A federal judge in Florida has allowed President Donald Trump’s defamation claim against the BBC to move forward, rejecting the broadcaster’s attempt to have it thrown out while dismissing a separate claim under Florida’s consumer protection law. Trump’s lawsuit originally sought at least $5 billion on each claim, for a total of at least $10 billion.
US District Judge Jeffrey Kuntz ruled on Tuesday, November 10, that Trump had plausibly alleged reputational harm and actual malice arising from a misleadingly edited clip of his January 6, 2021 speech. The ruling does not decide whether Trump has actually proven those claims. “Whether President Trump can prove these claims and establish he sustained damages at summary judgment or trial is left for another day,” Kuntz wrote. Trump celebrated the decision on Truth Social, calling it a “huge victory” and vowing to continue fighting those he accused of deceiving Americans. The BBC said it was surprised by the ruling but respected the court’s authority and remained confident in its position.
A Speech Spliced Together
The lawsuit centres on an episode of the BBC’s Panorama documentary programme titled “Trump: A Second Chance?”, which aired shortly before the 2024 presidential election. The programme edited together two separate sections of a speech Trump delivered at the Ellipse, near the White House, on January 6, 2021, before the riot at the US Capitol. One clip showed Trump telling supporters to march on the Capitol, another showed him saying “fight like hell.” The edit omitted a section in which he called for peaceful protest. The BBC acknowledged that the editing was misleading and apologised, though it denies legal liability for defamation. A leaked internal BBC memo later cited the edits as evidence of potential political bias, sparking a public relations crisis and leading to senior resignations.
The Case
Judge Kuntz’s ruling turned in part on whether Trump had plausibly alleged “actual malice,” the demanding legal standard that public officials and public figures must meet in US defamation cases. That standard requires knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for whether a statement was true. The judge found that the nearly 55 minute gap between the spliced remarks supported an inference that the BBC knew or should have known the resulting segment was misleading.
“This was not trimming around the edges but creating something different than what was stated in the speech,” Kuntz wrote. He also found that Trump’s allegations concerning the BBC’s editing, departures from journalistic standards and other circumstantial evidence sufficiently pleaded recklessness. Trump must still substantiate his allegations and establish damages as the litigation proceeds.
The Dismissed Claim
While allowing the defamation claim to proceed, Kuntz dismissed Trump’s separate claim under Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, ruling that the documentary did not constitute commercial speech. Discovery was already underway. A judge previously ordered Trump to answer questions under oath by December 11 after he cancelled an earlier deposition, citing matters of national importance.
Trump’s lawyers had earlier conceded that they had no evidence the documentary was available in the US through BritBox, the BBC’s website, BBC Select or US broadcasters. Trump also dropped BBC Studios, the broadcaster’s commercial arm, from the lawsuit.
The ruling concerns one of several lawsuits Trump has filed against news organisations as part of a broader pressure campaign against coverage he dislikes.