Can Donald Trump really sue the BBC for $1bn?
US President Donald Trump’s threat to sue the BBC for $1bn over the misleading edit of a Panorama programme has thrown the Corporation into crisis.
But it’s unclear if the US President’s threats have any legal substance.
Trump made his legal threat after a BBC memo was leaked, revealing that its Panorama programme had spliced together two parts of Trump’s speech to appear as if he was inciting the 2021 Capitol Hill riots.
Following the leak, the Corporation issued an apology, along with the resignations of director general Tim Davie and CEO of news Deborah Turness.
However, Trump’s lawyer, Alejandro Brito, has now written to the BBC asking for a “full and fair retraction of the documentary”, an apology, and to “appropriately” compensate Trump.
He added in his letter that if the BBC does not comply with these requests by Friday, 14 November, the US President will file legal action against the British broadcaster for “no less than $1bn in damages”.
Trump’s legal battles may come to London
Trump has a history of taking on media companies, several of which have opted to settle rather than fight it out in court.
Paramount Global paid him $16m to settle a dispute over an interview broadcast on CBS with former vice-president Kamala Harris. And ABC News paid him $15m to settle a defamation lawsuit after its anchor falsely claimed he had been found “liable for rape”.
As a lawyer told CityAM: “Of course, these are very serious allegations of wrongdoing and [the BBC] knew that they were editing the speech.”
However, the BBC is headquartered in London and the Panorama programme was targeted towards a UK audience, which means there are some additional considerations for the President and his legal team.
To start, the figure of $1bn seems far-fetched.
As Iain Wilson, managing partner of Brett Wilson, explained, “a $1bn claim would be an absurdity under English law, where libel damages are compensatory and typically capped around £350,000.”
In terms of the law surrounding the blunder, Daniel Astaire, managing partner at Grosvenor Law, explained, under English defamation laws, “Trump must show that the video caused ‘serious harm’ to his reputation.”
He also noted that “doctoring a video can certainly give rise to claims for defamation and infringement of a person’s moral rights under Copyright legislation”, adding, “if Trump pursues this, he must establish that the creation of the video was done maliciously.”
However, under the rules of English law, as Jessica Sarwat, a lawyer at Stokoe Partnership Solicitors, pointed out, “the limitation period for any libel claim in the UK—which is usually one year from the date of the publication—has now passed.”
Lawyers in sunny Florida
Not surprisingly, the case might, if it reached that point, end up in a court in Florida instead of London.
Trump’s lawyer, in his legal letter to the BBC, quoted the law under Florida Statute.
As Prateek Swaika, partner at Boies Schiller Flexner, stated, the “threat against the BBC isn’t just another media skirmish—it’s a masterclass in weaponising cross-border defamation law”.
He explained: “The case hinges on a fundamental transatlantic legal divide: UK defamation law favours claimants with its ‘serious harm’ standard and defendant-carried burden of proof, while US law shields media through nearly insurmountable ‘actual malice’ requirements for public figures”, adding that his “legal team is exploiting this divide by threatening Florida litigation.”
While claims are time-barred in England within a year of publication, in Florida, the time limit is two years.
However, the problem Trump’s team might face in trying to litigate in Florida is jurisdictional hurdles, as neither the BBC nor the programme is directed at a Florida audience.
Courtroom hurdles for US President
As a lawyer added, “There are many hurdles in defamation claims, but they seem to have a good grounding here.”
However, if the BBC decides against paying Trump compensation and issuing a second apology – Chairman Samir Shah has already apologised for the ‘error of judgement’ – and Trump’s threat becomes real, the damage to his reputation from having this played out in open civil court might not be ideal for the US President.
As Swaika explained, “litigation would force detailed examination and disclosure in connection with his 6 January statements—potentially creating more reputational damage than the original edit.”
“Ultimately, this claim looks more symbolic than legally sustainable,” added Sarwat.