A United States judge has allowed President Donald Trump’s $10bn defamation lawsuit against the BBC to move forward in a blow to the state broadcaster.
The US president’s civil case alleges that the United Kingdom broadcaster deceptively edited a January 6 documentary, claiming the broadcaster acted with malice to damage his reputation.
Recommended Stories
list of 4 itemsend of list
Jeffrey T Kuntz, a Trump-appointed federal district judge in the Southern District of Florida, issued a 40-page ruling on Tuesday partially rejecting the United Kingdom broadcaster’s motion to dismiss the case.
He ruled that Trump’s claim that the broadcaster damaged his reputation and knew or should have known the clip was misleading was “plausibly alleged”, or credible. While Kuntz’s decision moves the case forward, it did not establish whether Trump has proven those claims.
The president’s case against the BBC centres on an October 2024 documentary titled Trump: A Second Chance?
It features clips of a speech Trump made on January 6, 2021, to his supporters, allegedly directing attendees to storm the US Capitol, the seat of the US Congress, as lawmakers voted to certify former President Joe Biden’s win.
The president alleged that the documentary was selectively edited, with incorrect sequencing of two separate video and audio clips of the same speech – nearly 55 minutes apart – as well as editing the footage to make it appear that he was directly calling for violence.
The two curated clips included one section in which he told supporters to march on the Capitol, and another where he said, “Fight like hell”.
Trump has maintained that he never told his supporters to commit violence in a bid to prevent the peaceful transition of power, though he has long falsely claimed that vote-rigging cost him the 2020 race.
Trump had also said the edited sections of his speech omitted his calls for peaceful protest.
The BBC admitted the edit was misleading and apologised to Trump on November 13, 2025, a month before he filed the lawsuit. In seeking to have the case dismissed, it contended that its edits condensed a 70-minute speech, which the judge rejected.
BBC ‘surprised by decision’
However, the broadcaster continues to deny it defamed the president.
Following the ruling, a BBC spokesperson said, “We are surprised by this decision but respect the Court’s authority and note the case will now proceed to the next stage. We remain confident in our position and will continue to respond through the proper legal process.”
In a Truth Social post on Tuesday, Trump called the latest ruling a “huge victory against Fake News BBC”.
After skipping his scheduled October deposition to hit the midterm campaign trail, the president faces a court-ordered December 11 deadline to testify under oath or risk having his defamation lawsuit against the BBC thrown out.
The original lawsuit, filed in federal court in Miami in December 2025, sought a minimum of $5bn in damages each for alleged defamation and violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act. The judge threw out the second claim on Tuesday.
The dispute over the edited speech, featured on the BBC’s Panorama show shortly before the 2024 presidential election, prompted a public relations crisis for the broadcaster, leading to the resignations of its two most senior executives.
The BBC case is one of several that Trump has privately filed against the press, as part of a wider pressure campaign targeting coverage he dislikes.
Across multiple jurisdictions, his attorneys have pursued staggering financial penalties against major news organisations and publishers.
The president is currently enmeshed in another $10bn defamation lawsuit against The Wall Street Journal that he refiled in May after it was previously dismissed. A judge dismissed the refiled suit on October 31, and Trump is appealing. Another defamation case seeks $15bn in damages from The New York Times and Penguin Random House, a book publisher.
In September, the president also moved to bar CNN, MS Now and Politico from the White House and its press pool – a blanket ban a federal judge later blocked, though the outlets have continued fighting ongoing exclusions from Air Force One and the Oval Office.
