What hurdles might the president’s legal argument face?

US President Donald Trump has threatened to sue the BBC for damages of up to $1 billion (£760 million), claiming the organization made “false, defamatory, derogatory and inflammatory statements” about him in a documentary.

In a letter to the BBC, Trump’s legal team demanded three things: a “full and fair withdrawal” from the program, an apology and that the BBC “appropriately compensate President Trump for the harm caused.”

But U.S. media and defamation law experts say the president faces significant hurdles in winning such huge damages in a lawsuit against the BBC, in part because of tough U.S. press freedom laws.

Trump has signaled his intention to bring any possible litigation in the US state of Florida, where he legally resides, rather than in the UK. So how strong is Trump’s thesis?

The controversy began last week, after the Telegraph published a leaked memo criticizing a documentary by the BBC’s Panorama program and the way it had edited Trump’s speech in January 2021, the day of the US Capitol riot in Washington DC.

Panorama showed the president saying, “We’re going to march down to the Capitol…and I’ll be there with you. And we’re fighting. We’re fighting like hell.”

But Trump actually said, “We’re going to march down to the Capitol and we’re going to cheer on our courageous senators, congressmen and congresswomen.” »

Following the departure of BBC Director General Tim Davie and the CEO of the BBC’s news division, the White House threatened legal action.

Trump’s lawyer said in his letter to the BBC that in the documentary, the corporation had “intentionally sought to completely mislead its viewers” by grouping together three separate excerpts from the speech.

He added that the BBC had caused the president “financial harm and considerable reputational damage”.

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides significant protection to free speech and freedom of the press.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark 1964 decision, New York Times v. Sullivan, established that public figures suing for defamation must prove “actual malice,” meaning that “the statement was made with knowledge of its falsity or with reckless disregard as to whether it was true or false.”

Trump would have to prove three major elements: that the content published was factually false and defamatory; that he suffered harm as a result of the false and defamatory coverage; and that the media organization knew it was false and acted with “real malice.”

“I think all of these issues create difficulties for the plaintiff,” George Freeman, executive director of the Media Law Resource Center in New York, told BBC Radio 4.

But not everyone agreed.

Burt Neuborne, professor emeritus at New York University Law School, said Trump had a case against the BBC because the edits to Trump’s remarks were misleading. He said the error did not constitute “innocent splicing.”

“The real malice here is the knowing dissemination of something that was supposed to be verbatim but is not,” said Mr. Neuborne, the former national legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union. It is less likely that a jury would actually award Trump significant damages for such an error, he added.

The statute of limitations – or time to bring legal action – for defamation in the UK is one year, which has already passed for Trump since the documentary was broadcast in October 2024.

Florida, on the other hand – where Trump has signaled his intention to pursue possible prosecution – has a two-year limit.

Even though Florida law gives him more time, filing a defamation suit in the United States will mean Trump will face higher legal standards.

If Trump sues in Florida, he will also have to establish that the BBC Panorama documentary is available there. There is no evidence so far to suggest this has been demonstrated in the United States.

A court’s decision on whether it has jurisdiction over the case could depend on whether people in Florida saw the documentary and felt deceived, legal experts said.

The BBC’s best chance of dismissing any future court case would be to argue that the state is not the appropriate jurisdiction because there has not been “sufficient exposure of the information in Florida,” Mr. Neuborne said.

Trump’s letter to the BBC concludes that if the BBC does not comply with their demands by November 14, “President Trump will have no choice but to assert his legal and equitable rights, all of which are expressly reserved and not waived, including by filing a lawsuit for not less than $1,000,000,000 (one billion dollars) in damages.” »

But to win $1 billion in a Florida defamation lawsuit, a plaintiff like the president would have to prove he actually suffered that much loss, said Professor Lyrissa Lidskey of the University of Florida Levin School of Law.

“Given that he subsequently won the presidency and continued to make money from his businesses, it seems implausible that he would be able to prove $1 billion in damages,” she said.

Trump has sued several U.S. news organizations for large sums of money and, in a few cases, won large settlements.

In 2025, Paramount, the parent company of CBS News, agreed to pay Trump $16 million, after he sued over a 60 Minutes interview with then-presidential candidate Kamala Harris. Trump argued that the video was edited to better portray Harris – who he was running against at the time.

ABC News also paid Trump $15 million after one of its anchors, George Stephanopoulos, falsely claimed in an interview that Trump had been convicted of rape. The president was found responsible for sexual abuse and defamation against writer E Jean Carroll in 2023.

He filed a $15 billion lawsuit against the New York Times over critical comments journalists made about him during his 2024 presidential campaign. A federal judge threw out the case in September because it was submitted with an “inappropriate and impermissible” form, but allowed Trump to refile a shorter suit.

Trump’s numerous lawsuits against the media have cost him little, while they can be costly for the media, said Seth Stern, advocacy director of the Freedom of the Press Foundation.

“He doesn’t care whether he wins or not. The goal is to intimidate and punish those he sees as critical of him,” Mr. Stern said.