Federal Judge Allows Trump’s $10 Billion Defamation Suit Against BBC to Proceed

U.S. District Judge Jeffrey Kuntz on Tuesday denied the BBC’s request to throw out the defamation portion of President Donald Trump’s lawsuit, allowing the case to proceed to further litigation. The suit, filed in Florida federal court, seeks at least $10 billion over a Panorama documentary that spliced together two separate sections of Trump’s January 6, 2021 address to supporters.

One segment showed Trump telling the crowd to march to the Capitol; another contained the phrase “fight like hell.” The edit created the appearance of a single continuous statement directing violence, according to the complaint. Kuntz wrote that “this was not trimming around the edges but creating something different than what was stated in the speech” and noted the BBC had the full speech available for nearly three years.

The judge determined Trump had sufficiently pleaded that the broadcast caused reputational harm ahead of the 2024 election and that the BBC acted with the actual malice required for a public-figure defamation claim. “Whether President Trump can prove these claims and establish he sustained damages at summary judgment or trial is left for another day,” Kuntz wrote. He dismissed the count alleging a violation of Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act.

Trump posted on Truth Social that the ruling was “A Huge Victory” and added, “We will continue fighting against, and defeating, all of those who try to deceive the American People!” A BBC spokesperson said the broadcaster was “surprised by this decision but respect[s] the Court’s authority” and remains confident in its position. The BBC has previously acknowledged the edit was misleading and apologized, while denying liability for defamation.

The documentary aired shortly before the 2024 presidential election. Trump’s complaint argues the juxtaposition was deliberate and damaged his reputation. The case is one of several media lawsuits Trump has pursued; a separate $10 billion action against the Wall Street Journal was dismissed last month.

Kuntz, a Trump appointee, did not rule on the ultimate merits. Discovery and potential summary-judgment motions will follow. The ruling keeps alive a high-profile dispute over how a major international broadcaster presented Trump’s words in the days surrounding the Capitol events.