As the Guardian has reported this morning:
Donald Trump has filed a lawsuit against the BBC over its editing of a speech he made to supporters in Washington before they stormed the US Capitol in 2021, requesting up to $10bn in damages.
The US president alleged the broadcaster “intentionally, maliciously, and deceptively” edited his 6 January speech before the insurrection, in an episode of Panorama just over a year ago.
When Trump first said that he might do this, I suggested his chances of success were minimal. Then lawyers waded in everywhere, and it was clear I had overstated his chances. They thought:
- His statement of claim was almost meaningless.
- His chance of success, given that the programme to which the claim refers was not shown in the USA, was incredibly low.
- His action was out of date (although he has switched to US law to get around that)
- And his quantum claim for damages, given he won the subsequent election, and as a result clearly suffered no harm, was ludicrous.
I do not think much has changed.
So what is really going on here:
- There is a far-right political claim to undermine a state broadcaster that the far-right has always hated.
- The aim is to destabilise by imposing costs for as long as possible, whilst being indifferent to the outcome.
- The aim is to support GB News, as Trump has explicitly made clear, is his objective.
- To attack a key part of the infrastructure of the UK state.
Of these, the last is key. If Trump were to win, he would be granted damages of around two years' income of the BBC, ending it as an institution or requiring a UK government bailout to make the payment. It might do both. This, then, is a direct attack on the UK government, and not just the BBC.
We know the BBC's position. It says it made an error of judgment. It does not admit any liability as a result. I strongly suspect that in a UK court, that defence would stand. Errors of judgment happen. They have taken the piece down now. Trump suffered no loss. The story is over. Any wise lawyer would tell Trump that.
In that case, we should assume that this action is not about suing the BBC: the level of claim for damages makes that clear. The BBC could not pay them without gutting itself as an entity, for example, by selling all its commercial operations. So what is it about? I suggest these things:
- Undermining the UK government.
- Undermining freedom of speech in the UK.
- Undermining press freedom, as we are seeing Trump also do in the US.
- Directly challenging the authority of the UK state.
- Undermining UK soft power, which has often been associated with the BBC.
- Undermining the idea of balance that should exist in the BBC, albeit in a flawed fashion right now, which as a result means that the BBC very often portrays views Trump hates.
View this, then, in the context of Trump's war on Europe, which he claims has failing civilisations because of our embrace of migration, and we see the true story of what is happening, which is that this is a direct assault on the UK.
In that case, there are questions for the government to answer:
- Will the government fund the BBC's defence?
- If not, why not?
- Will they defend what the BBC represents?
- If not, why not?
- Will they make it clear that the right to free speech might inevitably involve the risk of mistakes occurring, but that responses must be proportionate?
- If not, why not?
- Will they instead bow down to Trump, and simultaneously sacrifice the BBC and what it represents to many in the UK to Trump?
- If so, why?
I am sure more points could be added. My point is that this is not a fight about a mildly mistaken edit where the gap between statements should have been made clear (and it should have been). It is part of a war on the UK and Europe and its culture. And the question is, will the government defend who we are, and our multicultural society that is under attack from the far-right, or will they give in to it? That is the question we need an answer to. My problem is, I am not expecting an answer, and that troubles me.
When will Labour draw a line in the sand?
The Best of the Blog 2025 combines 60 of the most popular blog posts from here this year as selected by you, the readers. This 200-page eBook is available as a free download here.
Comments
When commenting, please take note of this blog's comment policy, which is available here. Contravening this policy will result in comments being deleted before or after initial publication at the editor's sole discretion and without explanation being required or offered.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
One thing you missed, Richard.
He is the grifter in chief. Simply another easy way to enrich himself by trying to con / bully people, institutions or national entities.
A decent PM, the like of which we haven’t seen for half a century, would say ‘get stuffed, sunshine, and while you’re at it, clear your bases and personnel out and take your complicit organisations with you.” Starmer is no worse than our last 5 PMs, who would all genuflect and surrender.
I think there’s another element from the right wing playbook.
There is a perpetual statement of victimhood, saying how badly they’ve been treated. This continues attacking the supposedly unfair institution, and when the baseless claim loses, it continues as an attack on supposedly leftist judges as a further demonstration of how they’re the plucky underdog fighting the ‘rigged’ system.
That they are clearly just in the wrong is never acknowledged.
Of course, if they win or get a settlement they were ‘clearly’ right.
Getting money from the process helps, but it’s really about always building that narrative of being at war with malign secretive forces.
Might it be that Labour will avoid telling Mr. Trump where to go?
Might the U. S. and U. K. governments be connected by their collaboration in their efforts to achieve the demise of Social Democracy in both countries?
Like its predecessors since the Mrs.Thatcher governments, it is part of the ruling elites/cliques in both the U.K. and the U. S. A. who are more concerned with advancing Neoliberalism for the few, than in the deomcratic and socio-economic welfare and integrity of their nations and the care of their inhabitants?
“From 2001 to 2011, the share of manufacturing jobs in the U. K. fell by 33%; between 2007 and 2016 with jobs shrinking from about 9 million in the mid-1960s to 3 million in 2013. In the U. S., manufacturing’s share of employment dropped by 60% between 1997 and 2010,” [From the article below]
https://www.counterpunch.org/2025/12/16/the-demise-of-social-democracy-in-the-us-and-uk/
Of course the UK courts could always reject the action right at the start, as having no merit.
I am sure you are right with regards to the UK, but I think he is suing in Florida. Does anyone seriously believe that Trump wants to reprise the events of January 6th 2021 in a US court room, even with a biased judge? Once this is no longer news it will fade away like many of his threats.
Let’s see
Fascists tend not to “go away”
Trumps comments regarding yesterdays shock death of movie director Rob Riener and beyond abhorrent.
How we have to come to this I do not know.
That no one in ‘power’ appears to stand up to him, I just dont know.
Probably no one will report it Edward, but John Swinney, Scotland’s First Minister, has just called Trump, “The lowest of the low”. Pretty mild I would say. I believe that with his statement, that he, Trump, is no longer fit to be a member of the human race. He is undoubtably sick, sick in the head.
This language is unaccepotable to me. Please do not use reference to mental ill health as a form of abuse. And do not suggest a person should not be in the human race: that condones violence.
Call out his actions. Say they are repugnant by all means. But don’t drop to his level.
Apologies for the language Richard. When I saw his comments on C.N.N I was incensed. It will not happen again
Thanks
Slightly off message but did you see Trump’s XTwitter response other than the suspected murder of film director Rob Reiner and his wife? It was utterly outrageous. How can anyone appease a man so thoroughly repulsive as Trump. There is no alternative but to stand up to Trump. Robert Reich and Heather Lofthouse discussed the growing resistance, even in the GOP, to Trump in last Saturday’s coffee klatch. So the fight back may be starting in the US so we should do likewise and stand up to this malignant narcissist.
Silly me, I forgot, we have Starmer for our PM……(for now at least)!
Much to agree with.
I have read all that, and seen the Coffee Klatch.
Heather Cox Richrdson is very good this morning.
The phrase “the emperor has no clothes” comes to mind. It does show what having too much power does to a country. His polling is bad, and the economy is held up by the great AI gamble. Starmer is beyond all reasoning. Trump has said that parties like his need to go, and even the” great” AI deal for the UK is on hold (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/dec/15/us-pauses-tech-prosperity-deal-britain-donald-trump-keir-starmer). His words are lies or just punishing the many enemies he sees everywhere. If he were in charge of any other country, he would be labelled as a mad leader with no clue. Though, as always, enrichment over others is the key phrase for the US government.
There’s not too many Scots, of an independent mind, who will be at all bothered by the thought of the British state’s chief propaganda machine getting a boot up the jacksie from the world’s most powerful man.
If you lived in Scotland you would be well aware of the propaganda and lies that spew forth from BBC Scotland’s tv and radio presenters daily. The most recent lie, but not the most serious, was presented to us by BBC Question Time last week for which a weak apology was issued – the usual MO of the BBC here.
From the National quoting the BBC:
“During an episode from Paisley an audience member asked: ‘Reportedly 1 in 3 school children in Glasgow don’t speak English as their first language, why does this matter?’
“The audience and panel took part in a debate based on the full-length question above, but during that an on-screen caption read:
‘Does it matter that 1 in 3 kids in Glasgow don’t speak fluent English’ A blatant lie.
It turns out that those pupils who don’t speak English as their first language, speak English fluently even so. The BBC knows only too well that a lie travels halfway around the world before the truth gets its boots on and they’re only too ready to make use of that.
It’s noted here in Scotland that the BBC’s ‘errors and mistakes’ go only one way – to make Scotland and/or the Scots look bad.
As for freedom of speech in the UK it’s an illusion and the press are mostly client journalists who regurgitate the British state’s press releases without any critical thinking whatsoever (with a few honourable exceptions who, thankfully, won’t work for the BBC).
Sorry, but although I know all that you say about the BBC in Scotland is right this is not a viable strategy.
If an independent Scotland progresses by its people siding with Trump it is not worth having. Let’s get real here. There are principles at stake and if you think they’re worth abandoning fine, but I don’t. Unless a new Scotland is founded on principles why bother to change at all? Your argument is deeply unappealing to me.
Siding with Trump on this occasion is not a “strategy” it’s an attitude born out of frustration and hatred of how the BBC treats Scotland and the Scots. ‘Impartial’ my Aunt Fanny. I have no respect for Trump. I will be pleased to see him leave the world stage.
The strategy is for Scotland to rid itself of the BBC propaganda machine when Scottish independence is restored since kicking it out of Scotland prior to that appears to be an impossible task due to Westminster controlling the airwaves. But out it will go and not before time.
Meantime, I recommend Scots decline to pay for their country and their countrymen and women to be insulted, belittled and disparaged by another country’s state propaganda machine particularly as the other country depends largely on the tiny country of Scotland to stay afloat.
Please do not encourage illegality here that others might pay the price for. You can chose to take a risk. Please do not ask others to do so. That is umnethical. And there are, anyway, much better ways of protesting.
Well said A C.
I despair when I read comments like this and even wonder why I run this blog. It makes me feel like turning the comments off.
I know why you dislike the BBC in Scotland. I’m not stupid. But to damn the whole structure as a result is crass and absurd when for all its failings much that it does is good – as is some of its news reporting, albeit you have to pick and choose with care – as is the principle of having a state broadcaster, and Scotland would be wise to have one if independent, but you want to destroy the basis for that? Why? For a small gain now? Really? That level of small-mindedness just beats me.
For heaven’s sake sake, the independence movement has to think bigger and better than this if it is to succeed.
@ A C Bruce
That’s a very problematic stance, from a moral point of view.
If my nation’s morality only applies to my friends, but not to my enemies, then my nation is building its house on sand and it will fall when the storm comes.
If the BBC DG was drowning in the Clyde, would I throw him a lifebelt? Or would it be “better for my nation” to walk away?
This blog is about a politics of care.
For everyone.
Even the BBC.
I agree
Yes, the Government could fund the BBC’s defence.
But it would be simpler just to let Trump’s lawsuit proceed, offer no defence but also state categorically that neither the BBC nor the British state would pay any money to Trump if he won.
What would then be the consequence?
Of course, Trump would be incensed and might well impose some sanctions against the UK and Starmer and Trump would cease to be besties.
But are the possible consequences of doing this any worse than the consequences of either contesting the case and losing or contesting the case and winning?
Sooner or later, the British government and all the other Trump appeasers are going to have to stand up and fight.
IMO, the sooner that is the better.
Not defending is not an option. It’s saying he’s right and ceding the high ground to him.
I don’t agree that not defending is saying Trump is right. It’s refusing to play his stupid game. It’s saying ‘we’re not having anything to do with this. This is our country. We’re not giving you any money. Do one.’
I live in the real world.
It’s absolutely NOT saying Trump is right.
To engage in the lawsuit is to admit that he might be right.
Keep It Simple! is invariably best advice.
We will have to disagree.
I find your logic baffling.
I agree with Richard. It is well established that NOT to defend yourself against an accusation brought before a court if law is simply to concede to the accuser who is seen to win by default. In any case, hard to see how BBC could avoid paying altogether- presumably the BBC has US or US-controlled assets that a US court could order to be seized.
We are truly living in times of madness.
The movie ‘The Dead Zone’ (based on a stephen king novel) the finale has a vile US President using a baby as a shield during an assaasiation attempt. Public ses through him for what he is and a nuclear war is averted.
Now, I imagine that if that was happen, we would get the family of the child besmirched by the powers that be. That is the absolute evil that is in charge now.
Albert Einstein said “Money has never made man happy, nor will it, there is nothing in its nature to produce happiness. The more of it one has the more one wants.”
Money can corrupt if you are controlled by it, and Trump is greedy for money and for power – he is controlled by it. Such focus on money becomes an addiction and leads to moral decay – the more he has, the more he wants, and the BBC is in his firing line, along with the UK and Europe. Trump is surrounded in government by others who have extreme wealth, and there is, within his government, no-one who will stand up to him.
Starmer, Reeves, Rayner and others equate money with power and have proved that through their own actions.
I doubt that Starmer has the moral courage to realistically challenge Trump – any statement in defence of the BBC will be a copy and paste meaningless word salad including mumblings about the special relationship.
“Please do not encourage illegality here that others might pay the price for. You can chose to take a risk. Please do not ask others to do so. That is umnethical. And there are, anyway, much better ways of protesting”.
I was not encouraging illegality. It is not illegal to have a TV and not watch or record live programmes. It is perfectly legal to watch catch up (except for BBC iPlayer).
There are other ways to know what’s going on in the world other than via the BBC.
How do you know about the BBC if you never watch it?
I am sorry – but your claim makes no sense.
Mine does.
You have now joined the list of unreliable commentators whose posts I have to monitor in more depth. Presume that you will get a higher rejection rate as a result. It’s boringly tedious to have to do this. You have forced me to do so.
It’s your blog, of course.
It is.
And I’m all for a truly impartial state broadcaster in Scotland after the BBC leaves. The BBC withdrawing from Scotland does not preclude us having a public service broadcaster of our own, answerable to our Scottish government and to our people.
But you will have destroyed the basis on which it can built. How does that help?
Criticise by all means – but be very careful what you wish for and who you side with. I found your comment very depressing.
A true public service broadcaster for Scotland would surely be an excellent thing. But if you want it to be ‘answerable to the Scottish government’ then I’m afraid you will end up reproducing the same problem. That’s ideological state apparatus; not public service.
I would love to see how any lawyer would credibly argue that President Trump’s reputation amongst BBC viewers can be valued at anywhere near $5bn. Let it play out, I say.
I suspect the case will be heard and the outcome will be that there was some damage to Trump’s reputation, for which damages of £1 will be awarded. This would be a great outcome because the BBC were in the wrong (poor judgement is still in the wrong) and that’s not in dispute. So the courts would have recognised the offence, but at £1 only, the quantum of reparations would be a much, much bigger snub to a foreign fascist narcissist attempting to subvert the UK’s sovereign self-rule.
Lawyers defending an equally absurd libel claim against the Nobel Prize committee have taken an approach which I think may be instructive in how to approach this sort of lawfare. They are demanding a very wide range of documents relating to Trump’s health and finances as part of the discovery process.
Trump will not want to release this information, so either the suit must be narrowed significantly in the damages, or he is required to release a lot of likely embarrassing material. Perhaps lawyers defending the BBC will consider a similar strategy.
https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/pulitzer-prize-board-members-fight-back-with-wide-ranging-discovery-demands-including-about-trump-finances
Again, I would point readers to the avowed rationale of our PM and his cabinet:
‘To accept life as they found it’ .
This means that when Farage gets in, the UK is aligned with Trump and Putin, and the UK’s wealthiest will pay their respects and line up behind.
Exactly – by the way – what the wealthy wanted to do with Adolf Hitler in the 1930’s but did not get the chance.
I think your observation of a Far-Right attack on the BBC is spot on. Apart from it being another yet another distraction, look at the timing of it, in regard to Farage’s grievances. It is also a hint of what is to come in terms of US foreign policy. I have always said that Project 2025 will come to the UK next; the UK is an overseas concern of the US, and they will not allow it to stray too far from new US “values.” Our craven politicians will do nothing, fearful of the US backing political rivals. The US has also withdrawn a tech deal in an effort to get us to lower trade barriers. I’m sure Labour will fold there too, not realising that the only thing that stops us from just replacing US tech with local alternatives is copyright law. Law we could back out of now that the US have changed the rules of trade agreements.
Following the money: the lawsuit has no merit and I don’t think it will succeed.
But it is another blow to the state-influenced public broadcaster, making it a little more likely that the BBC wouldn’t survive.
Which means it will be sold to private interests. I am sure there are many private US companies that would happily profit from the BBC.
I declare myself a great fan of the BBC, chiefly for the music and current affairs.
Our gov’s approach to the Trump lawsuit will be (or already has been) decided by the ‘establishment’, whose voice is the media. I haven’t seen many clues yet. They usually all react at the same time, once the order from the establishment is issued. It’s hard to predict, but I cannot see them opposing Trump. All we can do is wait and watch. Starmer is doing just that. We know where Reform stand. Libdems oppose Trump. Tories also waiting.
What’s good about the BBC?
– Nature programming – although Countryfile is a bit iffily right wing sometimes
– Music
– Some of its arts productions
– Muh of its radio output (and yes, BBC Scotland is an exception)
– Some of its investigtive journalism
– Some mindless television, starting with Whitehosue and Mortimer
Is it worth the licence fee? Yes.
And that gives me the right to complain when appropriate as well.