Trump Lawyer Threatens $5 Billion Lawsuit Over Report Criticizing National Guard Deployment
Translated from English, summarized and contextualized by DistantNews.
At a glance
- Donald Trump's lawyer threatened a $5 billion lawsuit against the Center for American Progress (CAP) unless it retracts a report criticizing the National Guard deployment.
- The CAP report argued the deployment had no measurable impact on crime despite costing $1.7 billion, noting crime rates fell similarly in cities without the Guard.
- CAP stood by its report, calling the lawsuit threat an attack on free speech and stating the report's conclusions are factual and not defamatory.
Donald Trump's legal team has threatened a $5 billion lawsuit against the liberal think tank Center for American Progress (CAP) unless it retracts a July 13 report that criticized the effectiveness of the president's National Guard deployment.
Based on analysis of crime data, our report demonstrated facts about the National Guard deployments that are inconvenient to the Trump administration.
The report, titled "The National Guard's Ineffective Deployment in U.S. Cities," argued that the deployment in Washington D.C., Memphis, and Los Angeles failed to significantly impact crime rates, despite an estimated cost of $1.7 billion. CAP's analysis indicated that crime rates in cities without National Guard intervention decreased at statistically similar rates to those that received the deployment. The report also noted that violent crime had begun falling well before Trump took office in 2025.
Alejandro Brito, a personal lawyer for Trump, sent a letter to CAP demanding the retraction, which was reported by The New York Times. The letter reportedly threatens legal action in Trump's personal capacity, not on behalf of the federal government. Brito's letter outlines that the report's effect on readers implies Trump "knowingly deceived the American people, manipulated crime statistics for political advantage, exploited public fear, abused military and executive authority for an ulterior purpose, staged a sham law enforcement operation, and then lied about its success."
This threatened lawsuitโs attack on facts and evidence is baseless. A fundamental protection of the First Amendment is to allow for the publication of facts and analysis that are contrary to the arguments and claims of any administration. A lawsuit is a transparent attempt to silence us. We will neither cower nor bend in the face of it.
CAP responded by standing firm on its findings, with president and CEO Neera Tanden stating, "This threatened lawsuitโs attack on facts and evidence is baseless." She asserted that the First Amendment protects the publication of facts and analysis that may contradict an administration's claims, calling the lawsuit a "transparent attempt to silence us." CAP further argued in its response that the report's conclusions are statements of fact based on meticulous research and concern crime statistics and government actions, not President Trump himself, thus they cannot be defamatory. The think tank was founded in 2003 by John Podesta, former chief of staff for President Bill Clinton.
The report and commentary โon their face, concern crime statistics and causality, or actions of the federal government, not President Trump himselfโ, the center wrote in response to the threat letter. โIn addition to being true, these statements cannot defame President Trump because they are not about him.โ
Originally published by The Guardian in English. Translated, summarized, and contextualized by our editorial team with added local perspective. Read our editorial standards.