BBC bosses ‘right to stick by their guns’ Donald Trump

Published: 16 December 2025. The English Chronicle Desk. The English Chronicle Online.

BBC executives are “right to stick by their guns” in the face of a $10bn lawsuit filed by former US president Donald Trump, a UK minister has said, as pressure mounts on the government to publicly back the national broadcaster.

Trump’s legal action targets the BBC over a Panorama programme that edited his January 6, 2021 speech in Washington, a broadcast that critics argue contributed to the unrest at the US Capitol. The lawsuit seeks $5bn in damages on two counts, alleging both defamation and violations of Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act.

Ed Davey, leader of the Liberal Democrats, urged Prime Minister Keir Starmer to “stand up for the BBC against Trump’s outrageous legal threat,” describing the lawsuit as part of a broader attempt by the former president to “interfere in our democracy” and undermine the UK’s public broadcaster.

Stephen Kinnock, a health minister, echoed this sentiment, praising the BBC for standing firm and expressing hope that the corporation will continue to defend itself. Speaking to Sky News, he said: “I think they have apologised for one or two of the mistakes that were made in that Panorama programme, but they’ve also been very clear that there is no case to answer in terms of Mr Trump’s accusations on the broader point about libel or defamation. The government is a massive supporter of the BBC. The Labour party will always stand up for the BBC as a vitally important institution.”

Trump’s complaint centres on Panorama’s editing of his speech, which presented segments made nearly an hour apart as if delivered continuously, suggesting he told the crowd: “We’re going to walk down to the Capitol and I’ll be there with you, and we fight. We fight like hell.” The BBC has previously admitted this was an “error of judgment” and issued an apology but insists there is no legal basis for a defamation claim.

The controversy has already claimed high-profile BBC resignations, with Director-General Tim Davie and head of BBC News Deborah Turness stepping down last month amid the fallout.

Despite these developments, Trump-supporting US media figures have urged caution. Christopher Ruddy, CEO of Newsmax, said the BBC should “figure out a quick and easy settlement” to avoid prolonged public scrutiny and costly litigation. “Just having the case go on, probably the BBC would lose in the sense of public perception,” Ruddy told BBC Radio 4. He estimated the ultimate settlement could be around $10m (£7.5m), with litigation costs for the BBC ranging between $50m and $100m. Ruddy noted that US courts grant plaintiffs extensive powers of discovery, potentially exposing internal BBC communications that could be damaging.

Trump’s legal actions follow a string of successful claims against US media firms since his re-election last November. ABC, owned by Disney, settled a defamation lawsuit for $15m over anchor George Stephanopoulos’s comments, while Paramount, parent company of CBS News, paid $16m to settle allegations of false editing of a pre-election interview with Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris.

The BBC, however, is expected to argue that the Panorama episode, which aired only in the UK and is not available on BBC iPlayer or BBC One in the US, had no significant impact on Trump’s reputation among American audiences. The case has been filed in the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida, raising questions about the jurisdiction and potential reach of the lawsuit.

As the UK government faces calls to publicly support the BBC, the broader debate touches on press freedom, international media liability, and the resilience of public institutions against external pressure. Ministers and opposition figures alike have underscored the importance of maintaining the independence of the BBC, even as it navigates a legal storm involving one of the most high-profile media litigants in recent history.

With Trump’s lawsuit looming, the BBC finds itself at the centre of a complex intersection of journalism, politics, and international law. Observers suggest that how the corporation responds could set a precedent for media organisations worldwide, balancing accountability with the defence of editorial independence.

Whether the case will be settled quickly or drag through the US courts, the stakes are considerable — both financially and reputationally. For the UK’s national broadcaster, the challenge is clear: uphold journalistic integrity while managing the potentially enormous legal and public relations ramifications of taking on a former US president in court.