US President Donald Trump has filed a five-billion-dollar defamation lawsuit over an edited version of his January 2021 speech. He lodged the case in Florida and accused the British public broadcaster of defamation and violations of trade practices law, according to court records. The organisation previously apologised for the edit but rejected demands for compensation and denied any legal basis for a defamation claim.
Trump’s legal team claimed the broadcaster intentionally and maliciously altered his words. The lawsuit argued editors deceptively manipulated the speech to damage his public image. The organisation has not yet issued a formal response to the legal filing.
Legal threat announced before election campaign
Trump announced plans to sue last month after the documentary aired in the United Kingdom. The programme was broadcast ahead of the 2024 US presidential election and focused on the events of 6 January 2021. Trump told reporters he felt compelled to act and accused the broadcaster of changing the words coming out of his mouth.
He said the edit distorted his message and misled viewers about his intentions. Trump argued the programme crossed a serious legal boundary by altering the meaning of his remarks.
Speech editing forms core of dispute
Trump delivered the speech on 6 January 2021 before unrest later broke out at the US Capitol. He told supporters they would walk to the Capitol and cheer on senators and members of Congress. More than fifty minutes later, he used the phrase “we fight like hell” while discussing political efforts.
The documentary combined those separate statements into one continuous clip. The edit showed Trump saying he would go to the Capitol, be there with supporters, and fight like hell. Trump argued the sequence falsely suggested he encouraged violence.
Acknowledged error triggers internal crisis
The broadcaster later admitted the edit created a mistaken impression of a direct call for violent action. It still rejected claims that the programme defamed Trump. In November, a leaked internal memo strongly criticised the handling of the speech and its context.
The controversy led to the resignations of director general Tim Davie and head of news Deborah Turness. The memo highlighted serious failures in editorial judgment and oversight.
Defence strategy and access arguments
Before Trump filed the lawsuit, lawyers for the broadcaster issued a detailed defence. They denied any malicious intent and argued the programme caused no harm, noting Trump later won re-election. They also said the organisation did not distribute the documentary in the United States.
The lawyers stated the programme was unavailable on US channels and restricted to UK viewers through a domestic streaming platform. They argued those limits prevented any significant exposure among American audiences.
Overseas viewing claims and political backlash
Trump’s lawsuit challenged that position by citing agreements with external distributors. He pointed to a deal with a third-party media company that allegedly held rights to show the documentary outside the UK. Neither party has responded publicly to those allegations.
The lawsuit also claimed Florida residents may have accessed the programme through VPN services or the streaming platform BritBox. It cited increased VPN usage in Florida after the broadcast as evidence of likely access.
Liberal Democrat leader Sir Ed Davey criticised Trump’s decision to sue and urged the prime minister to respond. He said Keir Starmer must defend the public broadcaster and protect licence fee payers from financial consequences. He described the legal action as unacceptable and outrageous.
