The BBC, one of the world’s most respected broadcasters, has found itself at the center of a heated controversy following its decision to remove a pointed comment about Donald Trump from a lecture by Dutch historian and author Rutger Bregman. The incident, which unfolded as part of the 2025 Reith Lectures series, has ignited a debate about censorship, legal risk, and the role of public institutions in safeguarding free speech.
Bregman, renowned for his best-selling books Humankind and Utopia for Realists, delivered his lecture titled “A Time of Monsters” at the BBC Radio Theatre in London, before an audience of 500 people. The lecture, the first in his four-part “Moral Revolution” series, was recorded weeks ahead of its scheduled broadcast on BBC Radio 4 and the BBC World Service. But just days before it was set to air on Tuesday, November 25, 2025, Bregman was informed by BBC officials that a particular sentence referencing Trump would be cut.
The sentence in question, according to Bregman, described Trump as the “most openly corrupt president in American history.” In the same section, Bregman also referred to the former U.S. president as a “convicted reality star” and likened him to a “modern-day Caligula,” referencing the infamous Roman emperor known for excess and tyranny. BBC News, acting on legal advice, has refrained from repeating the exact wording of the excised line, a measure that underscores the sensitivity surrounding the issue.
For Bregman, the decision was both unexpected and deeply troubling. “I’m just deeply saddened by it,” he told The New York Times. “I am also confused. I really did not think they would do it.” He elaborated on social media, writing, “This sentence was taken out of a lecture they commissioned, reviewed through the full editorial process, and recorded four weeks ago in front of 500 people in the BBC Radio Theatre. I was told the decision came from the highest levels within the BBC. This has happened against my wishes, and I’m genuinely dismayed by it.”
Bregman’s frustration was not rooted in a resistance to criticism or debate over his words, but in what he saw as a dangerous pattern of self-censorship. He argued that the BBC’s decision was driven by fear of legal action from Trump, who had recently threatened to sue the broadcaster for up to $5 billion over the editing of a Panorama episode. That documentary, which spliced together comments from Trump’s January 6, 2021, speech at the U.S. Capitol, was later acknowledged by the BBC to have given “the mistaken impression that President Trump made a direct call for violent action.” The ensuing backlash led to the resignation of BBC Director General Tim Davie and CEO of BBC News Deborah Turness, further heightening the stakes for the organization.
“Self-censorship driven by fear (Trump threatening to sue the BBC) should concern all of us,” Bregman posted. He found it especially ironic that the line was removed from a lecture that was, by his own account, “exactly about the ‘paralysing cowardice’ of today’s elites.” For Bregman, the episode served as a real-time illustration of the very themes he had set out to explore: the moral decay and lack of seriousness among contemporary leaders and institutions.
The BBC, for its part, maintained that its actions were guided by established procedures and legal prudence. “All of our programmes are required to comply with the BBC’s editorial guidelines, and we made the decision to remove one sentence from the lecture on legal advice,” a spokesperson said. The broadcaster also emphasized that such edits, while uncommon, are not unprecedented, especially when legal risks are involved. The decision was reportedly scrutinized by lawyers in both the United States and the UK, with input from top BBC executives.
Yet the controversy has sparked wider questions about the broadcaster’s independence and its ability to withstand external pressures. The BBC’s board, already under criticism from multiple sides of the political spectrum for perceived institutional bias, now faces renewed scrutiny. Some critics see the move as an example of “bending the knee to authoritarianism,” as Bregman put it, while others argue that the BBC must protect itself from costly litigation—especially when public funds are at stake.
The Reith Lectures, named after the BBC’s first director general, John Reith, have been a fixture of British intellectual life since 1948. Past speakers have included luminaries such as Stephen Hawking, Hilary Mantel, Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie, Bertrand Russell, and King Charles III (when he was still Prince Charles). The lectures are meant to provoke thought and foster debate on pressing moral and social issues, reaching a global audience through radio and online platforms.
Bregman, 37, described being asked to deliver the 2025 lectures as “one of the highlights of my career.” He worked closely with BBC producers and editors to craft each word of the series, which aims to “explore the moral decay and un-seriousness of today’s elites, drawing historical parallels to past eras of corruption that preceded transformative movements, especially the 19th-century campaign to abolish slavery,” according to the BBC’s official description. In his first lecture, Bregman did not shy away from critiquing a broad range of elites, including those in the European Union, universities, corporations, and, yes, the media itself.
“The irony couldn’t be bigger,” Bregman said in a video posted online. “The lecture is exactly about the cowardice of today’s elites, about universities, corporations and, yes, media networks, bending the knee to authoritarianism.” He noted that the edit was noticeable in the final broadcast: “You can hear it. It’s not natural. You can feel it get cut off.”
The fallout from the incident is likely to continue as Bregman’s remaining three lectures in the “Moral Revolution” series are released in the coming weeks. They will be broadcast on BBC Radio 4 in the UK, the BBC World Service internationally, and made available on BBC Sounds. Whether the controversy will ultimately draw more listeners to Bregman’s arguments—or prompt further soul-searching within the BBC—remains to be seen. For now, the episode stands as a vivid example of the fraught balance between editorial independence, legal caution, and the enduring importance of open, fearless public discourse.
As the BBC moves forward, its handling of this delicate situation will be closely watched by supporters and skeptics alike, each looking for signs of either principled resolve or undue capitulation in the face of powerful interests.
