File photo courtesy of Wikipedia

 

US President Donald Trump has launched a $5 billion defamation lawsuit against the BBC, alleging that edited clips of his January 6, 2021 speech misrepresented his intent. The lawsuit claims the BBC spliced parts of the speech, omitting his call for peaceful protest, leading to the mistaken impression he incited violence at the US Capitol.

 

The BBC has apologised for the editing error, acknowledging it was a lapse in judgement, yet insists there is no legal basis for the lawsuit. The offending clips featured in a "Panorama" documentary aired shortly before the 2024 presidential election, triggering a major crisis for the broadcaster, including the resignation of its top two officials. The documentary was reportedly not broadcast in the United States.

 

Experts note that due to Britain's legal requirement for defamation claims to be filed within a year, Trump chose the US courts for this case. To succeed, he must prove the edit was false and defamatory and that the BBC acted maliciously or recklessly. Some legal analysts suggest the BBC could argue the documentary was substantially true and did not harm Trump's reputation.

 

Facing one of its most significant scandals, the BBC stated it would not rebroadcast the documentary. The lawsuit could be politically sensitive due to the BBC's funding model, which relies on a mandatory licence fee. The situation has drawn comparisons to previous settlements Trump reached with CBS and ABC after his 2024 election comeback, reported CNN.

 

CORRECTION: Lawsuit amount corrected to $5Bn

 

Key Takeaways

 

• Trump sues BBC for $5 billion over edited January 6 speech.
• The BBC acknowledges the editing error but denies legal responsibility.
• Legal battle centres on US defamation laws and the BBC's defence.

 

Related story: 

BBC Faces £4BN Trump Lawsuit Crisis; Starmer Backs Reforms

Trump Targets BBC With $1 Billion Claim Over Documentary

 

 

  Adapted by ASEAN Now from CNN 2025-12-16

 

 

 

1 hour ago, webfact said:

Some legal analysts suggest the BBC could argue the documentary was substantially true and did not harm Trump's reputation.

One might surmise those legal analysts were on the ball, as Trump has no reputation to uphold to begin with. 

Great news.

 

Drag them through the mud Don. They deserve it, the morally bankrupt, left wing, state funded, Propaganda wing of the Welfare Pa..., sorry I meant the Labour party.

 

6 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

Great news.

 

Drag them through the mud Don. They deserve it, the morally bankrupt, left wing, state funded, Propaganda wing of the Welfare Pa..., sorry I meant the Labour party.

Such an unhinged response. The BBC isn't propaganda for anyone except in the eyes of people who's views are extremist and do not align. It operates under a royal charter mandating impartiality and balance, without favoritism toward any party. Those wearing Reform UK glasses will struggle to see this however.

1 minute ago, Palatus said:

It operates under a royal charter mandating impartiality and balance, without favoritism toward any party.

 

Is that why they spliced 2 parts of Trump's speech together to make it sound like he was inciting a riot? 😄

He was trying to invite a riot.

24 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

Great news.

 

Drag them through the mud Don

Discovery works both ways.

 

The original Brito attorney letter to the BBC.

 

In a letter to the BBC, attorney Alejandro Brito stated that the alleged false and defamatory statements about Donald Trump in a recent Panorama documentary were widely disseminated and reached tens of millions of people worldwide, (via Gemini)

 

Per https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cpvd81470v1o

 

The suit also claims that people in Florida may have accessed the programme using a VPN or by using streaming service BritBox.

 

"The Panorama Documentary's publicity, coupled with significant increases in VPN usage in Florida since its debut, establishes the immense likelihood that citizens of Florida accessed the Documentary before the BBC had it removed," the lawsuit said. (my bold)

________________

And Trump noted on Truth Social about BBC trying to impact the 2024 election.

30 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

Great news.

 

Drag them through the mud Don. They deserve it, the morally bankrupt, left wing, state funded, Propaganda wing of the Welfare Pa..., sorry I meant the Labour party.

 

Let’s have no more of your accusations of Brit Bashing Jonny.

 

1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Let’s have no more of your accusations of Brit Bashing Jonny.

 

 

The BBC hates Britain.

 

That's why they back Labour. That's why they were anti-Brexit. That's why they are pro-immigration. 

 

A disgusting organization. 

 

Defund it.

BTW this from Truth Social:

 

 

 

So it may come down to how many in Florida saw the documentary BEFORE the 2024 election.

 

____________________________

In reference to the above dragging through the mud:

23 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

The BBC hates Britain.

 

That's why they back Labour. That's why they were anti-Brexit. That's why they are pro-immigration. 

 

A disgusting organization. 

 

Defund it.

Delusional nonsense

2 minutes ago, Summerinsiam said:

Delusional nonsense

 

Which of those 3 statements do you disagree with? And why?

 

8 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

Which of those 3 statements do you disagree with? And why?

I'd suggest none of them as they are from an extremist, unhinged POV. 

42 minutes ago, trainee wombat said:

He was trying to invite a riot.

If that was true, which it isnt, why didnt they just use his actual words in the order he said them?

 

BBC went to great lengths to edit his speech to totally change the meaning of his words to fit false narratives cooked up by irrational haters. Pure propaganda and they got caught. He deserves the payout and BBC deserve closing down. We already got CNN and MSNBC to make nonsense up to further fuel the hatred of him, it doesnt need a foreign state broadcaster doing it as well.

40 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

The BBC hates Britain.

 

That's why they back Labour. That's why they were anti-Brexit. That's why they are pro-immigration. 

 

A disgusting organization. 

 

Defund it.

The BBC aren’t owned by the same hyper wealthy right wingers that feed you the canned views to parrot about dear old Aunty.

Just now, Chomper Higgot said:

The BBC aren’t owned by the same hyper wealthy right wingers that feed you the canned views to parrot about dear old Aunty.

 

When it comes to the BBC you don't need to be fed any views about their bias. 

 

A short amount of time watching their 'news coverage' and 'political affairs' programs tells you everything you need to know.

 

Their splicing of Trump's speech being just one of many egregious examples. 

57 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

Is that why they spliced 2 parts of Trump's speech together to make it sound like he was inciting a riot?

The Panorama program was a 60 minute edit that was spliced for a few seconds of footage clumsily. The BBC has put out billions of hours of broadcasts over a 100 year lifespan and you and Trump want it sue it out of existence overnight as it doesn't fit your opinion? Do you gave a damn about anyone else's opinion that does not align with yours?

54 minutes ago, theshu25 said:

I do the beleive the maximum payout for defamation in the UK is 400,000 

That's why the con is trying it on his home turf, he'd be laughed out of court in the UK.

President Trump says the BBC literally put words in his mouth, words that he never said. He thinks they may have used AI to do it - 555

 

13 minutes ago, Palatus said:

I'd suggest none of them as they are from an extremist, unhinged POV. 

 

Yet most people agree with me.

 

Is the BBC biased? What the public think following the Davie and Turness resignations | YouGov

 

https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/53363-is-the-bbc-biased-what-the-public-think-following-the-davie-and-turness-resignations

56 minutes ago, theshu25 said:

As per usual the grifter is just trying it on for a quid. I do the beleive the maximum payout for defamation in the UK is 400,000   , so the con clown will be getting no where near what it wants anyway. And as for harming his reputation,   what reputation,   it is nothing but a scamming mongrel dog.

 

    Trump can sue sue special damages if he can prove financial loses , and special damages are not capped (to 400 000)

6 minutes ago, Palatus said:

That's why the con is trying it on his home turf, he'd be laughed out of court in the UK.

Trump is frequently laughed out of US courts.

14 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

The BBC aren’t owned by the same hyper wealthy right wingers that feed you the canned views to parrot about dear old Aunty.

 

Hyper wealthy right wingers?  Most of my favorite right wing sources have a few thousand followers and a few friends working with them that scour the interwebs looking for the stories that the hyper wealthy MSM won't cover.

 

11 minutes ago, Palatus said:

That's why the con is trying it on his home turf, he'd be laughed out of court in the UK.

The op clearly states why he is suing in a US court

"Experts note that due to Britain's legal requirement for defamation claims to be filed within a year, Trump chose the US courts for this case. "

6 minutes ago, Nick Carter icp said:

1 hour ago, theshu25 said:

As per usual the grifter is just trying it on for a quid. I do the beleive the maximum payout for defamation in the UK is 400,000   , so the con clown will be getting no where near what it wants anyway. And as for harming his reputation,   what reputation,   it is nothing but a scamming mongrel dog.

 

    Trump can sue sue special damages if he can prove financial loses , and special damages are not capped (to 400 000)

 

Did you guys miss the part about suing in the USA?

It seems that team Trump will play up the hypothetical notion of who in Florida may have actually seen the doco via VPN etc. BEFORE the NOV2024

 

Maybe the BBC can say: Great, Find one.

 

7 minutes ago, impulse said:

 

Did you guys miss the part about suing in the USA?

 

   I was just following what @theshu25 wrote .

3 minutes ago, jerrymahoney said:

It seems that team Trump will play up the hypothetical notion of who in Florida may have seen actually the doco via VPN etc.

 

Maybe the BBC can say: Great, Find one.

 

 

Maybe.  But it's also likely that the discovery process will expose a lot of emails and memos and other records that don't reflect very well on BBC management, and they'll get their comeuppance when the British people see who they really are.

 

Ten Billion $$$ is nice, but Trump doesn't really need the money.

27 minutes ago, SunnyinBangrak said:

If that was true, which it isnt, why didnt they just use his actual words in the order he said them?

 

BBC went to great lengths to edit his speech to totally change the meaning of his words to fit false narratives cooked up by irrational haters. Pure propaganda and they got caught. He deserves the payout and BBC deserve closing down. We already got CNN and MSNBC to make nonsense up to further fuel the hatred of him, it doesnt need a foreign state broadcaster doing it as well.

The big difference is the BBC covers the gamut of TV making, it’s not just news. I’d be up for a big change with how the news is generate and made non-bias again, but to close it down (ain’t gonna happen) would lose all the great TV… dramas & natural world etc. That side of it is nothing to do with the Trump nonsense. Those others you cite can’t hold a candle to the bbc. 

2 minutes ago, impulse said:

Maybe.  But it's also likely that the discovery process will expose a lot of emails and memos and other records that don't reflect very well on BBC management, and they'll get their comeuppance when the British people see who they really are.

Great. And President Trump can be deposed as to why he thinks the BBC has caused him $10 billion worth of damage.