A federal judge in Florida allowed President Donald Trump’s defamation claim against the BBC to move forward on Tuesday and dismissed a separate claim under Florida’s law against deceptive and unfair trade practices. The BBC has until Dec. 1 to answer the remaining claim.
The decision concerns a 2024 episode of the BBC’s Panorama program that edited footage from Trump’s Jan. 6, 2021, speech in Washington. U.S. District Judge Jeffrey T. Kuntz ruled that Trump’s amended complaint contained enough specific allegations for the defamation case to proceed. The Nov. 10 order leaves questions about what Trump can prove and whether he suffered damages for a later stage.
What the BBC edited
The documentary, Trump: A Second Chance?, combined parts of the speech that Trump delivered at different points. One excerpt referred to walking down to the Capitol. The other used the phrase “fight like hell.” The edit presented them together. The BBC subsequently apologized for the edit and acknowledged that it gave the impression of a direct call for violent action, ITV News reported.
Trump alleges the sequence conveyed a false meaning and harmed his reputation. The BBC asked the court to dismiss the suit, arguing that the Florida court lacked personal jurisdiction over the broadcaster and that the amended complaint failed to state a claim. Kuntz allowed the defamation count to continue in the Southern District of Florida.
What Trump would have to prove
The court assessed the allegations in the complaint at this stage. Kuntz found that Trump had plausibly alleged actual malice, a legal term that concerns what the publisher knew or suspected about the truth of the material it published. In a public figure’s defamation case, the standard requires proof that the publisher knew the statement was false or acted with reckless disregard for whether it was true or false. Hostility toward the person suing does not by itself meet that standard.
The ruling keeps those issues open for evidence. At a later stage, the parties can ask the judge to rule on whether the evidence warrants a trial. The order awarded no damages. It also narrowed the case by removing the separate Florida trade practices count, so the Dec. 1 deadline concerns the defamation claim alone.
The BBC said through a spokesperson that it was surprised by the ruling, respected the court’s authority and remained confident in its position. The next filing due under the order is the broadcaster’s answer to Trump’s amended defamation claim.
