With threats of a $1bn lawsuit, we assess whether a POTUS can do this … Spoiler: Looks like he can
It is common knowledge now that US President, Donald Trump, has expressed his will to sue the BBC for $1bn for their reporting of his now infamous January 6th speech at the Captiol.
Anybody listening to the full speech would have heard him telling people to exercise their rights as US citizens and make their voices heard, as he believed there to have been fraud after the 2020 national election which cost him the presidency.
The BBC, a week before the 2024 presidential election, aired an episode of Panorama – Trump: A Second Chance – in which they have since admitted to stitching together words that were spoken 54 minutes apart, apparently to make it sound as though he was inciting violence.
The President takes action
On November 10, President Trump’s lawyer Alejandro Brito wrote to the BBC demanding a full retraction, apology and an undisclosed compensatory sum for “overwhelming financial and reputational harm.”
He said if the terms of the letter are not met by November 14, the Trump team will file a $1,000,000,000 defamation case in the Florida Federal Court.
The BBC responds
The BBC released a statement the same day as the letter was issued to them about the “editing error” saying:
“We acknowledge that the editing of the January 6 speech in the Panorama programme ‘Trump: A Second Chance?’ was an error of judgment. The two sentences were spoken 54 minutes apart and should not have been joined together. We have removed the programme from iPlayer and BBC Select and are reviewing our editorial processes.”
At the time of writing, there has been no response to any of the demands of the initial letter, so all eyes will be looking to the 14th to see how the BBC are going to handle a situation that, either way, has the potential to cause all kinds of strife.
Is there veracity to legal claim?
Pending the response from the BBC, how is this likely to move forward and is there legal feasibility to the claim? From a jurisdictional point of view, the claim does appear viable.
Mr Trump has filed the caser in his home state of Florida, where the two-year statute of limitations for defamation claims applies (the documentary aired on October 28, 2024, so the deadline is October 2026). Suing in the UK is no longer viable, as the one-year limitation period there has expired.
The BBC’s content is accessible in theUS via BBC.com and its streaming service, BBC Select, providing a basis for “personal jurisdiction” over the broadcaster.
There is a US Supreme Court precedent in New York Times v. Sullivan (1964) in which “actual malice” was found against the NY Times, which is what Mr Trump would have to prove.
The fact the BBC have already conceded that they made an error and that the Director Tim Davies and the CEO of News and Current Affairs Deborah Turness have both resigned and taken “full responsibility” will certainly not help the BBC’s defence should they chose to contest the case in court.
The challenges Trump faces in proving his claim includes proving evidence for tangible harm, eg, financial loss or damage to reputation. The fact he went on the win the presidential election just over a week later would suggest the damage was minimal.
Looking forward …
There are many who have called out alleged bias against Trump. The BBC maintains it is a trusted and impartial news outlet. This claim is open to debate, not least because a number of their high-profile presenters have been censured for political bias. One recent example is Gary Lineker, who was relieved of his post on Match of the Day after ill-judged social media posts.
Meanwhile many Brits cancelling their annusl licence fee payments. That risks denting the BBC’s coffers. That together with a possible $1bn USD (760 Million GBP) Trump bill could be catastrophic.
The President, on the other hand, has his hands full running the world’s largest economy. And yet he has a flare for multitasking. We watch with bated breath.
