Law and Disorder Trump v the BBC: can the President really sue the BBC?
Nov 17, 2025
Donald Trump threatens a $5 billion lawsuit against the BBC over a Panorama edit he claims distorted his speech about the Capitol insurrection. The panel debates whether Trump's case holds water under U.S. defamation law, where he must demonstrate 'actual malice.' Discussions touch on the implications of this legal battle for free speech and the chilling effect on media. They explore whether the edit altered Trump's message and the broader context of Trump’s pattern of litigation against critics. Should the BBC stand firm or cave to legal pressure?
AI Snips
Chapters
Transcript
Episode notes
Editing Versus Overall Programme Context
- Panorama edited two separated parts of Trump's speech to appear continuous, raising questions about whether the editing changed the meaning.
- Sir Nicholas Mostyn and Helena Kennedy suggest the programme still discussed Trump's revival and wider support, not solely the 6 January events.
Stand Firm And Defend Journalistic Grounds
- Trump is likely suing for defamation in the US to seek larger damages and use more favourable limitation periods.
- The panel advises the BBC should stand firm and fight any suit rather than pay, arguing their journalistic grounds are strong.
High US Bar: Actual Malice Required
- US defamation law demands proof of 'actual malice' for public figures under New York Times v. Sullivan.
- Trump must show the BBC knew the edit was false or recklessly disregarded the truth to succeed in Florida.