Former US president Donald Trump has launched a major defamation lawsuit against the BBC, claiming the British broadcaster distorted his words to mislead viewers about his role in the January 6, 2021 US Capitol attack.
In legal papers filed in a federal court in Florida on Monday, Mr Trump accused the BBC of broadcasting a “false, defamatory, deceptive, disparaging, inflammatory, and malicious depiction” of him in a documentary titled Trump: A Second Chance? aired on the BBC’s Panorama programme shortly before the 2024 US election.
The heart of the dispute is a short clip. Trump’s lawyers say the BBC spliced together two parts of his January 6 speech – one about marching to the Capitol and another about fighting – to make it seem he urged supporters to “fight like hell” at the Capitol. They argue this misled viewers and harmed Trump’s reputation.
Speaking to reporters, Mr Trump said the BBC had “put words in my mouth” and insisted the edit was unfair. “Literally, they had me saying things that I never said,” he said.
Trump is seeking at least $5bn in damages for defamation and another $5bn for alleged violations of a Florida trade‑practices law – a total claim that could reach $10bn.
The BBC has already apologised for the way the speech was edited. In a letter to the White House in November, BBC chairman Samir Shah said the broadcaster was “sorry for the edit of the President’s speech” and acknowledged the way clips were cut gave the wrong impression about Trump’s intentions. But he stressed that the BBC did not accept there was any basis for a legal claim of defamation.
The controversy triggered a crisis inside the BBC. The broadcaster’s director‑general, Tim Davie, and head of news, Deborah Turness, both resigned amid intense scrutiny over editorial standards and claims of bias.
Legal experts say Mr Trump’s case faces hurdles. To succeed, he must show not only that the BBC’s portrayal was misleading but that it knowingly acted with malice. In US courts, media organisations are strongly protected under free‑speech principles.
Supporters of press freedom warn that international lawsuits over news coverage could have far‑reaching consequences for journalism. Critics of the BBC, meanwhile, say the episode exposed deeper concerns about editorial judgment and impartiality at the publicly funded broadcaster.
As the case moves forward, both sides are expected to argue fiercely over how the documentary was assembled, what it meant to audiences, and whether it crossed the line from reporting to defamation.
About the Author
