MH-7519
US Judge Rejects BBC Bid toDismiss Trump's $5 Billion Defamation Suit
A US federal judge refused to dismiss Trump's $5 billion defamation suit against the BBC over a misleadingly edited January 6 documentary, while tossing a second $5 billion claim.
Wire notes
- Judge Jeffrey T. Kuntz rejected the BBC's bid to dismiss Trump's defamation claim on Tuesday.
- Trump seeks at least $5 billion for alleged defamation; the judge dismissed a separate $5 billion Florida consumer-law claim.
- The suit stems from a BBC documentary that spliced two excerpts of Trump's January 6, 2021 speech.
- Trump must give a sworn deposition by December 11 or face sanctions, including possible dismissal.

A US federal judge refused on Tuesday to throw out President Donald Trump's defamation suit against the BBC, keeping alive a claim for at least $5 billion in damages. Judge Jeffrey T. Kuntz dismissed only the BBC's request to end the defamation accusation — and separately threw out a second claim worth another $5 billion that rested on a Florida consumer-protection law.
The case now moves toward discovery and potential trial.
What does the ruling actually change?
Kuntz allowed the core defamation claim to proceed while discarding the Florida consumer-law complaint. Whether Trump can ultimately prove his case remains an open question, the judge wrote in a 40-page decision.
"If President Trump will be able to substantiate those allegations and demonstrate that he suffered damages at the summary judgment phase or at trial is something that will be determined later," Kuntz wrote.
The dispute centers on a BBC documentary about Trump's January 6, 2021 speech. The program joined two separate excerpts from the speech, creating the impression that Trump had explicitly encouraged his supporters to attack the Capitol, according to the allegations.
Trump delivered the speech to supporters before a march toward Congress, where lawmakers had gathered to certify Joe Biden's victory in the 2020 presidential election.
Why did the judge find the editing claim plausible?
Kuntz ruled that the time gap between the two excerpts used in the documentary raises questions about how the statement was presented.
"Given the difference in time between the two statements, that distance, by itself, leads to a plausible inference that the BBC knew or should have know that the excerpt it was producing would not be and could not be a true statement," the judge wrote.
"This was not a simple edit, but the creation of something different from what was said in the speech," he added.
The BBC apologized for the edit, and the controversy triggered the resignation of several senior executives at the broadcaster. The company denies causing any harm to Trump.
How did the parties react?
Trump celebrated the decision in a post on Truth Social, calling it a "great victory."
"We will continue to fight against all those who try to deceive the American people and we will defeat them!" he wrote.
A BBC spokesperson said in a statement to AFP on Wednesday that the broadcaster is "surprised" by the judge's decision but respects his authority. "We remain confident in our position," the spokesperson added.
What happens next?
Trump faces a December 11 deadline to give a sworn deposition in the case. Another judge set that date in October after the BBC argued the president was avoiding the network's attempts to secure his testimony.
If Trump fails to appear by the deadline, he could face sanctions — including the possible dismissal of his lawsuit, according to court information.
The ruling leaves a sitting US president pursuing a foreign public broadcaster through the American courts, with a sworn deposition now the next flashpoint.
via oglobo.com (Source)
More from Tom Whitfield
Show full bio
Staff writer covering companies, deals and strategy in marketing, advertising, marketing technology, media, SEO and search at Marketing Herald.
302 articles