President Donald Trump is threatening to sue the BBC for $1 billion over a documentary about him that aired shortly before the 2024 election. The threat follows a spate of lawsuits against the press that Trump has filed in the United States.
Along with payments that would “appropriately compensate President Trump for the harm caused,” his lawyers are also seeking an apology and a retraction of the documentary, which featured his speech to supporters before some stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.
Download the SAN app today to stay up-to-date with Unbiased. Straight Facts™.
Point phone camera here
The BBC acknowledged this week that the hour-long documentary — “Trump: A Second Chance?” — spliced together three quotes from two sections of the speech into what appeared to be a single passage urging his supporters to march with him to the Capitol and “fight like hell.” The edit omitted a portion of the speech in which Trump asked the crowd to demonstrate peacefully.
The BBC’s news chief, Deborah Turness, and its top executive, director-general Tim David, resigned on Sunday over Trump’s accusations of bias. On Monday, BBC Chairman Samir Shah apologized for an “error of judgment.”
If Trump follows through on his threat, where he sues may determine the strength of his case.
“Trump is going to have meaningful legal advantages if he does institute a defamation lawsuit in the United Kingdom over this coverage,” Jeffrey Robbins, an attorney who has represented both media clients and public figures in defamation cases, told Straight Arrow News. “The law of defamation is ‘plaintiff-friendly’ in the U.K. relative to American defamation law.”
US versus UK defamation lawsuits
Many of Trump’s defamation suits against media outlets in the United States have been settled out of court or dismissed. In the U.S., it’s extremely difficult for a public figure to successfully sue the press for libel due to a legal precedent established by the Supreme Court in 1964. In New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, the court established that a public figure must prove “actual malice” from the publisher.
“The ‘actual malice’ standard for public figures that exists under New York Times v. Sullivan under American law does not exist under British law to protect media defendants,” Robbins said. “There is a fair amount that ought to worry BBC here.”
The case grants American media some of the world’s strongest legal protections. This decision paved the way for how defamation suits would proceed in the nation.
In England, however, Trump would likely have a better leg to stand on.
The U.K. does require plaintiffs to show that the defamation caused — or could cause — serious harm to them or their reputation. Still, it would likely be an easier hurdle than suing for the same libel within the U.S. court system.
“Whereas the burden is on a plaintiff suing for defamation under American law to show falsity, the burden falls on a defendant under British law to show that the statement was true,” Robbins said. “That is going to be very difficult for the BBC here, given the report and the resignations.”
However, Trump faces another hurdle, regardless of which country he sues. Both British and American laws set a one-year statute of limitations in libel cases, meaning a lawsuit would have to be filed no later than one year after the allegedly defamatory material was published or aired.
The BBC broadcast the Trump documentary on Oct. 28, 2024 — one year and two weeks ago.
