Trump threatens lawsuit against nonprofit that questioned whether National Guard plan lessened crime

Trump threatens lawsuit against nonprofit that questioned whether National Guard plan lessened crime 1 of 2 | Members of the Arkansas National Guard continue their patrol after carrying an elderly woman in her wheelchair down the steps to the train platform due to an out-of-service elevator at the Columbia Heights metro station, Monday, Aug. 10, 2026, in Washington. (AP Photo/Rod Lamkey, Jr.) 2 of 2 | As members of the National Guard walk on patrol, protesters from Free DC rally against continued National Guard presence in the district, on the one year anniversary of President Trump’s emergency declaration activating the National Guard, Tuesday, Aug. 11, 2026, in Washington. (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin) By GARY FIELDS Updated 1:21 AM MESZ, August 22, 2026 Leer en español Add AP News on Google Add AP News as your preferred source to see more of our stories on Google. Share Share Facebook Copy Link copied Print Email X LinkedIn Bluesky Flipboard Pinterest Reddit WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump is threatening to sue a left-leaning think tank unless it retracts a report that said his National Guard deployments to various cities did not reduce crime as he said. The letter gave the Washington, D.C.-based Center for American Progress until the end of business Friday to issue the retraction or face a $5 billion lawsuit. The center declined. The nonprofit’s president and chief executive, Neera Tanden, said in a statement that the lawsuit “is a transparent attempt to silence us. We will neither cower nor bend in the face of it.” The report, published July 13, criticized the administration for taking credit for a historic drop in violent crime at a time when that decline was already underway. The analysis concluded that Trump’s deployment of the National Guard “had no measurable effect on violent crime trends.” Tanden said the work was based on the nonprofit’s analysis of crime data and its findings were simply “inconvenient to the Trump administration.” In the letter, sent Monday and first reported by The New York Times, Trump attorney Alejandro Brito said the center should “immediately retract the false, malicious, and defamatory statements made about President Trump.” Brito highlighted several examples of statements in the report that drew objections from Trump. One read, “In an effort to falsely claim his policies have reduced crime, the president is exploiting the fact that violent crime and murder were already declining in the cities his administration targeted with these extreme interventions.” Washington grapples with a National Guard deployment extended until 2029 2 MIN READ 31 Guard deployment to Washington into 2029 will cost roughly $1.4B, estimate shows 5 MIN READ 69 Judge weighs bid to block or reverse transfers of transgender inmates into a segregated prison unit 5 MIN READ 69 Brito wrote that failure to retract the report will leave Trump no choice but to seek remedies for the “overwhelming financial and reputational harm that Defendants have caused him to suffer.” Attempts to reach Brito on Friday were unsuccessful. The nonprofit’s general counsel, Kevin Metz, said in a letter responding to the threat that the defamation allegation “is utterly absurd: truth is not and cannot be defamation. The legal standards here are clear, well-established, and speech-protective.” This is our AP Ground Game newsletter. You can subscribe below and we will email it you 3 times per week. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google and Terms of Service apply. Threatening lawsuits against perceived enemies or over media coverage he doesn’t like is part of a well-worn playbook for Trump. At the beginning of his second term, he threatened numerous legal firms with cutting off access to the federal government unless they capitulated to his various demands, which some did. Kevin Goldberg, a First Amendment expert at the Freedom Forum, said such threats from Trump are done “for the purpose of trying to push someone into submission rather than actually on the merits of compensating Donald Trump for any harm that might have been caused.”