US backs Trump v BBC
As legal fees rise, imagine how licence-payers' money could have been used
Donald Trump has apparently called in the US federal government to help him fight his multi-billion-dollar libel claim against the BBC. A notice filed on Friday by senior trial counsel at the Department of Justice in Washington DC says that the United States is considering participating in the litigation, effectively to protect its own interests.
The notice, which refers to the BBC’s requests for disclosure of presidential documents, is also signed by an assistant US attorney in Florida — where Trump is suing the BBC over an edition of Panorama, broadcast in 2024, which he says edited a speech he gave in 2021 in a way that was “false, deceptive and defamatory”. It is hard to believe that federal and state officials would have intervened in the case without support from Trump or his personal lawyers.
This is how the notice begins:
A full version of the notice — including the signatures — can be read here. As can be seen from its header, more than 90 documents have already been lodged by the two sides in the litigation, which is not scheduled for trial until next year.
The more documents that are filed in these preliminary skirmishes, the more the costs rise. Each side generally has to bear its own legal costs in the US, win or lose. The BBC has not said how much it will have to pay its US lawyers for work done so far or how much they will charge if the case goes to trial.
Given the level of fees charged by US lawyers, though, it is reasonable to suppose that the potential costs involved could have helped fund several of the news and current affairs programmes that the BBC has decided to close in the next year. These include Radio 4’s low-cost replacement for Law in Action, which was dropped in 2024. For the first time since I launched that programme almost 42 years ago, the BBC will no longer have a regular broadcast dedicated to coverage of legal developments — such as Trump v BBC, for example.
Comment
When the BBC apologised to the US president last November — and before he put a figure on the damages he was seeking — I wrote this:
The BBC is putting the president to proof, as the lawyers say: challenging him to produce evidence that the programme was seen in the United States and that, as his lawyer claimed, he suffered “overwhelming financial and reputational harm” from it.
It remains to be seen whether the president will treat the BBC’s response as a challenge he must rise to or simply bank the personal apology and move on.
If Trump does issue legal proceedings, a settlement will become more expensive. On the other hand, there seems little point in going to court to defend what the BBC admits was an error of judgment, even if the corporation believes Trump’s claim will ultimately be dismissed.
Perhaps I was being too measured. I spent 25 years on the staff of the BBC and old habits die hard. My view then was that the BBC should have settled Trump’s claim before he launched legal proceedings, as the broadcaster must have expected he would. That’s what news organisations routinely do when they receive a defamation claim from a wealthy claimant — even if they can prove the truth of what they published. It’s generally cheaper in the long run.
The BBC now has a new director general. Matt Brittin has presumably returned from the holiday he was taking when the programme cuts were announced on 17 June. If he intends to continue fighting the US president and now the US government in the US courts over an admitted error of judgment for which his predecessor was responsible, he should tell licence-payers why it’s more important for the BBC to spend our money on its US lawyers than on its coverage of the law.
Someone has to stand up to the bully. It is clear that standing up usually produces better outcomes than folding early. Also, this effort is already producing potentially very interesting disclosure requests which Trump should comply with. Maybe someone in the US will report on the issues fully.
I think this is a very unfortunate piece. While I was, and remain, dismayed by the ending of Law in Action, and was not particularly impressed by The Law Show, using that as the basis of why the BBC should settle is not very impressive.
Trump uses litigation as a weapon, hoping to force people to settle and pay money, including by making vague statements about consequences that will follow for their licensing etc.. (ABC, CBS) Where news providers stick to their guns (CNN, NY Times and even the Wall Street Journal) he has lost. The issue here is not just the wrong editing, it is whether that editing misled anyone. I suspect few people who watched the events of January 6 thought Trump was an emissary of Peace and trying to cool things down...
Litigation involves disclosure, particularly in the USA, and the fact that he is now trying to get the DoJ involved shows, as many serious commentators (including your successor at The Grauniad), suggest, that he realises he has made a mistake and lots of things he wants hidden could come out.
It would be a very sad day for journalism if a broadcaster settled every time someone in power resorts to litigation, and it would be a deep chilling of free speech.