Five years after the COVID-19 Hate Crimes Act, experts warn rising bias, underreporting, and political rhetoric continue fueling violence against minority communities across the United States

Hate Crimes continue to rise, despite Federal legislation

Five years after the passage of the COVID-19 Hate Crimes Act, a law designed to strengthen reporting systems and address a surge in bias-related violence, experts across civil rights organizations warn that hate crimes in the United States remain at persistently high levels. During a recent press briefing, four leading voices from advocacy, policy, and research institutions outlined how structural gaps, political rhetoric, and systemic underreporting continue to shape a troubling landscape for minority communities.

The conversation brought together John C. Yang, president and executive director of Asian Americans Advancing Justice | AAJC; Stephanie Chan, director of data and research at Stop AAPI Hate; Sameer Hossain, managing director of the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC); and Mannirmal Kaur, senior federal policy manager at the Sikh Coalition. Each speaker approached the issue from a distinct lens, yet all converged on a shared conclusion: while legislation marked an important step forward, it has not been enough to reverse the broader trend.

According to data cited during the briefing, hate crimes targeting Asian American, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander (AANHPI) communities remain nearly three times higher than pre-pandemic levels. FBI reports indicate hundreds of cases annually affecting Asian Americans, Sikhs, Muslims, and other minority groups, though experts emphasize these figures represent only a fraction of actual incidents.

Political rhetoric and systemic gaps fuel continued violence

Speakers highlighted the role of political discourse in shaping public attitudes and, ultimately, real-world harm. John C. Yang pointed to recent statements by public officials as part of a broader pattern of rhetoric that frames immigrants and minority communities as threats. He argued that such narratives can legitimize prejudice and embolden individuals to act on bias.

This dynamic is not new. Historical parallels, from the Chinese Exclusion Act to post-9/11 discrimination against Muslim and South Asian communities, illustrate how fear-driven narratives often precede spikes in violence. What makes the current moment distinct, according to Yang, is the convergence of political messaging with reduced institutional safeguards, including cuts to federal programs designed to prevent hate crimes and monitor extremist activity.

At the same time, structural limitations within reporting systems continue to obscure the full scope of the problem. Stephanie Chan explained that official data captures only a portion of hate crimes, excluding non-criminal incidents such as harassment or discrimination. Through its reporting tools and surveys, Stop AAPI Hate has found that approximately half of AAPI adults experienced some form of hate in 2025 alone, yet only a small percentage reported these incidents to authorities.

Barriers to reporting include language limitations, lack of awareness, and, critically, distrust in law enforcement. Many individuals fear that reporting incidents could expose them to immigration scrutiny or yield no meaningful response. As a result, the data gap persists, complicating efforts to design effective policy interventions.

Community impact, evolving patterns, and pathways forward

Beyond statistics, speakers emphasized the human impact of hate-driven violence, sharing stories that illustrate how bias can escalate into tragedy. Sameer Hossain recounted incidents affecting Muslim and South Asian communities, noting that such acts are often fueled by misinformation and collective blame tied to global events. These cycles of violence, he explained, tend to resurface during moments of geopolitical tension, reinforcing patterns of “othering” that cut across different communities.

Mannirmal Kaur added that hate against Sikh Americans has deep historical roots, predating even the post-9/11 surge often associated with anti-Muslim sentiment. She stressed that while the forms of discrimination evolve, the underlying drivers—racism, xenophobia, and lack of cultural understanding—remain consistent. Educational initiatives, particularly in schools, have shown promise in reducing bias, underscoring the importance of early intervention.

Across all perspectives, one theme emerged clearly: addressing hate crimes requires more than punitive measures. While legal frameworks are necessary, they must be complemented by community-based solutions, improved data systems, and sustained public education efforts. Speakers called for expanded funding for local reporting mechanisms, stronger collaboration between government agencies and civil society, and policies that prioritize prevention alongside enforcement.

They also emphasized the role of media and public discourse in shaping outcomes. Accurate reporting, they argued, can counter misinformation, amplify marginalized voices, and foster a more nuanced understanding of the issue. In contrast, sensationalized or incomplete narratives risk perpetuating the very biases that contribute to hate.

A challenge that extends beyond legislation

As the discussion concluded, speakers acknowledged that the persistence of hate crimes reflects broader societal tensions that cannot be resolved through legislation alone. Economic uncertainty, political polarization, and shifting demographic dynamics all contribute to an environment where scapegoating can take hold.

Yet, there was also a note of cautious optimism. Historical precedents show that collective action, advocacy, and policy reform can drive progress, even in the face of entrenched challenges. The COVID-19 Hate Crimes Act itself stands as evidence of what coordinated efforts can achieve.

The path forward, speakers suggested, lies in sustaining that momentum while addressing the gaps that remain. From improving reporting systems to fostering cross-community solidarity, the solutions require engagement at every level, from local organizations to federal institutions.

Ultimately, the message was clear: while hate crimes continue to rise, so too does the capacity for communities to respond, adapt, and push for a more inclusive society. The question now is whether that response can outpace the forces driving division.