US President Donald Trump has filed a five-billion-dollar defamation lawsuit over an edited January 2021 speech. He filed the case in Florida and accused the UK public broadcaster of defamation and trade practices violations. Court documents outline the allegations in detail.
The organisation apologised for the edit last month. It rejected demands for compensation. It also denied any legal basis for a defamation claim.
Trump’s legal team accused editors of intentionally changing his words. The lawsuit claimed the edit was malicious and deceptive. It argued the changes aimed to damage Trump’s reputation. The broadcaster has not yet responded to the lawsuit itself.
Documentary airing prompts legal action
Trump announced plans to sue last month after the documentary aired in the United Kingdom. The programme appeared before the 2024 US presidential election. It examined events connected to 6 January 2021.
Trump told reporters he felt forced to pursue legal action. He accused the broadcaster of altering the words he spoke. He said the edit misrepresented his message to viewers.
Edited remarks form core of dispute
Trump delivered the speech on 6 January 2021. He spoke before unrest later erupted at the US Capitol. He told supporters they would walk to the Capitol. He said they would cheer on senators and members of Congress.
More than fifty minutes later, Trump used the phrase “we fight like hell”. He said it during a separate part of the address.
The documentary combined those remarks into one sequence. The edit linked the walk to the Capitol with fighting language. Trump argued the clip falsely suggested he called for violence.
Acknowledged mistake leads to internal fallout
The broadcaster later admitted the edit created a mistaken impression. It said the sequence implied a direct call for violent action. It still rejected claims of defamation.
In November, a leaked internal memo criticised the handling of the speech. The document raised serious editorial concerns.
The controversy triggered senior resignations. Director general Tim Davie stepped down. Head of news Deborah Turness also resigned.
Defence claims and distribution arguments
Before Trump filed suit, lawyers for the broadcaster issued a detailed response. They denied any malicious intent behind the edit. They argued the programme caused no harm. They noted Trump later secured re-election.
They also addressed distribution issues. They said the organisation did not distribute the documentary in the United States. They said it never aired on US channels.
They added the programme remained restricted to UK viewers. Access was limited to a domestic streaming platform.
Overseas access claims draw political response
Trump’s lawsuit challenged those claims. It cited agreements with external distributors. It referenced a deal with a third-party media company holding overseas rights. Neither party has responded publicly.
The lawsuit also claimed Florida residents may have accessed the programme. It cited VPN usage and the streaming service BritBox. It pointed to increased VPN use after the broadcast.
Liberal Democrat leader Sir Ed Davey criticised Trump’s legal move. He urged the prime minister to intervene. He said Keir Starmer must defend the public broadcaster. He warned licence fee payers could face financial risk.
