On Monday, President Donald Trump filed a multibillion dollar lawsuit against the BBC, alleging that the British broadcaster unfairly defamed him by airing a documentary with a questionable edit last year.
In response, the BBC pointed out that it has apologized for the edit but said that the error did not amount to defamation, and that they plan a full-throated opposition to the litigation.
At issue is a documentary that aired on the BBC’s “Panorama” program, which was entitled “Trump: A Second Chance?” The documentary explored the 2024 presidential race, with particular emphasis on what a second Trump presidency could mean.
The film includes footage of Trump’s January 6, 2021, speech to his supporters outside of the White House, which was followed by a mob of his loyalists attacking the U.S. Capitol building, attempting to disrupt proceedings that day that would confirm his election loss to former President Joe Biden in November 2020.
The film splices together separate statements from Trump’s speech that were spoken several minutes apart, making it seem as though they were actually one sentence.
“We’re going to walk down to the Capitol and I’ll be there with you, and we fight. We fight like hell,” Trump seems to have said in the edited statement.
The documentary, including the errant edit, aired on the BBC just days before U.S. Election Day in 2024.
Trump is seeking $10 billion in his lawsuit, which accuses the broadcaster of producing a “false, defamatory, deceptive, disparaging, inflammatory, and malicious depiction” of him — $5 billion in defamation damages and another $5 billion alleging unfair trade practices. The lawsuit claims the documentary was a form of election interference in the run-up to the 2024 presidential race.
In a statement in the Oval Office on Monday, Trump claimed the BBC deliberately sought to make it sound like he said something he didn’t.
“They actually put terrible words in my mouth having to do with January 6 that I didn’t say, and they’re beautiful words, that I said, right?” Trump said. “They’re beautiful words, talking about patriotism and all of the good things that I said. They didn’t say that, but they put terrible words.”
In truth, even though the words were edited together from different parts of his speech, they are accurate depictions of what Trump said that morning — Trump did, at one point, tell his followers he would walk to the Capitol with them, and encouraged them to “fight” for their right to contest the election (even though legal challenges in late 2020 and early 2021 consistently resulted in no evidence of election fraud).
Earlier this year, when Trump insisted that he may sue the broadcaster, the BBC issued a personal apology to the president, telling him they were “sorry” for the edits in the program. In a public statement, the BBC said it would never re-air the documentary, but insisted that the program did not amount to defamation.
“While the BBC sincerely regrets the manner in which the video clip was edited, we strongly disagree there is a basis for a defamation claim,” the BBC said in a statement last month.
On Tuesday, the BBC indicated it would not acquiesce to Trump’s monetary demands, as some U.S. broadcasters have done when threatened with similar lawsuits.
“As we have made clear previously, we will be defending this case. We are not going to make further comment on ongoing legal proceedings,” a BBC spokesperson said.
Legal experts question whether Trump’s lawsuit will be successful. Importantly, the documentary never aired in the U.S., and accessing the film through VPNs on the BBC’s iPlayer is very difficult, making Trump’s claims that it affected the outcome of the election dubious — especially given that Trump ended up winning the 2024 race.
The case, which was filed in a Florida court, alleges that Florida voters could have been influenced by the film. Mark Stephens, a United Kingdom-based media lawyer, suggested on Tuesday that this assertion won’t hold up to scrutiny.
“Trump’s legal team would have to convince a court that a program never broadcast in Florida somehow changed Floridians’ view of him,” Stephens said in a recent op-ed.
Trump is “entitled to feel aggrieved if the BBC edited his remarks in a way that suggested intent he did not possess,” Stephens conceded. “An apology might be a reasonable remedy. But a billion-dollar libel claim? That is a stretch.”
Earlier this year, Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Bill Keller also questioned the grounds for Trump’s lawsuit.
“By focusing on an ethical misdemeanor, the debate overlooks the indisputable reality that Trump inspired, energized and then celebrated a violent attempt to thwart an election,” Keller wrote, adding that the president “is unlikely to prevail in his defamation suit” against the BBC.
“American libel law is protective of journalism and political speech, and the BBC — unlike some American media giants — does not seem inclined to pay to settle scores with the U.S. president,” Keller added.
48 Hours Left: All gifts to Truthout now matched!
From now until the end of the year, all donations to Truthout will be matched dollar for dollar up to $28,000! Thanks to a generous supporter, your one-time gift today will be matched immediately. As well, your monthly donation will be matched for the whole first year, doubling your impact.
We have just 48 hours left to raise $28,000 and receive the full match.
This matching gift comes at a critical time. As Trump attempts to silence dissenting voices and oppositional nonprofits, reader support is our best defense against the right-wing agenda.
Help Truthout confront Trump’s fascism in 2026, and have your donation matched now!