A federal judge on Tuesday denied the BBC’s motion to throw out President Trump’s $10 billion defamation suit over a documentary about the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.
Judge Jeffrey T. Kuntz found that Trump could make an argument that the BBC should be held liable for splicing together two parts of Trump’s speech from that day to make it appear that he incited violence.
“BBC tries to frame this editing as ordinary editing done to condense a seventy-minute-long speech into twelve seconds. But the Court is not persuaded,” Kuntz ruled. “This was not trimming around the edges but creating something different than what was stated in the speech.”
Trump celebrated the ruling as a Huge Victory
Trump celebrated the ruling as “a Huge Victory against Fake News BBC” in a post on Truth Social, and praised Kuntz, whom he appointed to the bench earlier this year, for his “powerful ruling.”
As a Florida appellate judge, Kuntz authored an opinion allowing Trump to sue members of the Pulitzer board.
A spokesperson for the BBC said that the news organization was surprised by the ruling.
We are surprised by this decision but respect
“We are surprised by this decision but respect the Court’s authority and note the case will now proceed to the next stage,” the spokesperson said. “We remain confident in our position and will continue to respond through the proper legal process.”
Trump sued over a BBC “Panorama” documentary that aired shortly before the 2024 U.S. election. The program entitled “Trump: A Second Chance?” edited Trump’s speech to juxtapose the line “We’re going to walk down to the Capitol and I’ll be there with you,” with another remark that came nearly an hour later: “And we fight. We fight like hell and if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore.”
The BBC apologized in November 2025, saying the edit had given “the mistaken impression that President Trump had made a direct call for violent action.” Two top BBC executives resigned amid the fallout.
The BBC has argued, however, that the editing
The BBC has argued, however, that the editing does not rise to the level of defamation. In its motion to dismiss, the broadcaster argued that Trump cannot show that he suffered actual damages. The BBC also argued that Trump cannot show “actual malice” — the high standard for defamation of public figures under the Supreme Court ruling in New York Times v. Sullivan.
In his ruling, Kuntz disparaged that precedent, while acknowledging that he is bound by it.
“It cannot be said that Sullivan is grounded in the original meaning of the Constitution, at least not in any meaningful sense,” the judge wrote. “Nor is Sullivan grounded in the history and tradition of the common law… It is logical then, that a public figure like the President of the United States should not be subjected to a heightened standard non-existent at the time of the Founding.”
The case will proceed to discovery. Trump has been ordered to sit for a deposition by Dec. 11, though that date could be postponed.
