11th November 2025
The litigation letter is weak, but his underlying practical position is not weak
*
The headlines are eye-catching.
Other, similar front pages are here.
What is going on?
And what can be usefully said from a United Kingdom perspective about this threat by the President of the United States of America to sue our state broadcaster, the British Broadcasting Corporation?
This post is divided into three parts: (1) what is being complained about, (2) what can be said about the threat from a legal perspective, and (3) how this threat fits into he context of how President Trump uses civil litigation and threats of civil litigation.
In essence: what are the facts, what is the legal analysis, and what is the practical position.
*
Posts like these take time and opportunity cost – and this blog (currently) is free-to-view and does not have advertising. So if you do genuinely value independent and informed law and policy commentary (rather than AI slop, client journalism, or litigation PR) please become a paying subscriber.
*
Let us begin.
The complaint is in respect of a Panorama programme broadcast by the BBC on 28 October 2024, which is well over a year ago.
The BBC page for the programmes is here:
You will see on that page that “this episode is not currently available”.
You will also see that dates of the broadcast:
Note that the broadcast dates are before Trump’s successful election on 5 November 2024.
And if you look carefully at that page you will also see that the programme was not made by the BBC, but by a third-party production company. This was thereby not made directly by the BBC news teams, though they would have presumably reviewed and approved the content before broadcast.
This distinction between production and broadcast is not unusual for such programmes.
There is also no evidence that the programme broadcasts were readily available in the United States:
*
As regards the content complained of, the Guardian have provided this handy comparison, which you should now click on and watch:
It is a speech by President Trump on 6 January 2021.
In the Panorama edit two parts of the speech are put together so to give the impression that a single statement was made – effectively a succinct incitement to violence:
“We’re going to walk down to the Capitol and I’ll be there with you, and we fight. We fight like hell.”
In fact the first part – “We’re going to walk down to the Capitol…” – and the last part – “…and we fight. We fight like hell” – were at different parts of the same speech. Indeed, the two passages are about 54 minutes apart.
*
From a journalistic and editorial perspective, the Panorama edit is misleading. It conveys the false impression that the two statements were said in one go. There is nothing in the Panorama edit to suggest any passage of time between the two utterances.
As such, from a journalistic and editorial perspective, the Panorama edit is indefensible and it should not have been broadcast.
*
However, not all journalistic and editorial errors are breaches of the law.
For such an error to be unlawful as well as unfortunate something else is needed. A complainant needs to bring the error into the scope of the applicable law, which in England and Wales, for example, would the laws of libel and of malicious falsehood.
A journalistic or editorial error is not, in and of itself, actionable at law.
*
So what is the legal complaint of President Trump and his legal representatives?
According to Sky the legal letter is as follows:
Re: Demand to Retract False And Defamatory Statements About The President of the United States of America
Dear All:
This law firm serves as litigation counsel for President Donald J Trump (hereinafter referred to as “President Trump”). Please direct all future correspondence relating to this matter to my attention. This correspondence serves as a demand under Florida Statute § 770.011 that you immediately retract the false, defamatory, disparaging, and inflammatory statements made about President Trump, which were published in a Panorama documentary that was fabricated and aired by the BBC.
Failure to comply will leave President Trump with no choice but to pursue any and all legal rights and remedies available to recover damages for the overwhelming financial and reputational harm that the BBC has caused him to suffer, with all rights and remedies being expressly reserved by President Trump.
In the Panorama documentary, titled “Trump: A Second Chance”, which was first broadcast on October 28, 2024 – a week before the 2024 United States presidential election – the BBC intentionally sought to completely mislead its viewers by splicing together three separate parts of President Trump’s speech to supporters on January 6, 2021.
The documentary showed President Trump telling supporters: “We’re gonna walk down to the Capitol and I’ll be there with you and we fight. We fight like hell and if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore.”
This fabricated depiction of President Trump was false and defamatory given that President Trump’s actual and full remarks were: “We’re going to walk down, and I’ll be there with you, we’re going to walk down, we’re going to walk down any one of you but I think right here, we’re going to walk down to the Capitol and we’re going to cheer on our brave senators and congressman and women.”
Moreover, the BBC edited out President Trump saying, “I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.” Thus, as set forth in an internal whistleblower memorandum, the BBC’s segment maliciously made it appear that President Trump “[said] things [he] never actually said,” by editing together footage from the start of the speech with a separate quote early an hour later.
Due to their salacious nature, the fabricated statements that were aired by the BBC have been widely disseminated throughout various digital mediums, which have reached tens of millions of people worldwide. Consequently, the BBC has caused President Trump to suffer overwhelming financial and reputational harm.
A. Applicable law
Words are defamatory under Florida law when “they tend to subject one to hatred, distrust, ridicule, contempt or disgrace or tend to injure one in one’s business or profession.” Johnston v. Borders, 36 F.4th 1254, 1275 (11th Cir. 2022) (quoting Am. Airlines, Inc. v. Geddes, 960 So. 2d 830, 833 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (citation and quotation marks omitted)). Statements are defamatory if “the defendant juxtaposes a series of facts so as to imply a defamatory connection between them, or creates a defamatory implication by omitting facts.” Johnston v. Borders, 36 F.4th 1254, 1275 (11th Cir. 2022) (quoting Jews for Jesus, 997 So. 2d at 1108).
Further, “where the speaker or writer neglects to provide the audience with an adequate factual foundation prior to engaging in the offending discourse, liability may arise.” See Zambrano v. Devanesan, 484 So. 2d 603, 607 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986).
Even if the BBC attempts to whitewash its conduct as simply an expression of its opinions, Florida law makes clear that such a defense will not absolve its liability. See Dershowitz v. Cable News Network, Inc., 541 F. Supp. 3d 1354, 1362 (S.D. Fla. 2021); see also Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., 497 U.S. 1, 18-19 (1990) (”Even if the speaker states the facts upon which he bases his opinion, if those facts are either incorrect or incomplete, or if his assessment of them is erroneous, the statement may still imply a false assertion of fact. Simply couching such statements in terms of opinion does not dispel these implications.”) (emphasis added); see also Eastern Air Lines, Inc. v. Gellert, 438 So. 2d 923, 927 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983) (“[A] statement that although ostensibly in the form of an opinion ‘implies the allegation of undisclosed defamatory facts as the basis for the opinion’ is actionable.”) (emphasis added).
Consequently, the BBC lacks any viable defense to the overwhelming reputational and financial harm it has caused President Trump to suffer.
B. Demand
The above-referenced false, defamatory, malicious, disparaging, and inflammatory statements were published to deliberately denigrate President Trump. The timing of the fabricated documentary is evident.
The BBC’s reckless disregard for the truth underscores the actual malice behind the decision to publish the wrongful content, given the plain falsity of the statements.
Accordingly, President Trump hereby demands that you:
1) immediately issue a full and fair retraction of the documentary and any and all other false, defamatory, disparaging, misleading, and inflammatory statements about President Trump in as conspicuous a manner as they were originally published;
2) immediately issue an apology for the false, defamatory, disparaging, misleading, and inflammatory statements about President Trump; and
3) appropriately compensate President Trump for the harm caused.
Moreover, please allow this letter to serve as notice to you, to your affiliated entities, subsidiaries, to all of their employees, and any other person acting on behalf of or in concert with the BBC, to preserve any and all evidence related in any way to the above-mentioned malicious, false, and defamatory statements the BBC published, and any other statements that the BBC has published regarding President Trump.
By way of this letter, the BBC is hereby directed not to destroy, conceal, or alter any paper or electronic files, physical evidence, and/or other data relating in any way, no matter how remote, to your false claims regarding President Trump, and/or the circumstances leading to their dissemination, including, but not limited to:
1) all communications between you and any third party in any way related to your wrongful claims regarding President Trump;
2) all sources for your false claims regarding President Trump;
3) any and all documents and data referring to, reflecting, or relating to communications between you and any such third parties or sources regarding your false claims regarding President Trump; and
4) any and all documents in any way related to your false claims regarding President Trump. This includes any information alleged to be protected by Florida Statute § 90.5015. Monarch Air Group, LLC v. Journalism Dev. Network, Inc., No. 23-CV-61256, 2025 WL 445491, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 10, 2025) (interpreting Fla. Stat. § 90.5015 and explaining that the Eleventh Circuit “recognizes a qualified privilege for journalists, allowing them to resist compelled disclosure of their professional news gathering efforts. This privilege shields reporters in both criminal and civil proceedings.”) (quoting United States v. Capers, 708 F.3d 1286, 1303 (11th Cir. 2013)).
I understand that many records and files are maintained electronically. However, this letter specifically requests that all paper and hard copy originals be maintained and preserved in their original format.
By the same token, electronic documents and the storage media on which they reside may contain relevant, discoverable information beyond that which may be found in printed documents. Therefore, even where a paper copy exists and has been preserved, please preserve and maintain all electronically stored documents in their original native format, including all metadata.
This preservation demand specifically encompasses any and all electronic documents, including but not limited to, all word-processed files, emails, spreadsheets, all databases, log files, and any other electronically stored and/or generated documents or files.
If the BBC does not comply with the above by November 14, 2025, at 5:00 p.m. EST, President Trump will be left with no alternative but to enforce his legal and equitable rights, all of which are expressly reserved and are not waived, including by filing legal action for no less than $1,000,000,000 (One Billion Dollars) in damages.
The BBC is on notice.
PLEASE GOVERN YOURSELF ACCORDINGLY.
[ ]
(That last term in block capitals is a feature of US litigation letters.)
*
There some rather odd things about this legal threat.
*
First, the letter states in three places about the the reputational harm caused to Trump:
“…the BBC lacks any viable defense to the overwhelming reputational and financial harm it has caused President Trump to suffer”
“…the overwhelming financial and reputational harm that the BBC has caused him to suffer”
“…the BBC has caused President Trump to suffer overwhelming financial and reputational harm.”
The Panorama programme was broadcast in the United Kingdom days before Trump was re-elected in the United States.
It is impossible to see how Trump being re-elected is consistent with him suffering any harm by the broadcast, let alone “overwhelming financial and reputational harm”.
And if you look closely at the letter, no harm is even shown – let alone “overwhelming financial and reputational harm”.
Instead harm is merely asserted – rather than demonstrated.
As such this seems a weak litigation letter.
*
The failure by this letter to show harm then feeds into the threat that Trump may sue for “no less than $1,000,000,000 (One Billion Dollars) in damages.”
Because no harm is shown, this figure is arbitrary.
The letter may have said one dollar or a trillion dollars and would have made as much rational sense.
It is a preposterous demand.
*
The letter is also alert to the inconvenient truth that the programme was not actually broadcast in the United States. This is is why the following passage is included:
“…the fabricated statements that were aired by the BBC have been widely disseminated throughout various digital mediums, which have reached tens of millions of people worldwide.”
There is no evidence in the letter that anyone in the United States, let alone Florida, either saw the programme or even know of its existence.
Interestingly, in the demands for document retention, the letter fails to even ask the BBC for evidence of the extent of downloads and broadcasts of the programme. This is a strange omission, if this was a serious legal threat.
*
I am not an American lawyer, and so I can offer no view on the merits of this legal threat under the laws of Florida. Even what can seem weak litigation letters may have traction in other jurisdictions.
But if this threat was made under the laws of England and Wales (Scotland and Northern Ireland have their own legal systems) one would say that this claim also had its weaknesses over here.
First, it is would be out of time: there is a one year limitation period.
Second: the claimant would have to show – and not merely assert – serious damage to their reputation. The letter does not do so.
And third: the ceiling for damages claims for libel in England and Wales is about £300,000 – and any award over £100,000 is rare.
This rules out one million pound claims, let alone one billion pound claims.
*
Would the BBC have any defence in a hypothetical case brought in England, regardless of the above defences?
A straight defence of truth would not be available – Trump did not say what the Panorama edit had him saying, at least not in one go.
However, the truth defence also covers things which are “substantially” true. This is a riskier defence to mount, but if the BBC did mount it would be along the lines of Trump did effectively promote an insurrection, even if he did not say in one go what was said in the Panorama edit.
Here the BBC could point to findings of Congressional committees and the terms of the impeachment of Trump passed by the House of Representatives (even though he was not convicted by the Senate). The BBC could also say that the 54 minute gap between the statements did not necessarily mean that the latter statement – “fight like hell” – was not an incitement.
An English court would also have regard to the programme as a whole, and also to Trump’s speech as a whole.
Whether Trump was an insurrectionist would presumably not be something Trump would want to have decided by an English court on the basis of the civil standard of proof – the balance of probabilities.
On the other hand, it was a bad journalistic and editorial fail, and so the BBC would not relish this being decided by the London high court either.
On the face of it, if this was litigated at the high court in London (and assuming limitation was not a problem, and the claimant was able to show serious damage) one could see it going either way, though one would expect a successful claim to be worth only about £30,000.
*
Stepping back, what we have here is an overstated claim on a somewhat artificial basis. Until recent news reports, one suspects neither Trump nor anyone else in the US even knew about the Panorama programme.
And given he was re-elected president (in the USA) days after broadcast (in the UK), any claim for damages would seem to fall flat.
But.
The facts of the Panorama edit are ugly for the BBC. It was a bad mistake, and so it would not be one where a confident defence could be mounted.
And this, in turn, means Trump has leverage.
Trump loves leverage.
For Trump, civil litigation is a form of deal-making – the promotion of his political and business interests by other means.
One should not approach his legal manoeuvres as if they are cases that will go all the way. They are skirmishes intended to force a deal, a compromise, a back-down by the other side.
A confident BBC would admit a mistake and move on without admitting legal liability.
But we do not have a confident BBC.
We have a media corporation lacking confidence.
Trump loves media corporations -and other institutions – that lack confidence.
And although one would hope the BBC would mount a complete defence to any claim being brought in a jurisdiction where a programme was not even broadcast and where no damage has been shown, one can also imagine the BBC seeking to make amends including by means of compensation (of licence fee payers money) so as to avoid litigation.
The litigation letter may be weak, but Trump’s underlying practical position is strong: the BBC made a mistake, and he knows how to take full advantage of it.
So putting aside the theatrics of a bombastic letter with its senseless $1 billion claim, there is a power play here which Trump has done many times before.
And the real mistake of the BBC (and the production company) was opening itself up to such a play of power.
***
Comments Policy
This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.
Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated and comments will not be published if irksome, or if they risk derailing the discussion.
More on the comments policy is here.
Is it not time-barred?
Why not read the post where the point is dealt with?
One would suspect that being forced into disclosure/discovery might not end up well for the BBC….
What happened immediately after the speech? Would that not be relevant?
And if the claim goes on for longer it will be interesting to see how the defamation and “lowering of reputation” will be pleaded and proved. Under English law that is often a reason for a claimant to pause for thought; for a reputation to be damaged there needs to be an examination of what reputation existed prior to the words that caused harm. Before bringing a claim in which reputation has to be proved, the claimant has to show how it has been lowered, and the lawyers for the claimant need to point out to the claimant that his reputation is in effect “on the line”. So, any and all of his past reputation will be unearthed for public examination. A responsible and independent BBC might relish the opportunity? I also note that the law of Florida allows for some limits to priori reputation being in issue when it is referred to as “defamatory under Florida law when tending “to subject one to hatred, distrust, ridicule, contempt or disgrace or tend to injure one in one’s business or profession.” So presumably subjecting one to ridicule e.t.c. when one is ridiculous, contemptuous or a disgrace to begin with is not then defamatory.. but maybe things are different in Florida?
It might to difficult to injure the reputation of Trump as a pathological liar, given the Washington Post kept a tally of over 38,000 lies and misleading statements uttered by Trump during his first presidency.
And arguably, a MAGA crowd subjected to Trump’s long, rambling speech on its way to the Capitol, might well have forgotten any suggestion of peaceably “honouring senators and congressman” when they got there — instead thoroughly riled up by the end-of-speech incitement to “fight like hell”. Even though, strictly speaking, it referred to fighting elections.
So with only ten seconds to convey the main thrust of the speech in inciting the Capitol riots, as a tiny part of a much longer Panorama programme about Trump, even the very misleading splicing together of statements made 54 minutes apart, is not really so wide of the mark in conveying the general effect of an inflammatory soeech about the so-called “stolen” 2020 presidential election.
Yes this is a power play by Trump with no legal merit. We have seen how he nevertheless used his power to get US media and universities to bend to his will even with illegitimate claims. But what does he want from the BBC apart from £1billion or an apology? He can’t force them to change their policies or cancel presenters as he has in US. What hold does he have over them? What rights/assets does the BBC have in US? I suppose he could cancel the credentials of BBC Reporters in the US. Would that actually be very damaging? I still think a response by the BBC as in the well known case of Arkell v Pressdram might not be inappropriate.
How would reputational damage be proved, given that he reportedly told around 30,000 verifiable lies/untruths/misleading comments in his first term? For an awful lot of people around the world, his reputation is one of a liar and charlatan. The edit would hardly change that.
Also, would the fact that he didn’t walk down to the Capitol (another lie) be a point for the defence?
Thank you for all you do.
Trump’s threat seems rather ill advised given it coincides with him posting a story about how Obama is collecting millions of dollars a year in royalties on Obama care from the US government.
The problem is he lifted it from The Onion which had accompanied it with a warning the story was entirely fictitious with no basis in fact.
Plenty of sources. Here’s one:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-spreads-satirical-website-s-obamacare-royalties-claim/ar-AA1Q6I6r
The Donald apparently missed that detail and just posted the fiction as fact.
I wonder how many billions Obama could claim. All the required legal arguments are set out in Trump’s claim letter and conveniently Trump seven a Florida resident.
I appreciate that this is all under Florida law in which you claim no expertise, but wouldn’t it be in the BBC’s interest to mount a vigorous defence based on how the events after the 2020 election and the ensuing legal shenanigans, up to and including the latest pardons of Giuliani, Chesebro, Powell et al, impacted on Trump’s reputation at the time of the broadcast? Having gone to extraordinary lengths to derail his own criminal cases, he would surely not want all of this stuff to be aired in open court after all.
The outcome will depend on the rigorousness of the judicial scrutiny Trump’s “try on” complaint receives in Florida. To the best of my knowledge the BBC did not contemporaneously broadcast this material in the US because it could not. All the broadcasts took place only in the UK.
If others in the US have made copies and broadcast the material there, then they are the publishers and in the firing line for any action.
I am not a libel lawyer, let alone a libel lawyer in Florida, but it seems to me that Trump’s threat of litigation has two main aims.
First, as with other such claims against other large media organisations, Trump is using whatever leverage he has to extract a substantial settlement sum – not a billion dollars, but certain several millions. I suspect the BBC would eventually win the underlying legal case, but an early settlement may be acceptable to the BBC as a commercial matter to put this to bed and to avoid paying substantial sums to lawyers and spending too much senior management time on dealing with this sideshow. And who knows what adverse items might emerge in disclosure and depositions.
Secondly, it seems to me that Trump want to force the BBC to capitulate as further evidence to his supporters of the so-called “mainstream media” peddling what he calls “fake news”. Poor editing of one clip does not turn the whole documentary into a falsification, any more than light editing of Reagan’s public remarks on tariffs misrepresents his views.
After the kerfuffle over the Gaza documentary, perhaps the BBC needs to revisit how it commissions and reviews third-party productions on controversial matters.
Since the behaviour complained of took place on British soil I would have assumed that the British courts would have jurisdiction over the case. If the BBC were to take a similar view, what dire consequences would arise from their dismissing the letter out of hand?
If the case were heard in a British court, I would have thought that the BBC would have good reason to seek rejection of the claim on the grounds that the plaintiff is not merely a malicious, frivolous and vexatious litigant on this occasion, but that his long-standing, foul reputation in that regard precedes him.
If it were heard in front of an English jury, the worst outcome I could wish to see is a finding for the plaintiff and an award of one penny in damages with no award of costs.
No doubt they order these things differently in Florida.
What a wonderful last sentence!
Thank you for the post. I was interested in learning whether the BBC’s peculiar structure in any way makes it easier or more difficult to be sued. And more specifically, is it like that the organisation has adequate insurance.
Why can’t the BBC offer to pay ten thousand pounds or a similar sum to a charity nominated by Donald Trump?
The BBC must stand firm on this issue, on its own behalf and for all journalists everywhere. A limited apology for the edit, which is not misleading in the context of the information about the speech available at the time, might be in order. Other than that, the BBC is not trying to do any deals that that Trump can corruptly influence as part of a settlement, so it should put congressional reports available at the time on the table as part of its response and assert that no incremental damage was caused to Trump.
I would raise a number of points which places the BBC in a very difficult position:-
1. The BBC/staff of the BBC appear not to have complied with the BBC Editorial Guidelines & Standards (see 2025 issue on BBC website) vis a vis Impartiality, Accuracy and Fairness and no doubt the reason behind the BBC resignations.
2. The BBC owes a duty of care towards its personnel and I am sure would not want its personnel or former personnel subject to a humiliating cross-examination in a Florida court or a court in the UK where their motivations for the ‘false edit’ and lack of compliance with the BBC standards will be examined.
3. If the case comes to court there will be the process of ‘discovery’ and the BBC will be obliged to disclose documentation which may well be detrimental to its reputation and credibility.
4. Although the BBC programme may not have been seen in Florida it may have been seen by US citizens in the UK and elsewhere. US citizens resident in the UK have the right to vote and no doubt are in contact with friends and relatives in the US.
5. The claimant’s letter is addressed to BBC Studio Productions Ltd which is a company controlled by the BBC.
My conclusion is the BBC has to make a compromise with Trump no matter how distasteful that may be.
There is a full transcription of the speech on the Aljazeera website. It dates from the actual events.
The Fight like hell ( not the only reference to fighting ) occurs a few paragraphs from the end and is followed ( after some
rambling) by ” So we’re going to, we’re going to walk down Pennsylvania Avenue, I love Pennsylvania Avenue, and we’re going to the Capitol……”. It then becomes rambling again. Obviously this is not the clip used but the words and intent are near identical. I have not seen the program but the error seems to be more that the clips were out of order and edited to appear contiguous. The actual speech had the same sentiments in the opposite
order and only a few sentences apart. It is obvious that the whole speech is an incitement of the crowd to intimidate (at least) the US Congress.
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. I respect DAG’s integrity and point about not being au fait with US law. But the below is my understanding.
Presuming the case ever was heard in Florida (which appears to be the venue of choice particularly since the statute of limitations for a UK action has passed) then the controlling US case is New York Times v Sullivan (1964). Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has sought to overturn “Sullivan” but has not yet found sufficient support so it remains good law. In “Sullivan”, the New York Times published adverts paid for by supporters of Martin Luther King. Those adverts contained some factual inaccuracies. The US Supreme Court ultimately decided that those inaccuracies mattered less than the stimulation of public debate and discussion. Strong relevance to the situation here. It also set the standard for defamation of a public figure under US law: the claimant must prove “actual malice” – that the publisher knew in advance that the claims were false or published with reckless disregard for the truth of the statements. Trump is indisputably a “public figure”.
The US criminal prosecution of Trump always ultimately dismissed after he won the 2024 election but both a US Congressional committee and the Colorado Supreme Court (when deciding if Trump was ineligible for the ballot in Colorado under 14th Amendment considerations) concluded that Trump did incite a violent insurrection on Jan 6 2021. Panorama might have edited Trump’s speech to make it seem like he said two things together that he did actually say, but just some time apart. But under the “Sullivan” standard this error is outweighed by the contribution to public debate, and ultimately the accusation made by the programme (that Trump incited a violent rebellion) is true. Yes, Trump could demand discovery into if there was “systemic bias against conservatives” at the BBC or if Panorama intentionally chose to edit the footage of his speech to present him a bad light. But even if he could prove the latter I don’t see how it helps him under the “Sullivan” standard because, even though there were inaccuracies in the Panorama reporting, contribution to public debate and discourse outweighs these. The former would be too vague and nebulous to meet the “actual malice” standard.
All of which at the very least makes “actual malice” far harder to argue if not outright destroys the argument for it. And without proof of actual malice there’s no defamation of a public figure under US law.