Donald Trump has welcomed a US judge's decision to allow his £7.5bn defamation lawsuit against the BBC to proceed, after the broadcaster's motion to dismiss the case was denied.
Federal judge Jeffrey T Kuntz, who was appointed by Trump, ruled on Tuesday that the case can continue. Trump is seeking substantial damages over the editing of a 2024 Panorama documentary about the US Capitol riots.
Background to the lawsuit
The documentary drew criticism for giving the impression that Trump had encouraged his supporters to storm the Capitol building on January 6 2021, following his defeat to Joe Biden in the 2020 White House race.
The BBC had sought to have the case thrown out, cautioning of the "chilling effect" it would have on "robust reporting on public figures and events".
Reaction from both sides
In a statement posted on Truth Social, Trump celebrated the ruling, declaring: "A Huge Victory against Fake News BBC, a terrible abuser of the truth, just handed down by highly respected District Court Judge, Jeffrey T. Kuntz, of the Southern District of Florida."
He added: "We will continue fighting against, and defeating, all of those who try to deceive the American People! Thank you for your attention to this matter. President DONALD J. TRUMP"
The BBC responded: "We are surprised by this decision but respect the Court's authority and note the case will now proceed to the next stage. We remain confident in our position and will continue to respond through the proper legal process."
Judge's reasoning
In his ruling, Judge Kuntz wrote: "Accepting the allegations in the complaint as true, the Court finds Trump plausibly pled damages where Trump alleges a defamatory documentary released toward the election caused reputational harm. It would be difficult for the Court to accept a different framing without completely negating the significance and fragility of political elections."
He stated: "Editing is often required. However, given the time disparity between the two statements, the distance itself tends toward a plausible inference that BBC knew or should have known that the segment they were creating would not and could not have been a truthful statement. This was not trimming around the edges but creating something different than what was stated in the speech."
The judge also highlighted previous inaccuracies in the broadcaster's reporting, writing that "such examples can be said to be probative of BBC's state of mind as it pertains to recklessness in light of BBC's non-action toward false statements about Trump. Thus, Trump paints a picture that demonstrates the BBC has a record of allowing the publication of false statements in their portrayal of Trump."
He further wrote that "Trump's allegations regarding BBC's departure from journalistic standards are more than enough to plausibly alleged more than mere negligence".
While the judge ruled that Trump had "sufficiently pleaded" that the BBC acted with actual malice — the legal benchmark required for a public figure to win a defamation case — he will still need to conclusively demonstrate this at trial. The ruling stopped short of determining whether Trump's claims had been proven.
