On December 16, 2025, President Donald Trump ignited a transatlantic legal and political firestorm by filing a $10 billion lawsuit against the BBC, accusing the venerable British broadcaster of defamation and deceptive trade practices. The lawsuit, lodged in federal court in Miami, centers on a controversial BBC documentary that aired just days before the 2024 U.S. presidential election and edited Trump’s January 6, 2021, speech in a way he claims misrepresented his intent and words.
The hourlong documentary, broadcast on the BBC’s flagship current affairs program Panorama and titled “Trump: A Second Chance?”, spliced together three quotes from two sections of Trump’s 2021 speech—delivered nearly an hour apart—making it appear as if he had urged his supporters to march with him and “fight like hell” as Congress was poised to certify President-elect Joe Biden’s victory. Crucially, the edited version omitted a part of the speech in which Trump called for his supporters to demonstrate peacefully, a fact that became a lightning rod for criticism and legal scrutiny.
According to the Associated Press, Trump’s 33-page lawsuit accuses the BBC of broadcasting a “false, defamatory, deceptive, disparaging, inflammatory, and malicious depiction of President Trump,” and describes the edit as “a brazen attempt to interfere in and influence the 2024 U.S. presidential election.” The complaint seeks $5 billion in damages for each of two counts: alleged defamation and violation of Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act.
In a statement to AFP, a BBC spokesperson responded, “As we have made clear previously, we will be defending this case,” adding that the broadcaster would not comment further on ongoing legal proceedings. The BBC has previously acknowledged the edit as an “error of judgment” and apologized to Trump, but it firmly rejects the accusation of legal defamation. BBC chairman Samir Shah sent Trump a letter of apology and told a UK parliamentary committee that the broadcaster should have acted sooner to address the mistake after it was disclosed in a leaked memo, as reported by The Daily Telegraph.
The fallout from the documentary’s edit was swift and severe within the BBC. The controversy triggered the resignations of the BBC’s director general, Tim Davie, and its head of news, Deborah Turness, last month. The scandal has not only shaken the BBC’s leadership but also cast a spotlight on its editorial standards and impartiality at a critical time for the institution.
Trump, for his part, has been unrelenting in his criticism. He declared on December 16, “They actually put terrible words in my mouth having to do with Jan. 6 that I didn’t say, and they’re beautiful words, that I said, right? 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.” His legal team went further in a statement to AFP, charging, “The formerly respected and now disgraced BBC defamed President Trump by intentionally, maliciously, and deceptively doctoring his speech in a brazen attempt to interfere in the 2024 Presidential Election.” The statement accused the BBC of a “long pattern of deceiving its audience in coverage of President Trump, all in service of its own leftist political agenda.”
The documentary’s release just before the 2024 U.S. election and its global reach—available in the U.S. via the subscription streaming platform BritBox—are central to Trump’s claim of reputational harm. While the BBC maintains that the program was not broadcast in the United States, Trump’s lawsuit argues that BritBox subscribers in America could access the content, thus extending its impact beyond British borders.
Legal experts, as cited by Reuters, note that Trump faces significant hurdles in U.S. courts. To succeed, he will need to prove not only that the edit was false and defamatory, but that the BBC knowingly misled viewers or acted recklessly—an especially high bar given the robust protections for free speech and the press under the U.S. Constitution. The BBC, for its part, is expected to argue that the documentary was substantially true and that its editing decisions did not create a false impression, as well as that the broadcast did not damage Trump’s reputation in the United States. Moreover, the window for bringing a defamation claim in Britain has already closed due to a one-year statute of limitations.
The BBC is no stranger to public scrutiny. Established 103 years ago, it is funded by a mandatory annual license fee—currently £174.50 ($230)—paid by every UK household that watches live TV or BBC content. Its public funding and commitment to impartiality have made it a target for criticism from across the political spectrum, with debates over its editorial direction and funding model often spilling into public and parliamentary discourse.
This latest legal battle comes at a particularly sensitive moment for the BBC. On the same day Trump’s lawsuit was filed, the UK government launched a politically charged review of the BBC’s Royal Charter, which governs its funding and mission and is due for renewal in 2027. The review includes a public consultation on the role of “accuracy” in the BBC’s mission and potential reforms to its funding model.
UK officials have largely rallied behind the broadcaster. Health Minister Stephen Kinnock told Sky News, “It’s right the BBC stands firm on that point,” adding that the government is “a massive supporter of the BBC.” The Labour Party, he said, “will always stand up for the BBC as a vitally important institution.” Liberal Democrat leader Ed Davey, meanwhile, urged Prime Minister Keir Starmer to “stand up for the BBC against Trump’s outrageous legal threat.”
Prime Minister Starmer’s spokesperson weighed in, emphasizing the importance of a “strong, independent BBC as a trusted, relied-upon national broadcaster, reporting without fear or favour.” The government, while leaving legal matters to the BBC, defended the broadcaster’s independence and its role in British society.
Yet the lawsuit has also been seized on by the BBC’s critics and rivals, who argue that its public funding and perceived liberal stance make it vulnerable to political attacks. Christopher Ruddy, chief executive of the Trump-supporting U.S. network Newsmax, told BBC Radio 4 that the broadcaster might be wise to settle quickly, warning that the cost of litigation could reach $100 million and that discovery could expose unflattering internal communications.
Trump’s legal campaign against media outlets is not new. In recent years, he has filed lawsuits against major U.S. news organizations including CBS, ABC, the New York Times, and the Wall Street Journal. Some of these suits have resulted in multi-million-dollar settlements, such as ABC agreeing to pay $15 million and Paramount (parent company of CBS News) settling for $16 million over separate defamation claims.
As the BBC prepares to defend itself in what could be one of the most consequential legal battles in its history, the case has already underscored the high stakes of journalistic accountability, the challenges of editing political content, and the enduring tensions between media and power. With both sides digging in, the world will be watching to see not only who prevails in court, but what the outcome means for press freedom and public trust in the media on both sides of the Atlantic.
