Why is Donald Trump suing the BBC?

US President Donald Trump's multi-billion dollar lawsuit against the BBC has been scheduled to go to trial in February 2027, according to court documents.

The lawsuit, which was filed in Florida, accuses the BBC of "intentionally, maliciously, and deceptively doctoring" a speech Trump gave on 6 January 2021, before the US Capitol riots.

The BBC previously apologised to Trump for the way Panorama edited the speech, but disagreed that there was a basis for a defamation claim and rejected his demands for compensation.

What was in the BBC Panorama documentary about Trump?

The Panorama documentary, called Trump: A Second Chance?, was broadcast on 28 October 2024, just days before the US presidential election.

In his speech, Trump told a Washington DC crowd: "We're going to walk down to the Capitol, and we're going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women."

More than 50 minutes later in the same speech, he said: "And we fight. We fight like hell."

In the Panorama programme, a clip showed him as saying: "We're going to walk down to the Capitol... and I'll be there with you. And we fight. We fight like hell."

Criticism of the edit emerged more than a year later when a leaked internal memo was published by the Telegraph newspaper.

This led to the resignations of the BBC's director general, Tim Davie, and its head of news, Deborah Turness.

BBC chairman Samir Shah apologised for the edit, which he described as an "error of judgement".

What does Trump's lawsuit against the BBC say?

Trump's lawyers sent a letter to the BBC in November 2025, demanding that it immediately retract the documentary, issue an apology, and compensate him. The BBC was given a deadline of 14 November to respond.

The letter added that if the BBC did not comply, the president might file legal action.

Before that deadline, the BBC apologised to Trump and confirmed the programme was not scheduled to be re-broadcast and would not be broadcast again in that form on any BBC platform, but rejected his demands for compensation.

A month later, on 15 December, Trump's legal team filed a lawsuit in Florida.

The filing alleges that the BBC:

The introduction to the lawsuit says the Panorama edit was a "brazen attempt to interfere in and influence the [2024] election's outcome to President Trump's detriment".

Trump is seeking billions in damages.

How has the BBC responded to Trump's lawsuit?

After Trump filed the lawsuit, a BBC spokesperson said: "As we have made clear previously, we will be defending this case. We are not going to make further comment on ongoing legal proceedings."

Previously, the broadcaster said "we strongly disagree there is a basis for a defamation claim".

In its apology to Trump in November, the BBC said the edit resulted in "the mistaken impression that President Trump had made a direct call for violent action".

BBC chairman Samir Shah separately sent a personal letter to the White House, making clear to Trump that he and the corporation were sorry.

However, the corporation rejected Trump's demands for compensation and set out five main arguments for why it did not think it had a case to answer.

Those arguments were:

How could the Trump court case against the BBC play out?

US District Judge Roy Altman is overseeing the case.

The February 2027 date emerged as the judge rejected the BBC's earlier application to delay the process of "discovery", where each side provides the other with relevant documents and evidence.

That request was denied on 11 February.

The BBC had previously told the court that it planned to submit a motion to dismiss the case by 17 March 2026. The latest order does not affect that.

The corporation is expected to argue that the Florida court lacks "personal jurisdiction" over the BBC, the court venue is "improper" and that Trump has "failed to state a claim".

Legal experts have said arguments over jurisdiction will be key, with the case hinging on whether anyone in Florida saw the documentary. Trump's original filing said the episode may have been available to viewers in Florida using a VPN or via the BritBox streaming service.

The filing also sought to establish that the BBC has enough of a presence in Florida to warrant filing there, citing a BBC office in Coral Gables.

Trump's complaint goes into greater detail about jurisdiction than most defamation suits, said David Snyder, a Florida attorney who specialises in media law.

"They're trying to cover all their bases when claiming jurisdiction," he said. "Frankly, it will be really up to the courts to decide whether the BBC has a sufficient footprint in the state of Florida."

"I think it's going to be a close question."

The court papers filed on 12 January indicate that the corporation will argue that it did not create, produce or broadcast the documentary in Florida, and that Trump's claim that the documentary was available in the US on the streaming service BritBox is not correct.

If it does go to trial, the US Constitution's First Amendment gives significant protection to freedom of speech and freedom of the press.

Trump would need to prove three major components - that the content published was factually false in a way that was defamatory; that he suffered harm due to the false and defamatory coverage; and that the media organisation knew it was false and acted with "actual malice".

The BBC will assert that he has failed to show this, arguing that not only did Trump get re-elected, he carried Florida by a convincing margin.

Proving he suffered harm could be a challenge for Trump, said Seth Stern, director of advocacy at Freedom of the Press Foundation, given he went on to win the election after the broadcast. The $5bn (£3.7bn) sum might also be difficult to justify to a jury, he added.

Chris Ruddy, founder of conservative media outlet Newsmax, and an ally of Trump, told BBC Radio Four's Today programme that it was hard to win a defamation suit in the US because "the bar is very high".

But he said the litigation process could be damaging to the BBC's reputation and expensive, with costs possibly reaching between $50m (£37m) and $100m (£74m).

Former BBC Radio controller Mark Damazer said it would be "extremely damaging to the BBC's reputation not to fight the case," arguing that the case was "about the BBC's independence".