the population. It allows the government to confiscate land in exceptional circumstances if deemed to be in the public interest.

Trump ally Elon Musk, who spent much of his childhood in South Africa during apartheid, has criticized South Africa’s Black empowerment policies as a hindrance to Starlink, his satellite internet company, from entering Africa’s most advanced economy. Musk heads up the Trump administration’s Department of Government Efficiency, and is leading moves to reduce the size of the US federal government.

SAM’S VIEW

South Africa is in a real pickle. The perfect ambassadorial candidate for the US in the current circumstances is hard to imagine. The ideal person has to walk a tightrope of earning acceptability and credibility in the Trump 2.0 inner sanctum and MAGA politics while also representing South Africa’s fiercely independent stance with its foreign policy. 

The problem is that the nature of South African politics right now is poles apart from the unfolding scene in the White House.

Several commentators believe at the heart of the conflict between Washington and Pretoria is South Africa’s 2023 decision to launch a case at the International Court of Justice accusing Israel of genocide in Gaza.

In addition, Trump has driven a wedge in South Africa by embracing unproven claims of genocide against white South Africans, which have been driven by Afrikaner rights groups.

Rasool’s dramatic expulsion offers South Africa the opportunity to reciprocate should a US ambassador ever publicly criticize its government, said one of the people Semafor spoke with. 

However, another government official said South Africa was not looking for a tit-for-tat at this stage. It would simply scrutinize a US ambassadorial appointment as it would normally do.

ROOM FOR DISAGREEMENT

South African President Cyril Ramaphosa and his government need to unpack the worsening relations, and understand what exactly the US government finds offensive about South Africa’s foreign policy, said Tony Leon, former leader of the Democratic Alliance, the country’s second-biggest party. 

“Its antagonism towards Israel is one, and its cooperation with Iran another,” he said.

The next ambassador has a tough job ahead. “Even if you thought Archangel Gabriel was the best person to represent South Africa in Washington, it’s not going to work without a tool kit to help him assess some of the current challenges,” said Leon, a former South African ambassador to Argentina. 

“You need someone who will not be a red rag to a bull like Ambassador Rasool was. I would not send an Israel-hater, or someone who is sympathetic to Iran, who would then get frozen out of access,” he added.

NOTABLE

The new Trump administration has united longstanding political enemies in South Africa, wrote Foreign Policy, cementing the government of national unity.

(Mkokeli) OMIKAMI-TV 

DA, ANC Agree to Form Government of 'National Unity', Jhon: 'DA Governs With The Republic of South Africa In a Spirit of Unity Collaboration''

SOUTH AFRICA, OMIKAMI-TV- South Africa’s African National Congress party and its longtime political rival the Democratic Alliance have agreed to form a coalition government.(15/3/2025).

The ANC failed to secure a simple majority in South Africa’s election last month, ending its 30-year majority control of the nation’s parliament following the end of apartheid and forcing it to seek coalition partners. The DA won the second largest share of the vote in the election.

“The DA has reached agreement on the statement of intent for the formation of a government of national unity,” party leader John Steenhuisen said on Friday. 

“From today, the DA will co-govern the Republic of South Africa in a spirit of unity and collaboration,” he added.

The center-right DA is widely seen as a predominantly white party. The coalition will also include the Inkatha Freedom Party, an ethnic Zulu party, and the right-leaning Patriotic Alliance.

Sihle Zikalala, a member of the ANC’s governing body, wrote on X that “Today marks the beginning of a new era where we put our differences aside and unite for the betterment of all South Africans,” he wrote in X.

KNOW MORE

The ANC secured just 40% of the popular vote in the country’s May 29 election. The DA, the second-largest party, secured 22%. The ANC’s poor showing marks a tectonic shift in how South African politics operates, and has upended the way the country has been governed since the end of minority white rule in 1994.

Representatives from the ANC were locked in last minute negotiations with rival parties as they raced to agree to a coalition that would allow them to govern before Friday’s swearing of lawmakers in parliament.

Sources previously told Semafor Africa that parties were sparring over who would hold ministerial positions, and that they had only agreed to the bones of a plan, with the “flesh” still set to be hammered out.

Discussions about who would be included in the coalition flared tensions between some parties, with the uMkhonto weSizwe Party (MK), led by former president Jacob Zuma, saying they would not enter into a coalition if it was led by the ANC’s President Cyril Ramaphosa. 

Ms Zuma said the party would prefer to talk to “Black progressive parties” who were “like minded” and shared MK’s stance in calling for “land redistribution, free education, plus the nationalization of mines and the Reserve Bank.”

She said The uMkhonto weSizwe Party (MK Party) had not begun coalition talks. 

“Most of us are waiting for the final results so that we know where we’re bargaining from, because numbers will matter,” she said, speaking at the election results center in the town of Midrand, near Johannesburg. And the DA said that it would not join a government with The uMkhonto weSizwe Party (MK party) or the socialist Economic Freedom Fighters.

"The main opposition Democratic Alliance looks set to remain the country’s second largest party," John Steenhuisen, its leader, said his party would not want to enter into what he called a “doomsday coalition” and could ultimately be the “least worst option.”

”The very worst thing for our economy, our people, would be a doomsday coalition with the ANC, EFF, MK or a combination of those,” he told Semafor Africa. He said it was important to prevent such a coalition because it would cause disinvestment, capital flight and a massive loss of confidence in the economy.”

The MK party could still pose issues for the ANC from the sidelines, Semafor Africa’s Sam Mkokeli wrote this week: "Zuma’s party received just under 15% of the vote, despite being established just six months ago."

SAM’S VIEW

With a 40% share of the seats in the National Assembly, it would take a miracle, or bad tactics, for the ANC to fail to form a government. It can bank on goodwill from a partner like the DA, which is terrified of the prospect of anyone but Ramaphosa being president of South Africa. As a result, the ANC and the DA are likely to vote together, even if the finer details around the partnership have not been thrashed out.

Despite looking on course to build a coalition, the ANC can’t afford to take things for granted because it has a sworn enemy in the MK party, led by former president Jacob Zuma. He is simply one of the most cunning politicians in the world. And his influence on South African politics is beyond doubt. Just look at the way in which his party won just under 15% of the vote having only been set up in December.

There’s no doubt in my mind that Zuma will try to divide the ANC from the outside. Senior political sources told me there’s a strong suspicion that some ANC legislators are secret Zuma sympathizers who could turn against Ramaphosa in a secret vote.

(Jenna Moon) OMIKAMI-TV 

US Focuses On Police And Justice System Reform, Violent And Property Crimes Increase Sharply, Disturbing Citizens In Various States

USA, OMIKAMI-TV - Public safety and the economy are among the top priorities for mayors, governors, and state legislators in 2025, just as each is important to the public. These issues come as a new federal environment aims to shift a greater share of federal costs and responsibilities to states and localities—placing these two levels of government at the center of the nation’s ability to deliver effective services and programs that address constituents’ key concerns.(14/3/2025).

To make inroads on public safety and economic security, it’s worth noting that far too often, both the public and policymakers treat these two issues separately. Crime reduction efforts are primarily focused on policing and justice system reforms, for instance, while job creation and economic prosperity remain largely the remit of economic development and other related policy levers.

  
Further, when it comes to issues of crime and public safety, recent public attention has largely focused on fixing problems in cities, even when prior research has found troubling safety challenges in rural and suburban communities as well.

One result of this fragmented approach has been a new wave of policymaking centered on restoring “law and order” in cities, which has largely prioritized policing, penalties, and prisons as the primary deterrents to crime. At the state level, this includes efforts to exert state control over local police departments, curtail the powers of local prosecutors, and roll back criminal justice reforms aimed at shrinking the size of the incarcerated population. At the local level, some cities are also embracing this pivot through policies to increase prosecutions for low-level crimes, embrace “stop and frisk” policing practices, and enact youth curfews in the name of public safety. 

At the same time, regional leaders have been critical partners and investors in strengthening American innovation and economic prosperity. Coalitions of business, civic, university, government, and nonprofit actors are pursuing transformative regional initiatives that boost next generation industries and jobs. Many of these efforts have attracted private sector capital, especially in economically distressed places—demonstrating that the path to global competitiveness runs through cities, towns large and small, and their regional partners.

Rather than silo public safety and economic development efforts such as these, research and practice point to the benefits of aligning these objectives to make lasting, systemic progress on both safety and opportunity—particularly in disinvested and “left-behind” communities, whether urban or rural. 

 
Consider this: According to recent Brookings research, it was the loss of jobs and educational opportunities for people living in high-poverty neighborhoods that primarily explains the rise in homicides during the COVID-19 pandemic—not changes in policing or criminal justice system practices. Further, a large body of evidence finds that approaches linking public safety efforts to those bolstering employment, education, and quality neighborhoods can measurably reduce and prevent violent crime, while also saving taxpayers and governments significant costs.

  
Importantly, the connection between public safety and economic opportunity is not new for many practitioners working directly on violence reduction in both cities and rural communities. For instance, after speaking with incarcerated people in Cook County, Ill.’s jail, former U.S. Secretary of Education and Managing Director of Chicago CRED Arne Duncan offered this insight on what they said it would take for them to put down their guns: 

“What I heard dozens and dozens of times was a job for $12 or $13 dollars an hour…If we could employ people and give them a chance to heal, get their high school diplomas and grow, they will make that choice. They’re happy to make that choice,” said Arne Duncan.

 
Local law enforcement officers we spoke to agree.1 In Ohio, one police officer told Brookings researchers, 

“Whether it’s an urban area with gangs or a rural area with trailer parks, crime comes down to depressed economics. Some people, especially single moms, are working five jobs and when their kids come home. Nobody’s there," he said.

"It’s not because they don’t care, it’s because they can’t be there. But young people still want a family atmosphere. They’re looking for mentorship, people that care about them, and family," he continued. 

"That’s what gangs provide," he said," Think of FOE [Family Over Everything].2 You could take the worst part of the city here and take the worst parts of the rural county where I grew up and they’re the same."

"The violence, the addiction, the theft—it’s the same. It’s just that one is rural, and one is urban. People don’t see that,” he added.

These reflections demonstrate the power of economic distress and youth hardship in driving crime in “left-behind” communities, regardless of whether these places are urban or rural. They also reveal that while there is a strong need to improve the criminal justice system itself, there are risks to ignoring the compounding trauma from poverty and systemic lack of opportunity that leads to the contagion of violence in the first place. 

"This is particularly true as the challenges of persistent neighborhood poverty, financial precarity, chronic absenteeism, and youth mental health are only increasing in both large cities and less densely populated suburban and rural communities," he explained.

   
Therefore, the current surge in public interest to address both public safety and economic opportunity offers a ripe moment for state and local leaders to work together and blend criminal justice reforms with community-centered economic strategies that improve safety and well-being in communities large and small. To better aid state and local leaders in this imperative, this paper presents new analysis from 10 U.S. states (Georgia, Indiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Tennessee, Texas, and Wisconsin) and evidence-based recommendations to address the intersection between place, public safety, and the economy," Local law enforcement officers explained.

Specially, this report finds:   

Crime is not limited to cities, but varies widely across cities, suburbs, and rural areas, with some suburbs and rural areas reporting higher per capita crime rates in recent years than urban peers.

 

There is a strong relationship between place, economic opportunity, and public safety in cities, and a similar relationship can be found across select suburban and rural areas.

Investments in youth, families, and neighborhood revitalization can mitigate crime and help break the cycle of violence in communities over the long run.

With crime and the economy being top concerns for families and businesses, the paper closes with ways in which state, regional, and local leaders can join forces in ways that make a tangible difference for safety and economic growth in urban, suburban, and rural communities alike.

Why focus on state and local policy, and why now?

This report focuses specifically on state and local officials for three key reasons. First, crime is a hyperlocal issue—meaning rather than directly affecting residents of a given state, region, or city equally, it disproportionately concentrates in specific neighborhoods and streets where economic and place-based disadvantage also cluster.  

Second, the nation’s approximately 18,000 law enforcement agencies are governed by state and local laws, and 88% of the nation’s incarcerated population is under state control. States enact their own legislative reforms and investigations into policing and criminal justice, and importantly, many of the preventative investments needed to improve public safety are under the purview of local governments. Moreover, state and local governments also have significant control over the economic, community, and workforce development tools that are needed to address the drivers of crime.  

Third, state and local leaders will need to take an increasingly salient role in violence prevention amid today’s shifting political and fiscal climate at the federal level. As pandemic-era federal relief funds for gun violence prevention and economic development run out, federal offices such as the Office of Gun Violence Prevention shutter, and the future of federal agencies overseeing crime reduction undergo significant changes, state and local leaders will be at the forefront of thoughtfully designing, implementing, and tracking outcomes for public safety interventions and policymaking.

Background: How data limits our understanding of public safety in most communities

Stories of inner-city crime often dominate the public debate, but most of the country’s population (61%) lives in rural and suburban areas.3 Thus, national attention on public safety should capture the crime trends and experiences of people living in suburbs and small towns too. 

Yet data limitations make the task of understanding rural and suburban crime difficult.4 Of the 16,000 agencies that reported crime data to the FBI in 2023, for instance, less than half (just 7,349) were local law enforcement agencies. This presents a challenge for understanding safety trends given the localized nature of crime, and an even more significant challenge for rural law enforcement agencies with less capacity for crime reporting. According to our analysis, these local reporting agencies cover only 53% of the U.S. population. 

Map 1 demonstrates the variation in the share of the urban, rural, and suburban populations represented in FBI national crime statistics across 50 states in 2023. Notably, there were no broad-based differences in data coverage for Democratic- or Republican-led states (with the exception of lower coverage rates among Southeast and Appalachian states). However, our analysis found that across the United States, reported crime data covers 84% of the urban population, while only being available for 33% of rural and 33% of suburban populations.

Figure 1 shows the share of the population represented in crime data by locality type (urban, rural, suburban) for the 10 states we studied—finding significantly lower rates of rural and suburban coverage than that of their urban peers (with the promising exception of Massachusetts).

It is often said that what gets measured gets done. The majority of Americans live in suburbs and rural areas, but just one-third of these communities benefit from sufficient local crime data reporting, limiting the ability to craft tailored public safety solutions for them.  

Although recent efforts such as the Real-Time Crime Index and NORC’s Crime Tracker have made significant strides in addressing some of these data challenges (particularly in larger areas), persistent data gaps remain and pose a significant barrier for state and local policymakers in developing the right kinds of public safety initiatives. In particular, low rates of reporting among rural towns and suburbs run the risk of outsized attention to crime in large urban areas, while under-resourcing crime reduction efforts in smaller localities.

Data and Methodology

This piece analyzes FBI Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) data from 2019 to 20235 (2023 being the most recent year available) to present crime trends across select urban, suburban, and rural localities in 10 U.S. states.6 While there are limitations with FBI data (including the reporting time delays, lack of full reporting from local law enforcement agencies, and the fact that not all crimes are reported to the police and therefore are not captured in police data), this paper utilizes UCR for several reasons: 

1) FBI UCR data offer the most complete data source for comparing crime trends across localities of different sizes (namely, the ability to compare rural and suburban crime trends with those of their larger urban counterparts, which often publish local data more frequently); 

2) The data utilize standard definitions of crime categories, which vary across jurisdictions; 

3) The FBI has significantly improved its reporting coverage in recent years; and 

4) Findings from the 2023 UCR dataset align with findings from the other primary data source for comparing rural and urban crime rates, the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), in terms of national trends for 2019 to 2023. 

While local law enforcement data would provide more timely data (since the FBI typically releases year-end trends in September or October of the following year), it is not available for a broad swath of suburban and rural areas, rendering it less useful for comparing trends across localities of different sizes. 

This paper analyzes data from localities in 10 states, chosen for the ability to provide sufficient data to compare crime trends for at least one rural, suburban, and urban locality in the years before and after the COVID-19 pandemic (2019 to 2023). These states also offer representation from different geographic regions and party governance. 

In each of the 10 states, we analyzed crime trends from three localities—one rural, one urban, and one suburban (in the same MSA as the urban area)—with sufficient data to compare property and violent crime trends between 2019 and 2023. 

We also analyze how each locality compares to statewide and national crime trend averages. To broaden our analysis outside of these 10 states, we also selected a set of large cities that are often called out for high crime rates—Chicago, New York, Philadelphia, and Washington, D.C.—to provide additional comparisons that can help inform public understanding. 

Given extensive data limitations, this analysis does not seek to make claims about one locality type (urban, rural, or suburban) being “safer” than the other. Rather, it strives to document the significant nuances that characterize crime trends across the diverse landscape of places that compose the 50 states and the District of Columbia.

Finding #1: Crime is not limited to cities, but varies widely across cities, suburbs, and rural areas, with some suburbs and rural areas reporting higher per capita crime rates in recent years than their urban peers.

The U.S. is at an important turning point in public safety trends. After decades-long declines in crime, the nation experienced one of the largest increases in murders ever recorded in 2020. Since 2023, crime has fallen dramatically nationwide and murder rates have mostly returned to pre-pandemic levels (or below), especially in most cities. Even with this progress, crime remains too high in many communities, particularly in neighborhoods of concentrated poverty—a challenge that remains stubborn and persistent even amid yearly fluctuations in crime rates. Furthermore, public fear of crime remains higher today than at almost any other time this century.  

Our findings seek to enhance knowledge of recent local crime trends in specific urban, rural, and suburban localities across 10 states for which there are sufficient data from 2019 to 2023. Across the 10 states studied, we found significant variation in crime patterns, reinforcing the need for policymakers to understand that the prevalence and growth of crime are not limited to cities, but pose significant challenges for rural and suburban areas as well, particularly in the Southern U.S.   

As Table 1a demonstrates, suburban and rural localities analyzed in North Carolina, Ohio, Tennessee, Texas, Georgia, Massachusetts, and Oregon had higher rates of violent crime than their urban counterparts. These jurisdictions also exhibited higher rates than those found in the U.S. cities often blamed for driving violent crime, such as Chicago and New York. The rural town of Bolivar, Tenn. (population 4,888), for instance, provides a demonstrative example: In 2023, the town had a per capita violent crime rate more than twice that of its urban counterpart in Knoxville and more than three times that of Chicago. The rural town of Laurinburg, N.C. (population 14,928) also had a violent crime rate more than twice that of its urban peer, Charlotte, and 3.5 times higher than Austin, Texas.  

A similarly complicated picture emerged for property crimes. Studied suburban and rural areas in Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio, and North Carolina had higher per capita property crime rates than urban areas in their states, as well as higher rates than cities such as Milwaukee, Washington, D.C., and Chicago. In 2023, the suburb of Whitehall, Ohio (population of 19,816), for example, had a property crime rate more than twice that of the state capital, Columbus, and over three times that of Boston.

Of course, comparing per capita crime rates for a single year only provides a limited glimpse in time. To gauge localities’ progress on crime reduction in the years since the pandemic, we also examined crime trends from 2019 to 2023. 

The interactive map in Figure 2 provides property and violent crime rates for a set of localities in our 10 study states between 2019 and 2023, revealing a patchwork of progress and setbacks across urban, rural, and suburban areas alike. 

To see trends across the 10 states, navigate the interactive map in Figure 2, which displays trends in both violent and property crimes since the pandemic, as well as how these trends compare to statewide averages.

Figure 3 illustrates the kind of visual data one can find in the map interactive. Specifically, in the state of North Carolina, the suburban town of Wadesboro has experienced significant increases in property crime since the pandemic, while the rural town of Laurinburg has disproportionately struggled with violent crime. Rural communities in North Carolina experience, on average, higher per capita property crime rates than the state average. 

Figure 4 demonstrates the overall change in crime rates since the pandemic across the localities in our sample. On the whole, available data indicate that suburban areas in our sample disproportionately struggled with property crime, while urban areas struggled with violent crime. However, rural and suburban areas had significantly more variation in their crime trends across the sample.

It is important to note when interpreting these trends that in localities with a small baseline of crime, spikes in incidents may appear drastic, but overall crime rates could be lower than state or national averages. Even with this caveat, however, prior research indicates that even small increases in low-crime areas can significantly impact the public’s perception of crime and safety in their region.   

Finally, to mitigate some of these data limitations, we examined how our sample compares with national crime averages. Figure 5 demonstrates that, on the whole, urban and rural areas across the entire spectrum of local reporting agencies had higher violent crime rates than the national average, while suburban areas in the sample had significantly higher property crime rates than the national average. These trends must again be taken with significant caution, as 84% of the urban population is covered by reporting agencies, while only 33% of the rural and 33% of the suburban population is covered.

Finding #2: There is a strong relationship between place, economic opportunity, and public safety in cities, and a similar relationship can be found across select suburban and rural areas.

It is well established that within large urban areas, poverty, neighborhood disinvestment, and segregation are strongly correlated with higher rates of violent crime. In fact, recent Brookings research found that in a typical U.S. city, homicide rates in high-poverty neighborhoods are 3 to 4 times higher than in other residential areas in the same city (see Table 2).

Notably, sample cities with the lowest shares of homicides occurring within high-poverty neighborhoods—such as Austin, Texas and Portland, Ore.—also have a relatively lower share of citywide residents who live in high-poverty neighborhoods (11% and 6%, respectively). This aligns with previous research demonstrating that poverty alone is not always a predictive factor for high rates of gun homicides, but rather it is the intersection between poverty, segregation, and systemic disinvestment that concentrates violent crime in place.

The presence of concentrated poverty is one proxy for the quality of economic opportunities in a community. There is other evidence that points to the role that economic conditions in places play in either contributing to crime or reducing it. For instance, the loss of manufacturing jobs, diminished generational economic mobility, and greater economic inequality can contribute to elevated levels of crime in a community.

Policy recommendations: How state and local leaders can work together to systematically reduce crime and expand economic opportunity

As this paper has shown, public safety is not solely an “urban” problem, but rather a shared challenge across communities large and small that requires shared, evidence-based solutions. As state and local lawmakers craft their priorities for 2025 and beyond, the renewed public interest in safety and an economy that works for everyone offers them a strong opportunity to address their constituents’ top concerns in tandem.  

The good news is that state lawmakers and local leaders can look to proven approaches that effectively address these intertwined challenges through collaboration. In fact, crime reduction strategies that pair law enforcement reforms with education, employment, and community development strategies enjoy bipartisan support among state leaders, law enforcement, and progressive organizations.

Conclusion

Concerns about public safety are serious, as are concerns about disparities in economic security. This is exemplified by the experiences of places such as Birmingham, Ala.: When public and private sector leaders there came together to determine how best to address crime, they looked to research, best practices, and the input of residents, including those most impacted by crime. 

What they learned from community members was the desire for the following: clean and well-maintained neighborhoods; access to community resources such as affordable housing; job placement and workforce development programs; youth mentorship and after-school programs; and a stronger police presence in collaboration with community members. 

In short, what residents would like to see from state and local leaders is a mix of interventions that blend short-term policing strategies with investments in jobs, youth, and quality neighborhoods—priorities that are often shared across communities large and small.  

Given today’s climate—with the public exhausted by the nation’s politics and federal funding for violence prevention and place-based economic development uncertain—state and local leaders have an opportune moment to demonstrate that problem-solving and cooperation is possible. This report adds to the data and evidence that states and localities can use to chart an evidence-based, effective path for not only reducing violence in America, but also advancing broad-based prosperity and economic growth across the “urban-rural divide.”

(Hanna Love, Amy Liu, and Bethany Krupicka)OMIKAMI-TV