Trump’s $10B defamation lawsuit against BBC survives bid to dismiss it
A federal judge in Florida has kept President Donald Trump’s defamation lawsuit against the BBC alive, though he has thrown out the president’s claims under the state’s unfair trade practices law.
“Whether President Trump can prove these claims and establish he sustained damages at summary judgment or trial is left for another day,” Judge Jeffrey T. Kuntz of the Southern District of Florida wrote Tuesday in his ruling.
Nevertheless, Trump responded by calling it “A Huge Victory against Fake News BBC” and by complimenting the judge, whom he appointed earlier this year.
The BBC said in a statement, “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.”
Trump filed the lawsuit against the BBC in December 2025.
He alleges he was defamed by the media company with a documentary on his political comeback that aired before the 2024 election, because of how the film spliced two parts of the January 6, 2021, speech he gave in front of the White House before his supporters violently attacked the US Capitol.
First Amendment experts have cast doubt on the strength of Trump’s case and have said the lawsuit is part of the president’s ongoing legal crusade against the press.
But Kuntz pointed out that the BBC has admitted that it edited Trump’s words together in a way that was misleading, which prompted the lawsuit. The judge said Trump’s defamation allegations are plausible, and thus rejected the BBC’s motion to dismiss the case altogether.
Kuntz also notably criticized New York Times v. Sullivan, the landmark Supreme Court case that established the high legal standard that makes it hard for public figures like Trump to win defamation cases. Some conservative activists have pushed the court to revisit the Sullivan standard; similarly, Trump has said he wants to “open up” libel laws.
“It cannot be said that Sullivan is grounded in the original meaning of the Constitution, at least not in any meaningful sense,” Kuntz said, while emphasizing that he is bound by the Sullivan precedent.
