Per The New York Times, President Trump’s attorney, Alejandro Brito, sent the Center for American Progress a letter threatening a $5 Billion defamation lawsuit if they did not retract and apologize for their July 13th report showing that National Guard deployments in U.S. cities have little to no impact on violent crime. The deadline for compliance was 5 pm on Friday.
What the dispute is over
Center for American Progress (CAP) has been critical of the Administration’s stated reason for deploying the National Guard to U.S. cities – i.e., because the deployments were having a meaningful impact on reducing violent crime. CAP says that the deployment had no positive effect on crime; Brito’s letter refers to CAP’s report as “malicious” and “false.”
But according to CAP President Neera Tanden, CAP’s work is based on evidence and she will not be retracting her findings.
Recent studies show that violent crime rates have dropped broadly and extensively across the United States, following a national downward trend that began before any recent federal National Guard deployments.
In fact, cities without military or guard deployments have experienced similar or greater drops in homicides and violent offenses, indicating the deployments more than likely are not driving the decline.
Why this is important
Trump often turns to lawsuits—or the threat of them—when facing criticism.
While the verdict of this case probably isn’t in doubt, even a weak defamation claim can cost money to defend, take away from the time available to do advocacy work, and scare other advocacy groups and media organizations less likely to publish criticisms of government officials.
That’s likely the real goal.
For a defamation claim brought against a public official, the legal bar is generally quite high: the plaintiff must show that a false statement of fact was made with “actual malice,” either knowing that it was false or being aware that it was likely false. Claims based on assessments grounded in disclosed research, data and/or analysis are typically easier to defend than clearly false factual statements.
Political Framing
This case fits into a larger trend in politics/communications – where criticism of institutions, especially when the criticism is supported by data, is not seen as simply a matter of differing opinions – but rather as a form of behavior which could lead to consequences.
Tanden referred to the threat as an attempt to stifle CAP from doing its job.
