A federal judge in Florida ruled Tuesday that Donald Trump’s defamation lawsuit against the BBC may advance, partially denying the British public broadcaster’s bid to throw out the multibillion-dollar action.
U.S. District Judge Jeffrey T. Kuntz of the Southern District of Florida determined that Trump had adequately claimed that the network acted with actual malice when assembling a 2024 television documentary about him, The Guardian reported. However, the judge dismissed a separate claim under Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, finding that the broadcast was not commercial speech, according to BBC News.
Dispute Over Edited Capitol Speech
Trump originally filed the lawsuit in December 2025, seeking $10 billion in total damages—splitting $5 billion for defamation and another $5 billion under state trade practices law, according to TheWrap. The dispute focuses on an episode of the investigative program “Panorama” titled “Trump: A Second Chance?”
In the documentary, editors joined two separate statements made by Trump during his speech on Jan. 6, 2021, which were delivered nearly 55 minutes apart, into a single 12-second sequence. The broadcaster later issued an apology, acknowledging the broadcast gave what it called “the mistaken impression that Trump made a direct call for violent action,” BBC News reported.
The editing scandal caused substantial turmoil inside the British network, prompting the resignations of Director General Tim Davie and news chief Deborah Turness, according to TheWrap.
In his decision Tuesday, Kuntz rejected the broadcaster’s argument that the cut was routine condensation of a 70-minute address. “This was not trimming around the edges but creating something different than what was stated in the speech,” Kuntz wrote, according to court documents cited by The Guardian. The judge noted that the time gap between the remarks supported an inference that the BBC should have realized the resulting clip was not truthful.
Reactions and Legal Roadblocks Ahead
Trump celebrated the ruling Tuesday on Truth Social, describing the court’s order as a “huge victory” against the network, according to media reports.
The British broadcaster voiced disappointment with the outcome. “We are surprised by this decision but respect the Court’s authority and note the case will now proceed to the next stage,” a BBC spokesperson said, adding that the network remains confident in its legal footing, TheWrap reported.
The BBC had previously tried to toss the litigation on jurisdictional grounds, arguing that the documentary was never broadcast or licensed for distribution in the United States and that viewers could only access it through virtual private networks. Trump’s legal team subsequently amended the filing to address VPN viewership before the court rendered Tuesday’s decision, according to TheWrap.
Despite permitting the defamation count to survive the motion to dismiss, Kuntz stressed that the court was not deciding whether Trump would ultimately prevail on the merits. To win at trial or summary judgment, Trump must prove that the network acted with actual malice—the strict standard applied to public figures—and show that he suffered actual damages from a broadcast not transmitted in Florida, The Guardian reported.
Before any trial occurs, Trump faces upcoming procedural hurdles. In late October, a federal magistrate judge ordered Trump to submit to a deposition conducted by BBC attorneys by Dec. 11 or risk judicial sanctions, according to The Guardian.
