August 22, 2026

Trump Threatens Lawsuit Against Think Tank Over Defamation Claim

President Trump’s legal team, led by lawyer Alejandro Brito, is threatening a defamation lawsuit against the Center for American Progress. The potential suit is based on a report from July which claimed there was “no evidence that National Guard deployments have reduced violent crime.” Brito’s letter demanded the organization retract the report, issue an apology, and compensate the president by 5 p.m. on a specified Friday. Failure to do so may result in a lawsuit seeking at least $5 billion in damages.

Kevin Metz, representing the Center for American Progress, responded by calling the lawsuit threats “utterly absurd” and argued that “truth is not and cannot be defamation.” He emphasized the importance of debate and expression of dissent in a democracy. CAP President and CEO Neera Tanden supported this stance, stating that the threats aim to silence them and they will continue to uphold their findings under the First Amendment.

The report criticized by Trump was based on multiple analyses of crime data across cities like Los Angeles, Washington, D.C., Memphis, and New Orleans. It concluded that the deployment of National Guard troops did not significantly affect violent crime rates, homicides, or gun-related violence. The FBI reported a national decrease in violent crime rates for 2025.

CBS News legal expert Jessica Levinson explained that Trump would face challenges if he pursued the lawsuit due to the high legal standards for defamation involving public figures. To succeed, Trump’s team would need to prove that CAP acted with actual malice, meaning they knew the report was false or ignored its falsity. Levinson also highlighted that disputing statistics doesn’t easily lead to defamation claims.

Trump has previously used lawsuits to target perceived opponents. Tanden noted that resolving policy disputes through debate is crucial in America and warned against efforts to stifle independent research that displeases the administration. The incident highlights tensions between freedom of expression and legal action in the political arena.

TAGS: