President Trump moved to defend his crime-fighting record, threatening a $5 billion lawsuit over a think tank report that he says misleads the public and undermines law and order.
Story Snapshot
- Trump’s team demanded a retraction of a Center for American Progress report or face a $5 billion suit.
- The disputed report claims National Guard deployments did not reduce violent crime.
- The White House cites sharp national crime drops during 2025 under Trump.
- Center for American Progress refuses to retract and defends its methodology.
What Sparked the Legal Threat
President Trump’s lawyers sent a demand letter to the Center for American Progress, a major progressive group, ordering a retraction of its July crime study or face a $5 billion defamation lawsuit. The study argued that National Guard deployments in several cities did not reduce violent crime. Trump publicly said a lawsuit is being prepared and could include donors, after media coverage amplified the report’s claims about cost and impact on crime trends.
The Center for American Progress report framed the deployments as costly and ineffective, claiming no measurable drop in homicides, violent crime, or gun violence followed the Guard’s arrival. The group promoted the findings on social media and in interviews, pushing the message that declines were already underway before federal actions. That framing clashes with the administration’s case that a firm federal posture helped restore order and deter repeat offenders.
How Each Side Frames the Crime Trend
The White House points to official data showing violent crime fell at a record pace during 2025, calling it the largest annual drop on record and a sign that stronger enforcement works. That narrative credits a broader approach, including support for police, targeted federal help, and tougher prosecution of violent offenders. The Center for American Progress argues the historic national decline began earlier and insists Guard deployments were not the driver in the specific cities it studied.
Media and advocacy outlets elevated the think tank’s claim that cities targeted or threatened with deployments had notable crime declines before federal intervention. The Center for American Progress highlights pre-deployment trends and asserts its methods tested different time windows and datasets to rule out Guard effects. That posture aims to cast the Guard’s role as symbolic and expensive rather than causal. The report’s author restated this position in public interviews, reinforcing the message.
The Legal Stakes and the Road Ahead
A defamation action by a sitting president against a policy think tank would be rare and high profile. The legal bar for public figures remains high. A plaintiff must show false statements of fact and, for public figures, actual malice. The Center for American Progress maintains its work is factual analysis based on public data. Trump’s team argues the report crosses the line by asserting a clear, testable claim that harms the administration’s reputation and misleads the public.
BREAKING: Trump just dropped the HAMMER, putting billionaires, and big tech on notice, with George Soros, and Bill Gates, as the main targets in major lawsuit!
After a think tank said his National Guard deployments didn't cut crime, Trump is ready to start a massive lawsuit,… pic.twitter.com/1cYGIvsQF4
— The SCIF (@TheSCIF) September 7, 2026
For readers, the core question is practical: did Guard deployments help reduce violence in the places they served, and how much? The White House underscores national declines and the value of visible strength to support local police and reassure families. The Center for American Progress says the specific deployments it studied did not change local trends and carried heavy costs. Until a court or fresh independent review resolves the clash, both sides will keep arguing their numbers and methods.
Why This Matters to Public Safety and Accountability
Families deserve safety and truth, not spin. Cities suffered years of soft-on-crime policies, anti-police rhetoric, and revolving-door justice. Many readers saw National Guard support as a necessary backstop when local leaders failed. If a public report declares that support “failed,” evidence must be rock solid. The administration seeks to defend policies it says helped push crime down, and to hold groups accountable if their claims blur method into ideology at the expense of public confidence.
Sources:
thegatewaypundit.com, americanprogress.org, ground.news, politico.com, conv.news, news.meaww.com, congress.gov
