Trump vs. BBC: what’s at stake?

“Donald Trump loves a fight”, said Chris Blackhurst in The Independent. Despite having received an apology from the BBC over what he claims was a defamatory edit in an episode of the broadcaster’s “Panorama” series, the US president “can smell money”.

After much speculation, on Monday in Florida Trump filed a $10 billion (£7.5 billion) lawsuit against the BBC. The two counts, the first for defamation and the second for violating the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, are each worth $5 billion (£3.75 billion).

What is the lawsuit about?

A leaked BBC memo earlier this year raised questions over the editing of an October 2024 “Panorama” documentary entitled “Trump: a Second Chance?”, which took two sections of a speech he made prior to the insurrection on 6 January 2021 – and spliced them together. The two snippets: “we’re going to walk down to the Capitol”, followed by a promise to “fight like hell”, arguably gave the impression of Trump inciting his followers to create the scenes of disorder that followed.

A spokesperson for the president claimed that the episode, broadcast when Trump was on the campaign trail, was “intentionally, maliciously and deceptively” edited in a “brazen attempt to interfere with the 2024 presidential election”. The “formerly respected and now disgraced BBC”, they alleged in a statement, has a “long pattern of deceiving its audience”, particularly in its coverage of Trump, “in service of its own Leftist political agenda”.

What are the key points of contention?

The question of jurisdiction is “at the core of the case”, said the Financial Times. Trump has filed the lawsuit in his home state of Florida, because there defamation claims must be made within two years of the incident; in the UK the time limit is one year. But BBC lawyers have argued that because the documentary was not aired in the US, US citizens could not have been affected by the content.

Trump’s lawyers claim, however, that BritBox subscribers, or those with a VPN, could have access to the material. They also assert that the BBC “had an agreement with Blue Ant Media”, a Canadian company, to “distribute the documentary in North America”, said Tom Witherow in The Times.

The president’s team needs to prove the BBC acted with “actual malice”, meaning they “knew the depiction was false, or acted with reckless disregard for the truth”, said the FT. To prove defamation also requires evidence of “extensive harm”. Trump claims the edit damaged his “brand value” and caused “injury to his future financial prospects”. Against this notion, the BBC is likely to “point out that he won the election” and that he was “acquitted in impeachment proceedings for alleged insurrection”, said The Times.

How has Trump handled such lawsuits before?

“Up until this year, it was unheard of for a sitting American president to sue a news outlet,” said Brian Stelter on CNN. “In just a few months, President Donald Trump has managed to make it seem normal.”

This is the first time Trump has tried to sue a UK media organisation, but he has “had some success in securing settlements” in legal action against US outlets, said the FT.

This year, CBS, owned by Paramount, paid the president $16 million (£11.9 million) to settle a suit against the editing of an interview on “60 Minutes”. In 2024, ABC paid $15 million (£11.2 million) in a defamation lawsuit, following comments by news anchor George Stephanopoulos that Trump had been found “liable for rape”, when in fact he had been determined liable for “sexual abuse” under New York law.

He also has a pending lawsuit against The New York Times for $15 billion (£11.2 billion), after refiling a defamation case in October. Trump also sued the newspaper in 2021 and in 2020: both claims were dismissed. A case against The Wall Street Journal relating to evidence released from the Jeffrey Epstein files, is also ongoing.

How could this one play out?

“BBC executives can be fairly confident of winning a court battle with President Trump”, said Jonathan Ames in The Times. However, its financial position is “considerably weaker”: the organisation will need to have “difficult pragmatic discussions” regarding legal fees that could rise to between $50 million (£37.2 million) and $100 million (£74.8 million) .

Even if a settlement is reached, that payout could be in the region of $10 million (£7.5 million), said Colin Freeman in The Telegraph. Indeed, compensation “may be the greatest humiliation of all” outcomes. Whatever the sum, “the prospect of the BBC helping fill the Trump coffers is unlikely to go down well with licence payers”. For supporters of the broadcaster, this will be seen as yet another “vendetta” by Trump against the media; to its critics, “it may signal time to end the licence fee system altogether”.

Whatever the result, Trump can spin a positive outcome, said CNN. If he wins, or the BBC settles, the financial benefits are evident. But even if he loses, the president “wins headlines” that, to his supporters, will look like he is taking “bold action” to “combat media misdeeds”.