Former US President Donald Trump has threatened to sue the BBC for up to $1 billion (£760 million), alleging that the broadcaster made “false, defamatory, disparaging and inflammatory statements” about him in a documentary. In a formal letter sent to the corporation, Trump’s legal team demanded three remedies: a “full and fair retraction” of the programme, a formal apology, and appropriate financial compensation for the harm allegedly caused to Trump’s reputation and finances.
The controversy centers around a BBC Panorama documentary aired in October 2024, shortly before the US presidential election. The programme examined Trump’s speech on January 6, 2021 — the day of the Capitol riot in Washington DC — and suggested that Trump explicitly encouraged the violent attack on the Capitol. The crux of the issue lies in how the BBC edited excerpts of Trump’s speech, splicing together sections from different parts of his address to create an impression that he called directly for insurrection.
Specifically, the documentary combined two segments of Trump’s speech that were over 50 minutes apart. In the unedited speech, Trump said: “We’re going to walk down to the Capitol, and we’re going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women.” However, in the edited version, the BBC showed Trump saying: “We’re going to walk down to the Capitol … and I’ll be there with you. And we fight. We fight like hell.” This juxtaposition made it appear that Trump was inciting violence, a claim he denies, insisting his speech was “perfect” and did not encourage any unlawful behavior.
The day of Trump’s speech was historically significant. Congress was in the process of certifying the 2020 presidential election results that confirmed Joe Biden as the winner. Minutes after Trump concluded his remarks, many of his supporters stormed the Capitol building, leading to widespread condemnation and the subsequent impeachment of Trump on the charge of “incitement of insurrection.” Although the Senate acquitted him, the event remains a highly sensitive and polarizing moment in US history.
The BBC’s handling of the documentary drew internal criticism after a leaked memo from a former independent adviser to the broadcaster’s editorial standards committee surfaced. The memo accused Panorama of editorial misconduct, stating that the programme misleadingly edited the speech to falsely portray Trump as encouraging the riot. This admission of error led to consequences at the BBC: Samir Shah, the BBC chairman, issued a public apology for the “error of judgement” in the editing. Furthermore, Tim Davie, then the BBC’s director general, resigned, acknowledging the mistakes made and the editorial breach. These high-profile resignations underscored the seriousness with which the BBC treated the fallout.
Following these developments, the White House threatened legal action against the BBC, escalating tensions between the former president and the British broadcaster. Trump’s lawyer claimed in the letter that the BBC had “intentionally sought to completely mislead its viewers” by splicing together three separate clips from Trump’s speech to create a false narrative. The legal team argued that this editorial decision caused Trump “overwhelming financial and reputational harm.”
However, legal experts specializing in US defamation law have expressed skepticism about Trump’s chances of success if he pursues the lawsuit in the United States. The First Amendment of the US Constitution provides robust protections for freedom of speech and the press, making defamation cases against media organizations particularly challenging for public figures like Trump. The landmark 1964 Supreme Court ruling in New York Times v. Sullivan set a high bar by requiring public figures to prove “actual malice”—that is, the defendant knowingly published false information or acted with reckless disregard for the truth.
To succeed, Trump must prove three key elements: that the BBC’s documentary was factually false in a defamatory way; that he suffered harm as a direct result of this false portrayal; and that the BBC acted with actual malice. Each of these requirements poses significant legal hurdles. George Freeman, executive director of the Media Law Resource Center in New York, noted that meeting all these criteria would be difficult for any plaintiff.
Conversely, some legal scholars see potential merit in Trump’s claim, at least regarding the misleading editing of the speech. Burt Neuborne, a professor emeritus at New York University School of Law and former national legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union, argued that the BBC’s splicing was not an innocent mistake but a knowing dissemination of altered content. He suggested this could