The BBC has asked a US federal judge to force Donald Trump to sit for a deposition in the $10 billion lawsuit he brought against the broadcaster, after his legal team cancelled an agreed interview date and proposed postponing it until after the court’s discovery deadline.
Trump sued the BBC in December 2025 over an edited Panorama documentary examining his conduct around the January 6 attack on the US Capitol. He alleges the programme deliberately manipulated remarks from his speech that day and falsely portrayed him as directly encouraging supporters to storm Congress.
The BBC apologised for the editing but has rejected Trump’s wider claim that the documentary was deliberately manipulated to damage him politically.
Now the dispute has taken an awkward turn for the US president, because the broadcaster says Trump himself is central to the case and must answer questions under oath if he wants to continue pursuing billions of dollars in damages.
According to court filings, both sides had originally agreed that Trump would sit for a deposition on 16 October.
His lawyers later cancelled that date, citing presidential duties, and suggested replacing it with a date in January 2027.
The problem for the BBC is that January would fall after the current deadline for gathering evidence.
The broadcaster has therefore asked the court to intervene.
BBC says Trump’s evidence is central to the case
The BBC has already produced seven witnesses for depositions as part of the lawsuit and argues that Trump cannot expect the broadcaster to answer extensive questions while delaying his own testimony.
Its lawyers say Trump’s evidence is particularly important because he is claiming that Panorama caused him serious reputational and financial harm.
That means the broadcaster wants to question him about what damage he says he suffered, how he believes the programme affected him and the basis on which he is seeking $10bn.
The BBC is asking US magistrate judge Enjoliqué Aytch Lett to order a firm date and location for the deposition.
A discovery hearing has been scheduled for 22 October, when the judge is expected to hear arguments over the dispute.
What is Trump suing the BBC over?
The lawsuit concerns a Panorama documentary about January 6 and Trump’s efforts to overturn the result of the 2020 presidential election.
Trump’s lawyers say the programme used edited footage from his speech near the White House to create a misleading impression of what he told supporters before the Capitol riot.
One of the central complaints concerns the way separate portions of the speech were combined.
Trump had told supporters to “walk down to the Capitol” and later said they should “fight like hell”, but those remarks were made at different points in the speech.
The BBC acknowledged that an edit joining material together had created a misleading impression and apologised.
Trump’s legal team argues the problem went much further than a simple editing error and amounted to deliberate defamation and deceptive conduct.
He is seeking damages under Florida law, including through the state’s Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act.
BBC disputes claim it tried to influence the election
Trump’s lawyers have argued that the documentary was designed to damage him during the 2024 election campaign.
The BBC denies that allegation.
The broadcaster’s position is that there was an editorial mistake for which it apologised, but not a deliberate attempt to falsify Trump’s words or interfere with an American election.
That distinction will be crucial if the case reaches trial.
Defamation cases involving public figures in the United States generally require a very high legal threshold, with plaintiffs often needing to show that a publisher knew information was false or acted with reckless disregard for the truth.
Trump’s lawsuit also relies on Florida consumer-protection law, which creates separate arguments over whether the BBC’s conduct falls within the scope of the statute.
Trump now faces questions about the damages he claims
A deposition would allow BBC lawyers to question Trump directly under oath before any trial.
Unlike a television interview or political press conference, testimony given during a deposition forms part of the formal evidence in the case.
The BBC could ask him about his public reputation before and after the Panorama programme, his election campaign, any financial harm he attributes to the documentary and statements he has made about January 6.
That is one reason depositions can become particularly important in high-profile defamation cases.
If Trump is demanding $10bn in damages, the BBC is entitled to test how that figure has been reached and what evidence exists that the programme caused losses on anything approaching that scale.
Trump’s lawyers are not arguing that he should never be deposed. Their position is that his responsibilities as president make the October date impractical and that the questioning should take place later.
The dispute is over whether that delay can extend beyond the timetable already established by the court.
Both sides had already agreed on 16 October
The cancellation is likely to be one of the points examined closely at the upcoming hearing because the 16 October date was not imposed unilaterally by the BBC.
It had been agreed by both sides.
The BBC says it arranged its own discovery work around that timetable and has already made seven witnesses available.
Trump’s proposed January date would arrive after discovery is currently due to close, potentially forcing the entire schedule to be changed.
The broadcaster argues there is no good reason for such a lengthy delay and wants the judge to order Trump to appear sooner.
Trump has frequently used the courts against media organisations
The BBC case forms part of a much broader series of legal battles between Trump and news organisations.
He has repeatedly accused major media outlets of deliberately lying about him and has brought legal action against several publishers and broadcasters.
His administration has also been involved in disputes over press access. This week a federal judge extended an order requiring the White House to restore access to journalists from CNN, MS NOW and Politico after finding that the administration was likely to have unlawfully discriminated against the outlets because of their coverage. :chatgpt-content-reference{index=”1″}
Trump has consistently argued that much of the American and international media is politically hostile to him and uses distorted reporting to influence elections.
Media organisations and press-freedom groups argue that his lawsuits and access restrictions can have a chilling effect on journalism, particularly when the sums being demanded run into billions of dollars.
The BBC case is different in one important respect because the broadcaster has already acknowledged that the Panorama edit should not have been made.
The remaining legal fight is over how serious that mistake was, whether it was deliberate and whether Trump can demonstrate the enormous level of damage alleged in his lawsuit.
The BBC now wants him to explain that case himself under oath.
One response to “BBC asks judge to force Donald Trump to give evidence in his own $10bn lawsuit”
-
Yet again BBC admits it was at fault.
This time, in its editing.
Has the Editor been sacked?
Have we not seen just how weak American media appear to be when confronted by the Trump bulldozer?
Can he sue in the British Courts?
If his lawyers are playing procedural games, as Americans seem wont to do, should he / they not be allowed to get away with it?
Can he be made to testify:
A) in a British Court?
B) in some ZOOM or other link from the White House mindful of his responsibilities?
At a time when the BBC may be facing considerable change, it can least afford to give in to a bully whose case is based on rocky ground.
Leave a Reply