Photo credit: Gage Skidmore (CC BY-SA 2.0)
The UK Anti-SLAPP Coalition condemns the legal threat brought against the BBC by the US President, Donald Trump. We call on everyone who values an independent press to support the public service broadcaster in its defence against a foreign world leader known to use the courts to shut down criticism and public interest reporting.
On 3 November, the Telegraph reported on a leaked dossier prepared by Michael Prescott, a former independent external adviser to the BBC’s Editorial Guidelines and Standards Committee. It included a reference to a Panorama episode entitled “Trump: A Second Chance?”, which covered the January 6 Capitol riot. The documentary included an edited version of President Trump’s speech from the day, bringing together statements in a manner that may suggest a more explicit call for violence. Following the article, lawyers acting for the US President demanded that the BBC withdraw the episode, apologise and pay compensation. The BBC was given until Friday, 14 November to respond. “The letter added that if the BBC did not comply, the president might file legal action ‘for no less than $1bn in damages’”. The BBC apologised and acknowledged the editing gave “the mistaken impression that President Trump had made a direct call for violent action” and confirmed it would not rebroadcast the episode. However, it refused to pay any compensation.
However, after the apology was given before the deadline, President Trump confirmed to reporters, “we’ll sue them for anywhere between $1bn and $5bn”. No reasoning or justification for this amount has ever been provided, nor why it had potentially increased by 400% after the BBC apologised and withdrew the documentary. The BBC has stated it is “determined to fight” the legal action as the episode was not distributed in the US, that the editorial decision was made to shorten a long speech and “was not done with malice”, that it was a part of a longer programme which featured opposing views from Trump supporters, that “an opinion on a matter of public concern and political speech is heavily protected under defamation laws in the US” and that it did not cause any harm to the President who was successfully re-elected after it was aired. The absence of harm to the President was also acknowledged by Michael Prescott, the author of the dossier, who confirmed in front of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee that the edit “probably” didn’t tarnish the President’s reputation.
This legal threat cannot be treated in isolation, although to date it is the first known legal threat to a British outlet from the President during his second term. However, he has long used the threat of costly legal actions to stifle public interest reporting and intimidate outlets into silence or compliance. He was forced to refile a $15 billion defamation action against the New York Times and Penguin Random House for reporting on his business acumen after a judge dismissed his earlier complaint as “improper and impermissible”, stating that “[a] complaint is not a public forum for vituperation and invective”. The President has also filed suit against Wall Street Journal for at least $20 billion due to its reporting on Trump’s alleged relationship with the disgraced sex offender, Jeffrey Epstein. Named in the suit, alongside the outlet itself, are the reporters Khadeeja Safdar and Joe Palazzolo, as well as News Corp CEO Robert Thomson and Chairman Emeritus Rupert Murdoch. This is not limited to print media. Trump also sued ABC and CBS, both of which resulted in settlements of $15 million and $16 million respectively. The legal threat against CBS came at a time when the network required federal approval for a sale to Skydance Media, which many believed was the impetus for the settlement as opposed to fighting the threat in court.
When a legal threat comes from someone as powerful as President Trump, who has also fought to consolidate federal power within the executive branch following his election in 2024, there are other tools at his disposal to punish public interest reporting. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has proved to be an effective tool for Trump, who recently told reporters that the licenses of the outlets he disapproves of “should be taken away.” Brendan Carr, the Trump ally appointed as head of the FCC recently said, following Jimmy Kimmel’s comments about Charlie Kirk, that “we can do this the easy way or the hard way”. He has also publicly spoken about the FCC investigating ABC’s flagship show, “The View”.
With the apparatus of the US Federal Government at his disposal, the weakening of the rule of law across the country, all augmented by Trump’s own personal wealth, the President’s actions send a stark signal to everyone who attempts to hold him accountable to the same standard of presidents before him. With the threat against the BBC, this tactic is now global. While the editing of the Panorama episode gave an inaccurate account of the President’s speech, the Coalition believes Trump’s response to be disproportionate, legally questionable and defined by what appears to be an aggressive desire to send a message as opposed to vindicating a right. While the Panorama episode was never accessible by US audiences – a prerequisite for satisfying Florida’s defamation statute as it relates to jurisdiction – the BBC apologised and removed the episode prior to the deadline. Following this, Trump did not withdraw the threat. In fact, he doubled-down, increasing the amount of money he was demanding from the BBC with no justification given.
Even before a legal action has been filed, we are seeing the impact of the legal threat playing out in how the BBC responds to President Trump, beyond its news reporting. On 25 November it was reported that the Reith Lecture by the Dutch economist Rutger Bregman had been edited to remove a line calling Trump “the most openly corrupt president in American history”, from the recorded and broadcast version of his first lecture. According to Bregman, “[t]his sentence was taken out of a lecture they commissioned, reviewed through the full editorial process, and recorded four weeks ago in front of 500 people in the BBC Radio Theatre.” Also according to Bregman, he “was told the decision came from the highest levels within the BBC.” The economist described this decision as “self-censorship driven by fear”, which has potentially been compounded by reports that the broadcaster has informed its presenters and journalists that they cannot repeat the cut line in their reporting about the issue. This demonstrates the broader effects of abusive legal threats on society. They not only target the individual or element of speech identified by the legal action, they encourage the targeted party and others to avoid potential liability by self-censoring and avoiding certain topics altogether. This chilling of speech, especially when influencing the output, conduct and editorial decisions of a public service broadcaster, has a devastating effect on the wider media environment and the information upon which everyone depends.
The aftermath of the Telegraph’s reporting demonstrates the complex and contentious role played by the BBC in the UK’s media eco-system, with prominent individuals including politicians condemning the outlet. For instance, the shadow Culture Secretary stated the BBC should “grovel” at the feet of President Trump. However, Trump’s threatened legal action and his unwillingness to respond constructively to the steps already taken by the BBC must be an occasion for everyone, irrespective of their opinion on the BBC’s editorial decision in this case, to stand united behind the BBC, to ensure our public broadcaster cannot be silenced by abusive legal threats. Everyone, including the BBC’s critics, must realise that if the BBC was not to defend itself, the signal that would send could chill all reporting on Trump, most acutely felt by the outlets that do not have the resources that the BBC does.