Trump Ordered to Testify in US$10 Billion BBC Lawsuit by 11 December

MIAMI — US President Donald Trump must answer questions under oath by 11 December in his US$10 billion defamation lawsuit against the BBC, a federal magistrate judge has ruled, warning that failure to comply could bring sanctions including dismissal of the case.

US Magistrate Judge Enjoliqué Lett issued the order on Thursday, 22 October, after the British broadcaster complained that it had been unable to secure Trump’s deposition despite months of discussions and an approaching deadline for gathering evidence. The requirement could change if the presiding judge extends the case’s discovery timetable.

The dispute concerns a BBC documentary that combined separate portions of Trump’s speech before the attack on the US Capitol on 6 January 2021. The broadcaster has apologised for the editing but denies that Trump has a valid defamation claim.

Thursday’s hearing brought the practical obligations of the lawsuit into focus: Trump is seeking billions of dollars in compensation, while the BBC is demanding access to testimony and evidence it says it needs to defend itself.

Months of negotiations over Trump’s deposition

Court filings show that the disagreement over Trump’s appearance began well before the latest hearing.

In a motion filed on 13 October, the BBC said it first requested deposition dates on 10 July and followed up repeatedly that month. The parties eventually agreed that Trump would be questioned on 16 October, with arrangements to accommodate presidential security requirements.

According to the broadcaster’s filing, its lawyers accepted requests to keep the deposition location confidential and sought information about any security checks required for those attending.

The BBC said Trump’s lawyers advised on 28 September that he was no longer available on the agreed date because of other matters of national importance. Subsequent efforts to obtain a replacement date did not resolve the issue.

By 9 October, according to the motion, Trump’s legal team said he had no availability before discovery closed on 18 December. They instead proposed extending the timetable and arranging his deposition in January 2027.

The broadcaster argued that the delay was particularly significant because seven BBC witnesses had already been deposed, while it had not questioned the person it described as the “most central figure in this case”.

A separate BBC notice filed on 19 October challenged the explanation for Trump’s cancellation. It pointed to his appearance at a campaign rally in Dalton, Georgia, on the day originally set aside for the deposition, followed by a Republican National Committee fundraising event at Mar-a-Lago.

The broadcaster presented those engagements as evidence supporting its request for court intervention. Its lawyers asked for a confirmed date, a secure location and the logistical information necessary to proceed.

Trump’s lawyers rejected the suggestion that he was avoiding questioning. In their response, they argued that scheduling a sitting president required consideration of his constitutional responsibilities, security arrangements and international commitments.

“President Trump’s deposition is not an ordinary scheduling exercise,” they wrote.

They cited matters including the conflict in Iran, wider Middle East unrest and the Russia–Ukraine war. They also accused the BBC of prematurely escalating disagreements to the court before negotiations had concluded.

Their proposed alternative was a deposition between 11 and 22 January 2027, with a specific date to be confirmed later. That proposal depended on extending the existing discovery period.

The documentary edit behind the BBC defamation lawsuit

Trump filed the lawsuit in the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida on 15 December 2025.

His complaint targeted the Panorama documentary Trump: A Second Chance?, first broadcast on 28 October 2024, shortly before the US presidential election.

The central allegation is that the programme joined remarks delivered at different points in his 6 January speech in a way that changed their meaning. Trump’s lawyers say the sequence falsely presented him as directly encouraging violence at the Capitol.

The original complaint alleged that the passages were separated by approximately 55 minutes. It also criticised the omission of his instruction that supporters make their voices heard peacefully.

Trump sought at least US$5 billion under a defamation claim and at least another US$5 billion under Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act. Those demands are allegations and requests for relief; they do not establish that the broadcaster is liable or that the claimed losses occurred.

The BBC has acknowledged that the editing was wrong. In November 2025, it apologised to Trump, and BBC chair Samir Shah sent a personal letter expressing regret.

The corporation also said it had no plans to rebroadcast the documentary on its platforms. However, it rejected the contention that its editorial mistake established a legal entitlement to compensation.

“While the BBC sincerely regrets the manner in which the video clip was edited, we strongly disagree there is a basis for a defamation claim,” the broadcaster said in its response at the time.

The controversy accompanied a major leadership crisis at the BBC, with its director-general and top news executive resigning. The broadcaster’s apology has therefore remained an important part of the dispute, alongside its continuing denial that it legally defamed Trump.

The distinction matters throughout the litigation. The BBC’s acknowledgement concerns how the programme presented the speech; the lawsuit asks the court to determine the separate questions of legal responsibility and damages.

What Trump would face during a deposition

A deposition is a formal opportunity for lawyers to question a witness under oath before trial. It creates a record of the witness’s answers that may later be used in court, subject to the applicable evidence and procedural rules.

For the BBC, questioning Trump would provide an opportunity to examine his account directly, including the factual basis for allegations he has made in bringing the lawsuit.

Federal civil procedure rules generally limit an oral deposition to one day of seven hours unless the parties agree otherwise or the court orders additional time. Those rules also provide sanctions for failures to obey discovery orders, with dismissal among the available measures in appropriate circumstances.

Trump’s lawyers also sought to prevent his deposition from being recorded on video. Lett rejected that request during Thursday’s hearing.

The judge permitted video recording while restricting access to lawyers involved in the case, according to the Associated Press.

Jack Smith’s possible testimony remains contested

A separate dispute concerns the BBC’s attempt to question former special counsel Jack Smith, whose investigation examined Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election and the events surrounding 6 January.

The broadcaster subpoenaed Smith earlier this month, arguing that his extensive investigation could help it identify evidence relevant to its defence.

Trump’s lawyers oppose the deposition. They argue that Smith was not present when the speech was delivered, did not help prepare it and has no direct personal knowledge of Trump’s state of mind at the time.

They also contend that questioning him would duplicate information already available through his published report and previous testimony.

The BBC’s position is that Smith’s years of investigative work make him a particularly valuable source. Its lawyers argue that Trump cannot challenge the broadcaster’s account of his speech while preventing it from pursuing evidence relevant to that challenge.

The disagreement concerns both what Smith knows and whether the broadcaster should be allowed to question him about it. Trump’s side emphasises the limits of his firsthand knowledge; the BBC emphasises the evidence gathered through his investigation.

Smith has requested Justice Department permission to testify. Lett ordered the department to respond by 2 November, AP reported, leaving his participation unresolved.

That development moves the matter beyond the competing arguments in the parties’ filing. The broadcaster is seeking Smith’s evidence, but a date for questioning him has not been established by the reported ruling.

Mar-a-Lago records enter the dispute over damages

Lett also authorised access to Mar-a-Lago membership application totals and fee information covering 6 January 2020 to 6 January 2026. The BBC linked those records to reputational damages; Trump’s lawyer disputed their relevance, AP reported.

The records request illustrates another dimension of the case. Alongside examining what the documentary conveyed, the parties are disputing what evidence can establish whether Trump suffered the harm he alleges.

For the broadcaster, the popularity of a property closely associated with Trump forms part of that inquiry. Trump’s side contests the connection between the club’s operations and his personal reputation.

December deadline governs the next stage

The discovery period is currently scheduled to close on 18 December, giving the BBC a week between the court’s deposition deadline and the end of evidence gathering.

Lett said that changing the wider case timetable was a matter for the presiding judge. The BBC indicated that it could accommodate a later deposition if the broader schedule also moved, preserving time to complete its work.

That leaves Trump’s proposed January appearance contingent on a further scheduling decision. His lawyers’ statement that he could be available in January does not, by itself, replace the December requirement.

The immediate question is therefore whether Trump will sit for questioning within the existing timetable or obtain a court-approved extension. Unless that timetable changes, he must give his deposition by 11 December, with the possibility of sanctions—including dismissal—if he fails to comply.