• WalletHub released a report ranking the safest cities in the US.
• The ranking analyzed 182 US cities based on 41 safety indicators across three categories.
• Juneau, Alaska, was ranked the safest city in the US, while New Orleans was ranked the least safe.

American cities face a range of safety concerns, and the risks can vary significantly depending on location.

In some cities, natural disasters such as hurricanes, tornadoes, and floods pose the greatest threats to locals. In others, safety concerns may instead center on financial security or the overall safety of homes and communities.

WalletHub compared a total of 182 cities — the 150 largest cities in the US, plus at least two of the most populous cities in every state — to determine the safest and least-safe cities in the US.

WalletHub examined 41 safety indicators across three categories: home and community safety, natural-disaster risk, and financial safety.

To evaluate home and community safety, WalletHub looked at factors including crime rates, traffic and pedestrian fatalities, and the number of emergency responders per capita.

The natural-disaster risk ranking was determined by cities' risk-index scores for natural disasters such as earthquakes, tornadoes, and wildfires.

The financial safety ranking considered factors such as poverty and unemployment rates, as well as identity theft complaints per capita.

To conduct its analysis, WalletHub looked at data from sources including the US Census Bureau, the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Here are the top 10 safest and least-safe cities in the US.

1. Juneau, Alaska

Out of the 182 cities WalletHub examined, Juneau was ranked the safest city in the US. It ranked 46th in home and community safety, fourth in financial safety, and first in natural-disaster risk.

Juneau featured the lowest murder rate and lowest pedestrian fatality rate, and there have been no recorded terrorist attacks or terrorist-related incidents in the past decade. The risk of natural disasters in Juneau is particularly low, with the second-lowest risk of flooding and tornadoes.

Financially, Juneau has the 21st-lowest percentage of residents below the poverty line.

2. Warwick, Rhode Island

As the second-safest city in the US, Warwick's home and community safety was ranked ninth, its natural-disaster risk was ranked fifth, and its financial safety was ranked 46th.

Warwick had the fourth-lowest number of aggravated assaults per capita and the sixth-lowest number of thefts per capita.

3. Overland Park, Kansas

Overland Park rounded out the top three safest cities in the US, with its home and community safety ranking fourth and its financial safety ranking seventh.

The Kansas City suburb placed 138th in WalletHub's natural-disaster-risk category. The greater Kansas City area had received 88 tornado warnings by June 2026, ABC affiliate KMBC reported.

However, Overland Park had the 19th-lowest pedestrian fatality rate and the 15th-lowest traffic fatality rate among the 182 cities WalletHub analyzed. It also had the 14th-lowest unemployment rate in the country and the third-lowest share of residents who are living in poverty.

4. Burlington, Vermont

Burlington is relatively safe from natural disasters, with its natural-disaster risk ranked third overall. Its financial safety was ranked 24th, and its home and community safety was ranked 43rd.

5. South Burlington, Vermont

South Burlington, Vermont, tied with Burlington for third place in natural-disaster risk. The two cities are only miles apart.

South Burlington's financial safety ranked higher, in sixth place. Its home and community safety ranked lower than Burlington's, at 51st.

6. Virginia Beach, Virginia

WalletHub ranked Virginia Beach 22nd in home and community safety, 10th in natural-disaster risk, and 55th in financial safety.

7. Cedar Rapids, Iowa

In Cedar Rapids, the city's home and community safety ranked 10th, its natural-disaster risk ranked 23rd, and its financial safety ranked 42nd.

8. Casper, Wyoming

Casper's financial safety ranking placed it in the top 10, in ninth place. Its natural-disaster risk ranked 19th, and its home and community safety ranked 32nd.

9. Boise, Idaho

Boise was ranked No. 33rd in home and community safety, 41st in natural-disaster risk, and fifth in financial safety.

10. Yonkers, New York

WalletHub's ranking named Yonkers as the 10th-safest city in the US. Out of 182 cities, it ranked third in home and community safety, 59th in natural-disaster risk, and 108th in financial safety.

Keep reading for the bottom 10 cities, which are ranked the least safe in the US.

173. St. Louis, Missouri

Out of the 182 cities WalletHub examined, St. Louis ranked 177th in home and community safety and 146th in financial safety.

The Missouri city ranked relatively well in its natural-disaster risk ranking, however, coming in at 34th.

174. Cleveland, Ohio

Cleveland ranked well in WalletHub's natural-disaster risk rating, coming in at 74th.

In the financial safety category, the city ranked 153rd. The lowest category it was ranked in was the home and community category, ranking 175th.

175. Houston, Texas

Houston's financial safety ranking placed the city 163rd. Its natural-disaster risk ranked 170th, and its home and community safety ranked 171st.

176. Jacksonville, Florida

Jacksonville was ranked 170th in home and community safety, 177th in natural-disaster risk, and 166th in financial safety.

177. Detroit, Michigan

WalletHub ranked Detroit 173rd in home and community safety and 67th in natural-disaster risk.

It was ranked the least safe city in the US for financial safety, coming in at 182nd.

178. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

In Philadelphia, the city's home and community safety ranked 176th, its natural-disaster risk ranked 137th, and its financial safety ranked 159th.

179. Memphis, Tennessee

WalletHub ranked Memphis as the second-worst city for financial safety, coming in at 181st, behind Detroit.

The city ranked 179th in home and community safety, and jumped to 60th in the natural-disaster risk category.

180. Baltimore, Maryland

Baltimore was ranked 180th in home and community safety. It ranked 174th in financial safety, and performed better in the natural-disaster risk category, placing 106th.

181. Baton Rouge, Louisiana

Ranked the second-least-safe city in the US, Baton Rouge came in 181st for home and community safety, 130th for natural-disaster risk, and 144th for financial safety.

182. New Orleans, Louisiana

Out of the 182 cities WalletHub examined, New Orleans is considered the least safe city in the US, largely due to its home and community safety, where it ranked the least safe, and its financial safety, where it ranked 172nd.

As a hurricane-prone city, New Orleans ranked better in the natural-disaster risk category, however, coming in at 104th.

• Oxford Economics' 2026 Global Cities Index ranked cities around the world on their quality of life.
• US cities ranked highly for economics, but fell short in the quality of life category.
• European cities dominated the quality of life list, while only one US city made the top 20.

Cities in the US rank high globally in terms of economics, but they have some ground to cover in quality of life, according to a new report.

For its 2026 Global Cities Index, economic advisory firm Oxford Economics ranked 1,000 cities across the globe based on five categories: economics, human capital, environment, and quality of life.

Every category is viewed from an economic lens, even quality of life, where indicators include income equality and housing expenditure, among others.

"The Global Cities Index records the progress cities are making across a comprehensive range of metrics," Mark Britton, managing director of city services at Oxford Economics, said in the report. "Sitting alongside our forecasts and scenario models, its ability to highlight how paths change under different conditions and its capacity for comparability shows you not just where cities stand today, but also where they are heading."

The overall list features several US cities in the top 20 — eight, to be exact, with New York taking the No. 1 spot. However, when highlighting quality of life specifically, only one US city made the cut.

Quality of life, which accounts for 25% of a city's overall score, wasn't a bright spot for the US, but plenty of other cities excelled in that category. See which cities ranked highest in quality of life, according to Oxford Economics.

20. Venice, Italy

Overall score: 51.2

Quality of life score: 86.3

19. Stuttgart, Germany

Overall score: 70.7

Quality of life score: 86.5

18. Prague

Overall score: 78.1

Quality of life score: 86.9

17. Sydney

Overall score: 88.3

Quality of life score: 87.2

16. Munich

Overall score: 85

Quality of life score: 87.3

15. Berlin

Overall score: 84.6

Quality of life score: 87.7

14. Zurich

Overall score: 89.1

Quality of life score: 87.7

13. San Jose, United States

Overall score: 89.6

Quality of life score: 87.9

12. Linz, Austria

Overall score: 70.6

Quality of life score: 88

11. Basel, Switzerland

Overall score: 79.6

Quality of life score: 88

10. Paris

Overall score: 93.4

Quality of life score: 88.1

9. Ghent, Belgium

Overall score: 74.9

Quality of life score: 88.4

8. Dresden, Germany

Overall score: 59.4

Quality of life score: 88.5

7. Luxembourg

Overall score: 82.5

Quality of life score: 89

6. Oslo, Norway

Overall score: 89.1

Quality of life score: 89.3

5. Bern, Switzerland

Overall score: 78.2

Quality of life score: 89.8

4. Grenoble, France

Overall score: 67.7

Quality of life score: 90.8

3. Singapore

Overall score: 82.1

Quality of life score: 91.6

2. Bergen, Norway

Overall score: 80

Quality of life score: 94.3

1. Canberra, Australia

Overall score: 79.4

Quality of life score: 100

Yesterday, in United States v. City of New York, yet another federal court ruled against the Trump administration in a sanctuary city case. "Sanctuary" jurisdictions are state and local governments that restrict their law enforcement agencies and other employees from assisting federal immigration enforcement and deportation efforts in various ways. In this case,  Judge Reyes of the US District Court for the Eastern District of New York upheld New York City laws restricting local law enforcement information-sharing and other assistance to federal immigration enforcers.

The court ruled that federal law does not preempt these policies, and that if if it did, there would be a violation of the anti-commandeering requirements of the Tenth Amendment:

Even were the Court to find that the United States has standing and the challenged provisions are preempted—both answered in the negative above—United States' claims would still fail because the anticommandeering doctrine of the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States precludes relief.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." U.S. Const. amend. X….

The United States argues it is "not seeking to compel participation in immigration enforcement … but rather to remove Defendants' express and implicit obstacles to the Executive's duty to carry out its immigration enforcement duties…." New York City replies "if accepted, [the United States' claims] would require the City to affirmatively assist the federal government in enforcing immigration laws in violation of the Tenth Amendment's anticommandeering doctrine…." New York City is correct, at least partially.

The United States seeks injunctive and declaratory relief to preempt the challenged provisions… If the challenged provisions were struck, while New York City would not be obligated to carry out federal immigration enforcement, they would be barred from prohibiting their agencies and employees from engaging in federal immigration enforcement by expending personnel, property, and other resources to (1) detain individuals and (2) implement inter-agency information-sharing, including disclosing personally identifiable information, all potentially in violation of state law. And of course, there is nothing within federal law that obligates states to participate in federal immigration enforcement or compels states to comply therewith.

The United States' preemption arguments amount to nothing more than a backdoor around the Tenth Amendment and rest on a false distinction between (a) compelling local governments' participation in federal immigration enforcement and (b) prohibiting local governments from dictating how their personnel and other resources may be utilized towards federal immigration enforcement….. "

The basic principle—that Congress cannot issue direct orders to state legislatures—applies" to commands for "affirmative action" and the imposition of "prohibitions." Murphy [v. NCAA], 584 U.S. at 455 (citation modified). If states cannot remain free to control their agencies and employees to resist federal immigration enforcement, which is within states' constitutional prerogatives, the Tenth Amendment anticommandeering doctrine means nothing.

This reasoning is correct. And it is notable that this ruling - like many others protecting sanctuary cities - relies heavily on the Supreme Court's 2018 anti-commandeering decision in Murphy v. NCAA, written by Justice Samuel Alito (probably the Court's most conservative justice), and joined by all the other conservatives then on the Court. In that case, the Court emphasized that the anti-commandeering doctrine bars Congress from dictating the actions of state and local legislatures, regardless of whether the dictation takes the form of an affirmative mandate, or a prohibition against legalizing or barring something under state law.

Judge Reyes also rejects the administration's argument under the "intergovernmental immunity" doctrine, which bars states and localities from directly regulating federal agencies or "discriminating" against them. Like the court in the recent case of United States v. New Jersey, he correctly emphasizes that there can be no discrimination when there is no other comparable activity that gets more favorable treatment under the sanctuary jurisdiction's policies:

"Differential treatment is critical to a discrimination-based intergovernmental immunity claim." New York, 814 F. Supp. 3d at 282….; "[A] comparator is necessary." New York, 810 F. Supp. 3d at 353. The United States discrimination claim fails for lack of a comparator.

The United States does not and cannot identify a similarly situated entity. State and local agencies and their officers do not enforce immigration law, nor do members of the public…  As the United States concedes, the Federal Government holds the "exclusive charge of enforcing immigration law…."  Not only are other federal law enforcement agencies with different charges differently situated, "[f]or a state law to unconstitutionally discriminate against the federal government, it must treat comparable classes of federal and non-federal employees differently, not different classes of federal employees." Illinois, 796 F. Supp. 3d at 534

I would add that, as I explained in a recent post, the entire antidiscrimination element of the intergovernmental immunity doctrine is dubious, and should probably be overturned by the Supreme Court:

[T]he whole doctrine of intergovernmental immunity strikes me as bogus, judge-made law. There is no provision in the Constitution requiring it. And the federal government is not some historically oppressed minority group protected by the antidiscrimination provisions Fourteenth Amendment. Where state and local governments are otherwise free to refuse to help the feds, that autonomy should not be forfeited merely because they choose to support potentially similar activities by state or local governments, or by the private sector. Obviously, a district court cannot refuse to obey Supreme Court precedent in this field. But I hope the Supreme Court might someday reevaluate that precedent.

This is just the most recent of a long line of defeats for Trump in sanctuary city cases, in both his first and second administration. Judge Reyes cites close to a dozen such cases over the last year alone.  I summarized this jurisprudence more fully in a post covering three other recent sanctuary cases, last month:

In cases where the administration has tried to directly coerce states and localities into cooperating, courts have rightly ruled this violates the Supreme Court's "anti-commandeering" precedents, a series of decisions reached primarily by conservative justices, which hold that the federal government may not force state and local governments to help enforce federal law or carry out under federal purposes. In cases where Trump has sought to withhold federal funds from sanctuary jurisdictions, courts have (also rightly) ruled that the executive cannot impose conditions on federal grants that were not authorized by Congress and (in some cases) that the Trump conditions are unconstitutionally coercive. For my analyses of Trump II court decisions on these issues, see here, here, and here.

My 2019 Texas Law Review article surveying and assessing litigation arising from Trump's first-term attacks on sanctuary jurisdictions. There and in other writings, I also explain why immigration sanctuaries (and conservative gun sanctuaries) are beneficial, and help protect our constitutional system. See also my February 2026 Dispatch article, "In Defense of Sanctuary Cities," which provides an overview of these issues, and defends sanctuary jurisdictions on both constitutional and policy grounds.

Yesterday's ruling may be appealed. But if so, it is unlikely to be overturned.

Trump has posted a few rare wins in sanctuary cases with unusual facts, such as in the Contracts Clause case I analyzed in the September post. But, such cases are highly exceptional. And, as explained in the September post, the Contracts Clause decision has various flaws, and would not greatly impede sanctuary jurisdictions even if it survives on appeal.

Overall, Trump has been losing these kinds of cases so much that he might even get tired of losing.

The post Trump Loses Yet Another Sanctuary City Case—This Time Against New York City appeared first on Reason Magazine.

• Smoke from fires in Indonesia has blanketed Singapore in haze, obscuring its iconic skyline.
• Air pollution hit its highest level this year on Friday, reaching "very unhealthy" levels.
• The haze has disrupted flights, shuttered outdoor sports facilities, and canceled a run for nearly 3,000.

Singapore, the Southeast Asian financial hub known for its futuristic skyline, has been blanketed by milky haze as smoke from fires in neighboring Indonesia drifts across the region.

The haze has affected Singapore for weeks, with conditions deteriorating in recent days. The pollution has disrupted flights, shut down outdoor sports facilities, and prompted organizers to call off a major running event.

On Friday, air quality in parts of Singapore reached "very unhealthy" levels, with pollution readings hitting their highest point this year.

Here's what the haze looks like across the city.

Singapore's landmark skyline fades into the haze

Marina Bay Sands, the three-towered hotel overlooking Singapore's waterfront, has been shrouded in a milky haze.

Singapore's environmental agency said winds were carrying smoke from fires in Indonesia's Kalimantan region toward the city-state.

Pollution has hit its highest level this year

On Friday, air quality across much of Singapore reached the "very unhealthy" range on the country's Pollutant Standards Index.

At that level, authorities recommend avoiding prolonged or strenuous outdoor activity.

The PSI has been in the unhealthy range since October 5, making it 12 days of poor air in the city.

The last time things looked this foggy in Singapore was during a 14-day period of hazy conditions in 2015. The country has seen shorter episodes of haze conditions in 2019 and 2023, but those blew over within a couple of days.

The haze is affecting air travel

Poor visibility has disrupted flights at Singapore's smaller Seletar Airport, leading to diversions and cancellations.

Both Seletar and the country's main international airport, Changi, remain operational.

Nearly 3,000 runners have had their plans canceled

The ISCA Run, scheduled for Saturday at Gardens by the Bay, was canceled because of the haze, affecting almost 3,000 registered participants.

An ISCA spokesperson told Business Insider that organizers made the call early because air conditions remained unpredictable and they were concerned about the safety of runners, including young children taking part in the Family Run.

The pollution is keeping people indoors

Singapore's public sports operator temporarily closed all outdoor and non-air-conditioned sports facilities it manages across the island on Friday because of the haze.

Indoor, air-conditioned facilities have remained open.

Official guidance says ammonia in animal urine should be watered down to stop it corroding bark

A neighbourhood in Vienna has introduced guidelines for dog walking, including the use of bottled tap water to rinse away urine and protect vulnerable trees.

Neubau, an up-and-coming, densely populated district dotted with cafes and galleries, rolled out the Schönes Gassi (nice dog walk) campaign this week.

In the final part of our series on the country, Poles tell how wages have soared – along with the cost of living

• Will military spending help or hinder Poland’s growth story?

• Poland’s push for EU energy resilience amid Russian aggression

Above the rain-soaked streets of Warsaw, the observation deck of the Varso tower overlooks Joseph Stalin’s gift to Poland that has divided opinion for decades.

For some, the Soviet-era Palace of Culture and Science is a drunk confectioner’s nightmare; standing as a relic of oppression that should have been demolished. For others, it is an icon on the skyline and a monumental warning from history.

European regions and cities demand clear rules and solid financial backing to help Europe’s ailing car industry through the shift to electric vehicles (EVs). The European Committee of the Regions (CoR) on Wednesday adopted an opinion on the European Commission’s Automotive Package, arguing that the transition will only succeed if regions are adequately equipped to carry it.

Regions said electrification is crucial to achieving climate-neutral road transport, but that success depends on affordability and access. They called for charging infrastructure across regions, funded by European, national and regional budgets, as well as targeted demand support in lower-income regions.

“Europe’s regions and cities have spoken with one voice: competitiveness and electrification by 2035 go hand in hand,” said María Chivite, President of the Navarre region in Spain, who drafted the opinion. Europe can only lead the transition, she argued, if regions receive “real financing”.

The Commission proposed the Automotive Package in December. It suggests a 90-percent-cut in tailpipe emissions from 2035, with the remaining 10 percent offset through low-carbon steel or e-fuels and biofuels. The CoR welcomed these temporary flexibilities but warned that they must not delay zero-emission mobility.

Brigitte Torloting, Chair of the Automotive Regions Alliance (ARA) and Vice-President of France’s Grand Est region, warned that time is short and “global competition will not wait for us”. She called for a strategy that protects automotive production in the regions, backed by strong European instruments such as “European preference.” Without a clear framework and targeted investment, she said, Europe risks losing its industrial base, from small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) to major suppliers.

Made in the EU

“European preference” is an approach first introduced in the Commission’s proposal for an Industrial Accelerator Act in March and is designed to prioritise EU-based manufacturing. The Commission suggests public procurement contracts and state-subsidised industrial projects to source a minimum percentage of materials or components from European producers. For EV production, the Commission proposed that 70% of components for new cars – excluding the battery – must originate within the EU.

CoR members also welcomed the “Made in the EU” approach to strenghten European production but insisted it must be proportionate, so that SMEs and regional supply chains are not buried in red tape.

With automotive production concentrated in specific territories, the opinion also calls for targeted cohesion funding, skills and quality jobs.

According to EU figures for 2024, the automotive industry contributed 7 percent of EU gross domestic product (GDP), about EUR 170 billion in exports and supported around 13.8 million jobs, 3.5 million of them in manufacturing. According to CoR figures, the 41 regions organised in the Automotive Regions Alliance (ARA) generate more than 40 percent of EU GDP.

This story was produced by the European Newsroom (enr) in cooperation with the European Committee of the Regions (CoR). The editorial responsibility lies with the enr. 

Press contact:

Theresa Sostmann
Tel. +32475999415

Theresa.Sostmann@cor.europa.eu