BBC is asking the court to dismiss U.S. President Donald Trump’s $10 billion lawsuit, arguing that the case would restrict freedom of speech and undermine “quality journalism.”
Source: Bukvy
BBC’s request was filed on March 16 with U.S. District Judge Roy Altman, appointed by Trump in Miami. BBC argued that the federal court in Florida is not the proper venue for the lawsuit, as the documentary was neither broadcast nor distributed in the United States.
BBC also insists that their freedom of speech in the U.S. is protected by the First Amendment and therefore should not be burdened by “baseless lawsuits” that could limit coverage of a public figure.
“Trump is one of the most influential and well-known people in the world, about whom BBC reports daily,” the news agency’s complaint stated. “The chilling effect is evident.”
This case is part of a series of lawsuits in which the president or his company is seeking at least $50 billion in damages, all filed since he took office in January 2025. Trump also has defamation lawsuits against the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal, which deny wrongdoing and seek dismissal.
“BBC is responsible to President Trump for deliberately and maliciously disparaging his reputation by distorting and manipulating his speech. No legal maneuvering can change this fact,” said a spokesperson for Trump’s legal team.
Altman previously stated that Trump’s lawsuit against BBC would be heard in February 2027, if it is not dismissed.
The program “Panorama,” at the center of the case and aired before the 2024 presidential election, included a clip that gave the impression that Trump told his supporters they should “go to the Capitol” and “fight with all their might” before the riots.
In reality, Trump said they should “cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and congresswomen.” The phrase “fight with all their might” was from another part of the speech.
BBC Director-General Samir Shah acknowledged on November 10 that the edited footage mistakenly created “the impression of a direct call to violent action.” A few days later, the broadcaster apologized a second time but rejected the president’s demand for compensation.
“I’m suing BBC for putting words in my mouth. Literally, they put words in my mouth. They made me say things I never said,” Trump said at the time.
The December lawsuit claims that the editing was part of a scheme of misleading reporting about Trump. The suit includes one claim of alleged defamation and one accusing BBC of violating Florida’s trade practices law. Trump seeks at least $5 billion in damages for each count, plus other costs.
In its statement on Monday, BBC argued that Trump’s reputation was not harmed by the documentary. Similar allegations about Trump’s behavior that day, including the January 6th House Committee findings and court rulings in various civil lawsuits arising from the riots, also did not harm Trump in the election, BBC said.
“Given the numerous allegations prior to the release of the documentary regarding the plaintiff’s January 6th speech, as well as the fact that shortly after its release the president won re-election and carried Florida by a large margin, the plaintiff cannot plausibly claim that the documentary damaged his reputation,” BBC stated.
To overcome BBC’s motion to dismiss, Trump must prove that the broadcaster acted with “actual malice” toward him when editing the documentary—a high bar required for public figures, established by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1964 to protect freedom of speech.
BBC stated that Trump “does not meet the high standard of actual malice,” as the president has not shown that the news outlet knew the documentary was false and intended to create a “misleading impression.”
“The absence of actual malice is highlighted by the fact that the short 12-second clip of the plaintiff’s January 6th speech is part of an hour-long film with broad coverage of his supporters and balanced coverage of his path to re-election,” BBC said.
The news outlet also cited an open letter from the BBC Director-General to the UK Parliament, stating that the purpose of the editing was to help the “Panorama” audience “better understand” how Trump’s speech was received by his supporters “and what was happening on the ground at the time.”
“Indeed, nothing better reflects how President Trump’s supporters understood his remarks than their own statements, and over 100 defendants in January 6-related offenses told courts that they interpreted Trump’s remarks as a call to action,” BBC stated.
Discussion about this post