Trump says a Center for American Progress lawsuit is being drafted over its National Guard crime analysis, while also pointing to George Soros.

In a Truth Social post, President Donald Trump challenged the group’s claim that Guard deployments had no effect on violent crime. He then announced the planned legal action, Breitbart News reported.

Trump said the lawsuit was “being drawn now.” He also said he was “strongly considering adding some of the contributors to this Fake Organization.” No filed complaint, case number, damages demand, or requested relief accompanied the announcement.

The Center for American Progress had analyzed 11 cities where the National Guard was deployed or threatened with deployment. Its analysis said it found no evidence that those deployments reduced violent crime.

The dispute turns on two separate questions. Crime may have fallen, but that alone does not establish when the decline began or which policies caused it.

CAP counted crime declines that began before Guard deployments

CAP said violent crime and homicides were already dropping in American cities during 2023 and 2024. It accused the Trump administration of taking credit for a trend that began before his current term.

From June 2024 through June 2025, the 11 cities recorded a 14% drop in their rolling violent crime rate, CAP said. Their rolling murder rate fell 22% during the same period.

Those figures covered the period before the National Guard was first deployed to Los Angeles, according to the analysis. CAP used that sequence to argue that the Guard did not produce the decline.

CAP also projected that deployments continuing through the end of 2026 could cost taxpayers more than $1.7 billion. The group described the policy as costly and ineffective.

But key details remain unclear. Breitbart’s description did not identify all 11 cities or explain CAP’s full methods and data sources. Those omissions limit how closely readers can test the group’s conclusion.

Trump has made falling crime a central part of his public case, including recent remarks about a record violent crime drop. The CAP dispute challenges the administration’s explanation for that decline, rather than the existence of the decline itself.

Washington’s numbers sharpen the dispute without proving cause

Breitbart separately reported that violent crime in Washington, D.C., fell 22% during the week after Trump announced his crackdown. It also reported that the city recorded no murders over the final seven days of that period.

Those figures give Trump a direct answer to CAP’s broad claim. Still, a one-week change does not by itself establish what caused the decline, just as earlier declines do not prove later enforcement had no effect.

The cities discussed in connection with Guard deployments included Los Angeles, Washington and New Orleans. CAP based its argument on an 11-city comparison rather than one jurisdiction.

Trump’s legal threat also fits a broader period of court fights involving his administration. One recent dispute produced a Supreme Court mail-in voting ruling ahead of the midterms.

Trump named Soros and major corporations while weighing defendants

Trump identified George Soros, Bill Gates and Melinda Gates among CAP’s funders. He also named Google, Apple, Visa, Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, Wells Fargo, Bank of America, Walmart, Toyota, T-Mobile and NBC Universal.

Those funding claims came from Trump’s post and were not independently corroborated in Breitbart’s account. Trump also named the Embassy of Japan, the Korea Foundation and the Embassy of the United Arab Emirates as foreign contributors.

Trump focused much of his criticism on Chandler Hall, CAP’s associate director of public safety. He said Hall represented the organization on television and argued that adding the Guard had “NO impact on Crime.”

The president also said Hall was met with “furious dissent,” though no evidence supporting that description was provided. Trump had previously shared the same post on August 10.

Any complaint would need to move from political charges to legal claims. Other administration disputes, including the court-ordered removal of Trump-appointed prosecutor Sigal Chattah, show how quickly public conflicts can turn on narrow legal questions.

A threatened lawsuit is not yet a court case

Trump has announced his intention and said lawyers are preparing the suit. But without a filed complaint, the proposed defendants, legal grounds and requested remedy remain unknown.

That distinction matters. CAP has issued a political and statistical argument against Trump’s public-safety policy; Trump has answered with a legal threat and his own reading of recent crime figures.

Public safety deserves clear data and honest methods from every side. If powerful political groups make sweeping claims, they should expect those claims to face hard scrutiny.