A judge has ruled that US President Donald Trump must turn over financial records sought by the BBC in his $10 billion (£7.5 billion) defamation case against the broadcaster.
Trump's legal team had attempted to block the move, calling it "premature, improper, and especially burdensome." The president is seeking substantial damages in a Florida court over the editing of a 2024 Panorama documentary about the US Capitol riots.
Judge's ruling
Judge Enjolique Lett granted the BBC's request for information from the Donald J Trump Revocable Trust, which holds Trump's business interests and assets and is managed by his eldest son. The decision can be appealed.
The BBC's legal team rejected claims of a "fishing expedition" and said the details were needed to assess the financial impact of the programme. Court papers stated: "Defendants have requested information from these entities only because plaintiff alleges without limitation that his financial interests have been impacted by defendants' actions and because plaintiff is the sole beneficiary of a trust that owns or is associated with nearly 400 entities."
Trust's objections
The trust, also represented by Trump's lawyers, had sought to resist the demand, arguing: "Although plaintiff has alleged that his businesses have suffered damages as a result of the documentary, that alone does not give defendants carte-blanche to obtain sweeping financial discovery from hundreds of non-parties."
Trump alleges the Panorama episode, broadcast shortly before the 2024 presidential election he won, caused him reputational and financial injury. The documentary has faced criticism for giving the impression Trump encouraged his supporters to storm the Capitol on January 6, 2021, after he lost the election to Joe Biden.
BBC's response
The allegations led then-BBC director-general Tim Davie to announce his resignation. BBC chairman Samir Shah apologised for an "error of judgment" and accepted the editing gave "the impression of a direct call for violent action." The broadcaster is seeking to have the case thrown out, warning of the "chilling effect" it would have on "robust reporting on public figures and events." It has also challenged the jurisdiction of a Florida court to hear the case, as the programme was never aired in the state or the US.
