People walk outside the BBC Broadcasting House, after U.S. President Donald Trump sued the BBC for up to $10 billion in damages over edited clips of a speech, in London, Britain, December 16, 2025. REUTERS/Hiba Kola
Donald Trump is suing the BBC for defamation over a Panorama documentary from October 2024, but according to an analysis of the suit's claims by Britain's The i Paper, the "audacious" effort could be undone by a "massive presumption" the lawsuit has yet to prove.
Trump's legal team accused the documentary Trump: A Second Chance? of “a brazen attempt to interfere in and influence” the 2024 presidential race by way of a “false, defamatory, deceptive, inflammatory and malicious depiction" of him. The BBC previously conceded that the president's main sticking point with the film — an edited version of his Jan. 6, 2021, speech at The Ellipse in Washington D.C. that made it seem like he directly told the crowd to "fight like hell" ahead of the Capitol Riots — was the result of an "error of judgment" by the production and offered him an apology.
The network did, however, argue that there were no grounds for claiming defamation due to the documentary. Trump disagreed and is now seeking $10 billion in damages, or roughly £7.5 billion.
In an analysis of the legal filing, The i Paper's Simon Marks noted that Trump's suit is lacking one crucial piece of evidence at the heart of its argument: proof that any actual person changed their vote after watching the Panorama film.
"The lawsuit notably fails to identify a single viewer of the documentary in Florida who might have been misled or aggrieved by its content," Marks explained. "Instead, it relies on a massive presumption that someone, somewhere in the state, must have seen it, speaking of 'the immense likelihood that citizens of Florida accessed the Documentary before the BBC had it removed.'"
Marks also noted that the suit attempted to paint "the BBC as a broadcasting powerhouse in the sunshine state of Florida" in order to justify its claims.
Trump is suing the network in a Florida court, with his and the BBC's legal teams having gone back and forth over whether or not there is legal standing for this venue. Trump's side argued that since the BBC News website is available in Florida, the case could be brought in the state. The network pushed back, claiming that the Panorama documentary was not available in the US due to geoblocking. Trump's side countered that the film was available on the BritBox streaming platform, and could potentially have been viewed by Florida residents using a virtual private network (VPN) service.
"Trump’s legal team will be aware that Grand National-style hurdles lie ahead for the US President before any trial gets underway," Marks wrote. "The lawsuit’s failure to identify a Florida viewer who either complained about the documentary in the immediate aftermath of its transmission or changed their vote as a result of seeing the film could prove to be the complaint’s Achilles heel. Further, the US Constitution’s First Amendment guaranteeing freedom of speech applies to all the speakers interviewed in the documentary, and past evidence suggests that Florida judges may not be impressed by the lawsuit’s grandiose claims..."
Marks further noted that a prior Trump defamation suit against the New York Times, to the tune of $15 billion, was tossed out by a Florida judge.