President Trump Threatens Legal Action Against Think Tank for Defamation

President Trump’s legal team has announced its intention to file a defamation lawsuit against the Center for American Progress, a left-leaning think tank. The legal action involves a report released in July that claims, “no evidence that National Guard deployments have reduced violent crime.”

Trump’s lawyer, Alejandro Brito, sent a letter on August 17 demanding the report’s retraction, an apology, and compensation by Friday at 5 p.m. Brito stated that non-compliance could lead to a lawsuit seeking at least $5 billion in damages.

In reply, Kevin Metz, an attorney for the Center for American Progress, described the threatened lawsuit as “utterly absurd,” stating, “truth is not and cannot be defamation,” and emphasizing the importance of dissent in democracy.

“This threatened lawsuit’s attack on facts and evidence is baseless,” said CAP President and CEO Neera Tanden. “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.”

The Trump administration initially deployed National Guard troops to Los Angeles in June 2025. The aim was to protect federal immigration officials during protests over immigration raids. Later, in August, Trump announced Guard deployments to Washington, D.C. to address crime and unrest, followed by deployments to Memphis and New Orleans.

The contentious report analyzed city crime data and concluded that the National Guard’s presence “had no measurable effect on violent crime, homicides, or gun victimizations.” Despite these findings, the FBI recently reported a decline in violent crime rates nationwide in 2025.

The potential lawsuit may encounter significant legal hurdles. Legal expert Jessica Levinson from Loyola Law School in Los Angeles pointed out that public figures must demonstrate “actual malice” in defamation cases. This means proving the statement was made with knowledge of its falsehood or reckless disregard for the truth.

Levinson also explained the difficulty in linking the statements directly to Trump “as opposed to generally criticizing his administration.” Given Trump’s history of using lawsuits against perceived opponents, the dispute underscores ongoing tensions between public policy debates and legal action.

Tanden concluded, “In America, profound disagreements over public policy are resolved through robust public debate, not through threats or intimidation. Independent data, evidence, and analysis are essential to that debate. Efforts to silence independent research because its findings are unwelcome by an administration or president should alarm every American.”

Legal arguments and public debate continue as the deadline approaches for the Center for American Progress to respond to the legal demands.