Former US President Donald Trump has followed through on his threat to take legal action against the British Broadcasting Corporation, filing a staggering $10bn lawsuit. The claim centres on the broadcaster's editing of a Trump speech within a Panorama documentary, which the ex-president alleges was maliciously and defamatorily altered.
Core Allegations of Malice and Defamation
The legal filing asserts the BBC intentionally used its Panorama programme to "maliciously, falsely, and defamatorily" make it appear Trump explicitly called for violent action. A key piece of evidence cited is a leaked internal memo from Michael Prescott, a former independent external adviser to the BBC. While the memo described the programme as "anti-Trump" and said the splicing of clips "materially misled viewers," it did not make a finding of actual malice.
This point is legally crucial. Under US law, public figures like Trump must prove the broadcaster acted with actual malice – knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth. The BBC maintains the edit was simply to shorten a lengthy clip for broadcast, not an act of malice.
Jurisdiction and the VPN Question
Trump's legal team faces the challenge of establishing that Florida is the appropriate jurisdiction for the case. Their claim argues that publicity around the documentary, coupled with increased Virtual Private Network (VPN) usage in Florida, makes it immensely likely citizens there accessed the content before it was removed.
The BBC counters that it did not distribute the episode on its US channels and that its iPlayer service was geographically restricted to UK viewers. The number of potential US viewers is significant, as it would affect any assessment of the reputational harm Trump claims to have suffered.
Claims of Bias and Reputational Damage
The lawsuit further accuses the BBC of a complete lack of objectivity, stating it "had no regard for the truth about President Trump." In a notable move, it quotes former UK Prime Minister Liz Truss, who labelled the BBC a "huge problem" and accused it of lying and fiddling with footage. Given Truss's brief and tumultuous 45-day tenure, her citation as an authority is likely to be contested.
On the claim of overwhelming reputational and financial harm, the BBC is expected to argue that Trump went on to win the subsequent presidential election, carrying Florida by a large margin. This, they may suggest, undermines the assertion that the documentary caused significant damage to his political brand or future prospects.
What Happens Next?
The case hinges on complex transatlantic legal principles. Trump must convince a Florida court it has jurisdiction and prove the high bar of actual malice. The BBC will vigorously defend its editorial processes. This lawsuit promises to be a protracted and closely watched legal battle, testing the limits of international media law and the legal reach of a former US president.
