Former President Donald Trump has initiated a $10 billion defamation and deceptive trade practices lawsuit against the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC). The lawsuit centers on a BBC documentary, identified as an episode of the Panorama program titled "Trump: A Second Chance?", which presented comments made by Mr. Trump on January 6, 2021. The BBC has stated its intention to defend against the litigation, pointing to a prior apology, the withdrawal of the broadcast, and executive resignations as evidence of contrition.
Background of the Lawsuit
Mr. Trump's legal action, filed in Florida, alleges that the BBC aired a "false, defamatory, deceptive, disparaging, inflammatory, and malicious depiction" of him. The lawsuit characterizes the broadcast as "a brazen attempt to interfere in and influence" the 2024 U.S. presidential election.
The core of the complaint focuses on the documentary's editing of Mr. Trump's January 6, 2021, speech, which occurred prior to his supporters breaching the U.S. Capitol as Congress was certifying the 2020 election results. The lawsuit claims the program "spliced together" two distinct parts of the speech, delivered approximately 55 minutes to an hour apart. Specifically, it is alleged that the documentary linked Mr. Trump's call for supporters to walk to the U.S. Capitol with a later statement: "And we fight, we fight like hell, and if you don't fight like hell you don't have a country anymore."
According to Mr. Trump's attorneys, this editing created the false impression that he incited the subsequent events. They contend that the documentary omitted a portion of his speech where he encouraged protesters to be "marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard." Mr. Trump has stated publicly that the BBC put "terrible words in my mouth" by omitting his "beautiful words" about patriotism.
BBC's Response and Defense
The BBC has confirmed it will defend itself against the lawsuit. Prior to the filing, the broadcaster had issued an apology to Mr. Trump concerning the edit, withdrawn the episode, and accepted the resignations of two executives, including its top executive and head of news. Samir Shah, chairman of the BBC, described the incident as an "error of judgment" but denied claims of defamation.
In a letter to Mr. Trump's legal team, Charles Tobin, a U.S. First Amendment attorney representing the BBC, argued that the broadcaster had shown contrition. Mr. Tobin also noted that Mr. Trump had been indicted by a grand jury on four criminal counts related to his efforts to overturn the 2020 election, including his conduct on January 6, 2021. The BBC maintained that the documentary was "geographically restricted" to U.K. viewers and not directly broadcast in Florida through U.S. channels. Mr. Tobin further pointed out that Mr. Trump won Florida in 2024 by a 13-point margin, an increase from his previous performances in the state, suggesting a lack of influence on Floridian voters by the documentary.
Documentary Accessibility in the U.S.
The lawsuit asserts that despite the BBC's claims of geographic restriction, American viewers, including those in Florida, could access the documentary through other means. These include BritBox, a BBC streaming service that reportedly has over 4 million U.S. subscribers. The lawsuit claims the Panorama documentary was available to and viewed by BritBox subscribers in Florida. However, a review by NPR found only one Panorama episode from 2000 available on BritBox via Amazon Prime, with Panorama podcast episodes not appearing on mainstream U.S. podcast platforms.
The lawsuit also suggests that U.S. citizens could watch the episode using Virtual Private Networks (VPNs). It states that millions of Florida citizens utilize VPNs to view content that would otherwise be restricted. Analysts and materials cited in Mr. Trump's own case indicate that a recent increase in VPN demand in Florida in 2024 and early 2025 is primarily linked to a new state law requiring age verification for access to adult websites. Paul Bischoff, editor of Comparitech, noted that individuals use VPNs to circumvent such restrictions.
Legal Outlook and Precedent
Legal observers, including First Amendment attorneys, anticipate a potential settlement in the case. This perspective is partly influenced by previous settlements in which Mr. Trump received $16 million each from the parent companies of ABC News and CBS News to resolve similar cases. Carl Tobias, a law professor at the University of Richmond, suggested that the facts might benefit Mr. Trump and that the BBC's prior apologies could be a factor, alongside concerns about reputational harm.
Legal experts have also noted potential challenges for a U.S.-based case, considering the documentary was not directly broadcast within the United States, and deadlines for bringing such a case in British courts had reportedly expired over a year prior.
Mr. Trump has active lawsuits against several other media organizations, including The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Des Moines Register, its former pollster, and the board of the Pulitzer Prize. The BBC, a 103-year-old organization, operates as a national institution funded by an annual license fee, with its charter requiring impartiality.