MSNBC justice correspondent Ken Dilanian has reversed his position on FBI crime statistics, now calling data under FBI Director Kash Patel "basically bogus" after previously defending similar statistics from the Biden administration as reliable.
Months ago, Dilanian dismissed Republican skepticism of FBI crime numbers, calling Donald Trump's claim of a 43 percent violent crime surge under President Joe Biden "flatly wrong." He cited FBI data showing violent crime down 3 percent and murder down 11.6 percent in 2023, calling it the largest single-year drop on record.
"That should be uncontroversial," Dilanian told MSNBC anchor Andrea Mitchell at the time, criticizing Republicans for rejecting what he characterized as straightforward data from cities covering 94 percent of the population.
Now, Dilanian is co-authoring reports alleging that Patel is "padding the stats" and accusing the FBI of "gaming the system." According to his reporting, Patel changed policy to include violent arrests made by other agencies—in which the FBI merely had a presence—in the agency's official tally.
Dilanian points to the timing of arrests from the FBI's Most Wanted list, alleging the agency adds names shortly before they're captured to claim credit for apprehensions that would likely have happened anyway. He reports that four of six fugitives captured during Patel's tenure were taken into custody within a month of being added to the list, with two arrested within a day and one within an hour.
FBI spokesman Ben Williamson rejected the allegations, characterizing them as attempts to discredit law enforcement and insisting the agency has overseen "the most prolific reduction in crime in United States history." Williamson did not substantively address Dilanian's methodological concerns.
The shift raises questions about consistency in how journalists evaluate law enforcement statistics across different administrations. When Biden-era FBI data showed crime declining, it was presented as virtually unassailable. When Patel's FBI reports statistics, similar methodology warrants aggressive investigation and public criticism.
Public trust in institutions depends on consistent standards. If journalists apply rigorous scrutiny to one administration's crime data while accepting another's without question, it reinforces the perception that news judgment is driven by political preference rather than principle.
Legitimate questions exist about how any law enforcement agency measures success and reports statistics. Definitional changes, reporting methodology shifts and presentation choices can all distort what numbers convey. These concerns should apply consistently regardless of which administration is in power.
If the methodology Dilanian now questions is genuinely problematic, it raises questions about whether similar issues existed in the Biden era. Conversely, if Biden-era statistics were sound, the current approach deserves scrutiny based on evidence rather than political affiliation.
