US President Donald Trump has filed a five-billion-dollar lawsuit over an edited version of his January 2021 speech. He submitted the case in Florida and accused the British public broadcaster of defamation and of breaching trade practices law, according to court documents. The organisation issued an apology last month but rejected demands for compensation and denied any legal basis for a defamation claim.
Trump’s legal team accused the broadcaster of deliberately and maliciously altering his words. The filing claimed editors deceptively manipulated the speech to damage his reputation. The organisation has not yet responded publicly to the lawsuit itself.
Trump signals legal action ahead of election
Trump announced his intention to sue last month after the documentary aired in the United Kingdom. The programme appeared shortly before the 2024 US presidential election and focused on events surrounding 6 January 2021. Trump told reporters he felt forced to act and accused the broadcaster of cheating by changing the words he spoke during the address.
He said the edit misrepresented his message and falsely portrayed his intentions. Trump argued that the programme crossed a legal line by altering the meaning of his remarks to viewers.
Disputed speech edit at centre of case
Trump delivered the speech on 6 January 2021 before unrest later erupted at the US Capitol. He told supporters they would walk down 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 moments into a single clip. The edit showed Trump saying he would walk to the Capitol, be there with supporters, and fight like hell. Trump argued the sequence implied a direct call for violence that he never made.
Admission of error and internal fallout
The broadcaster later acknowledged the edit created a mistaken impression of a call for violent action. It still rejected claims that the programme amounted to defamation. In November, a leaked internal memo sharply criticised how editors handled the speech and its context.
The controversy led to the resignations of director general Tim Davie and head of news Deborah Turness. The memo raised serious concerns about editorial standards and decision-making within the organisation.
Legal defence and distribution dispute
Before Trump filed the lawsuit, lawyers for the broadcaster issued a detailed response. They denied any malicious intent and argued the programme caused no harm, noting Trump was later re-elected. They also said the organisation lacked rights to distribute the documentary in the United States.
The lawyers stated the programme never aired on US channels and remained restricted to UK viewers on a domestic streaming platform. They argued those limits prevented any meaningful impact on American audiences.
Claims over overseas access and political reaction
Trump’s lawsuit disputed that account by citing agreements with other distributors. He referenced a deal with a third-party media corporation that allegedly held licensing rights outside the UK. Neither the broadcaster nor the other company has responded to those specific claims.
The filing also argued that Florida residents may have accessed the programme through VPN services or the streaming platform BritBox. It cited increased VPN usage in Florida after the documentary’s release as evidence of likely access.
Liberal Democrat leader Sir Ed Davey criticised Trump’s decision to sue and urged the prime minister to intervene. He said Keir Starmer must defend the public broadcaster and protect licence fee payers from financial risk. He described the legal threat as unacceptable and outrageous.
