Donald Trump is suing the BBC for $10bn (£7.5bn) for defamation.
The US president’s 33-page complaint relates to the broadcaster’s editing of a speech he made on 6 January 2021, the day his supporters stormed the Capitol building.
Initially, he had threatened to sue for $1bn, but the lawsuit filed in Florida on 16 December is for 10 times more than expected – and more than double the annual revenue raised by the BBC’s licence fee in 2023-24.
Here we explain what the lawsuit claims, how the BBC has responded and what could happen next.
What does the lawsuit claim?
The US president is seeking damages of no less than $5bn (£3.7bn) under a defamation lawsuit.
Mr Trump has also sued for $5bn for alleged violation of a trade practices law.
It names the BBC, BBC Studios Distribution and BBC Studios Production as defendants.
The lawsuit stems from an episode of the BBC’s Panorama programme titled Trump: A Second Chance?, which was broadcast days before the 2024 US presidential election.
The programme spliced together two sections of the president’s speech into what appeared to be one quote.
Defamation is a broad legal term covering the harm done to a person’s reputation or company when false statements are made about them.
UK-based law firm Weightmans says defamation can take two forms, spoken and written.
The spoken form is referred to as slander and defamation in written form is called libel.
Mr Trump’s lawyers say the programme falsely portrayed the president as a “violent insurrectionist”, caused “massive economic damage to his brand value” and was a “brazen attempt” to interfere in the US election.
The Panorama programme was not broadcast in the US, but the lawsuit says it can be watched on the BritBox subscription streaming platform and also claims “millions of Florida citizens use a virtual private network (VPN) to view content such as the Panorama documentary”.
The lawsuit claims the BBC violated Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act “by engaging in unfair methods of competition, unconscionable acts or practices and/or unfair or deceptive acts or practices”.
The law is designed to protect consumers and promote fair competition.
The purpose of the legislation is to stop a wide range of things including false advertising, a misleading sales pitch, or failing to disclose important information about a product or service.
It further alleges a Canadian third-party media group called Blue Ant Media Corporation had licensing rights to the documentary outside the UK and distributed the programme “in North America, including Florida”.
The BBC has not yet responded to these claims.
How has the BBC responded?
The BBC has said it will defend against the case.
BBC News reported on 16 December that the broadcaster had set out five main arguments in a letter to Mr Trump’s legal team as to why it did not believe there was a basis for a defamation claim.
To overcome the US Constitution’s legal protections for free speech and the press, Mr Trump will need to prove not only that the edit was false and defamatory, but also that the BBC knowingly misled viewers or acted recklessly.
It comes after the corporation officially apologised to the president in November, adding that the edit was an “error of judgement” and that the programme will “not be broadcast again in this form on any BBC platforms”.
A spokesperson said at the time: “The BBC sincerely regrets the manner in which the video clip was edited”, but they also added that “we strongly disagree there is a basis for a defamation claim”.
The fallout from the saga led to the resignation of both the BBC director-general Tim Davie and the head of news Deborah Turness.
The BBC’s position is complicated by the fact that any money it pays out in legal fees or a settlement comes from British taxpayers’ pockets.
What could happen next?
Iain Wilson, who is a managing partner at law firm Brett Wilson LLP, told the Press Association the BBC could “bring an early motion to dismiss” the case.
This involves submitting an application to a judge that “even when taking Trump’s case at its highest, the claim should fail as a matter of law”.
“Perhaps the BBC’s strongest argument is that the Florida court does not have jurisdiction to hear a claim concerning a publication that was not broadcast in the US (and geo-blocked on the BBC’s iPlayer service),” Mr Wilson says.
He adds that the argument that Panorama could have been accessed on streaming service BritBox is “relatively weak” as it is run by a separate legal entity to the one being sued, and the BBC has no control over Florida citizens who choose to use VPNs to access its news services.
“Thus, the claim could be dismissed on the basis the programme did not target viewers in Florida and, as such, there is no real connection to the state,” Mr Wilson adds.
Keep up with all the latest news from the UK and around the world by following Sky News
Could the UK government get involved?
When quizzed on the lawsuit, Sir Keir Starmer’s spokesperson said it was a matter for the broadcaster.
The prime minister has not spoken to Mr Trump since the case was filed.
It comes after Liberal Democrat leader Sir Ed Davey called on Sir Keir to stand up for the BBC against what he called “Trump’s outrageous legal threat”.
The prime minister’s spokesman said: “They [the BBC] have made clear they believe there’s no case around the broader point of defamation or libel, but that’s for them and their legal teams to engage with.
“As we’ve said previously, we will always defend the principle of a strong, independent BBC as a trusted and relied upon national broadcaster, reporting without fear or favour.
“But as we’ve also consistently said, it’s vitally important that they act to maintain trust, correcting mistakes quickly when they occur.”
Asked if it would be acceptable for licence fee-payers to fund a potential defamation settlement, he said: “I think we’re getting a bit ahead of ourselves.”
Speaking on Mornings with Ridge and Frost, health minister Stephen Kinnock backed the BBC.
He said the BBC has apologised for “one or two mistakes” but has also been “very clear that there is no case to answer in terms of Mr Trump’s accusations on the broader point about libel or defamation”.
Trump’s past media battles
During his time in and out of office, Mr Trump has had a contentious relationship with news organisations (mostly US-based ones).
This has led to a host of legal battles. Below is a look at some of the most recent disputes.
Use the slider to scroll and click on the panels for more information.
