By Benadeta Mwaura - Reporter
United States, 13 January 2026 - The British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) has filed a motion in a U.S. federal court seeking to dismiss a $10 billion defamation lawsuit brought by former President Donald Trump, intensifying what has become an unprecedented legal battle between a global news organisation and a former U.S. head of state.
Trump filed the high-stakes lawsuit in December 2025 in a Miami federal court, accusing the BBC of defamation and deceptive business practices for an edited clip aired in the broadcaster’s Panorama documentary that he says falsely implied he called for supporters to storm the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021.
In his complaint, Trump argues that the BBC’s edit of his speech embedded in the documentary “Trump: A Second Chance?” stitched together remarks made nearly an hour apart, including a call to “fight like hell”, while excluding language explicitly urging peaceful protest.
The suit alleges that this misleading edit caused reputational harm and violated Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, seeking $5 billion in damages on each of two counts.
The case has attracted global attention not only because of the record-setting damages sought but also due to the intense political context: the documentary was broadcast shortly before the 2024 U.S. presidential election, and Trump has repeatedly criticised media coverage he views as unfavourable or inaccurate.
On January 12, 2026, the BBC moved to have the lawsuit thrown out before it proceeds to a full trial, arguing in court filings that Trump’s claims should fail as a matter of law.
In its motion to dismiss, the broadcaster says:
The Florida court lacks jurisdiction because the Panorama documentary was not produced, created or broadcast in Florida, and therefore the court should not hear the case.
Trump has failed to show that the BBC acted with “actual malice,” a legal requirement in U.S. defamation law when a public figure sues over allegedly false statements.
And that he has also failed to demonstrate actual damages, a key element in defamation actions, beyond vague assertions of reputational harm.
The BBC further asked the court to stay the discovery phase, the pre-trial evidence-gathering process, while the dismissal motion is considered, warning that broad discovery could impose “considerable burdens and costs” on the publicly funded broadcaster.
One of the BBC’s strongest arguments centres on personal jurisdiction and venue.
The broadcaster maintains that the case does not have a sufficient connection to Florida and that the documentary was neither created nor originally broadcast in the state.
The BBC disputes that the episode was even made available to Florida viewers via the streaming service BritBox, countering Trump’s claims that U.S. audiences could access it.
Related articles
If the suit survives the dismissal motion, the BBC has signalled it may seek to relocate the case to a different jurisdiction such as New York where the connection to the material might be stronger if the suit continues.
Although the BBC has acknowledged and apologised for the editorial misjudgement surrounding the Panorama segment, saying it “gave the impression” Trump was making a direct call to violence, it maintains that this does not amount to defamation or a legal basis for billions in damages.
In filings, the broadcaster disputes that the contested segment reflected “intentional malice” or that it caused Trump specific, measurable injury.
The legal dispute has already shaken the century-old public broadcaster.
The controversy triggered the resignations of BBC Director-General Tim Davie and BBC News head Deborah Turness, with broadcasters and media analysts alike weighing in on the implications for editorial standards and international media freedom.
The judge overseeing the case has not yet ruled on the BBC’s motion.
If the dismissal is rejected, the lawsuit would move forward, potentially culminating in a trial where both sides engage in detailed evidence gathering and witness testimony.
A tentative trial date has been discussed for 2027 should the suit survive the preliminary motions.
Legal experts say dismissing the case at this early stage could hinge on nuanced interpretations of jurisdiction, defamation law standards, and how U.S. courts treat foreign media organisations.
A successful dismissal could spare the BBC years of costly litigation, while a decision to proceed, even if the case is eventually lost, may influence how media organisations globally manage politically charged content.
The case underscores a broader debate around press freedom, accountability and the legal responsibilities of media organisations in an age where political leaders increasingly challenge traditional news outlets and leverage courts in disputes over editorial decisions.
Regardless of the outcome, the litigation could influence how international broadcasters approach coverage of politically sensitive material and how courts balance free-speech protections with reputational rights.
Related Articles
Mbadi Says Vodacom Buyout Offer Gives Shareholders Better Value Than NSE Price
Jan 13, 2026
News
Read more →
PwC Urges Importers to Seek Refunds After High Court Strikes Down 10% Palm Oil Duty
Jan 13, 2026
News
Read more →
Somalia Clarifies Annulment of UAE Deals Doesn't Mean Cutting Diplomatic Ties
Jan 13, 2026
News
Read more →