A U.S. federal judge has rejected an application the BBC to pause the discovery phase in a defamation lawsuit brought President Donald Trump, allowing the high profile case to proceed toward trial.
The lawsuit, filed in Florida, seeks up to 10 billion dollars in damages and relates to the BBC’s editing of a speech delivered Trump on January 6, 2021. Trump alleges that the British public broadcaster defamed him splicing together portions of his address in a way that suggested he directed supporters to storm the U.S. Capitol.
According to court documents, U.S. District Judge Roy Altman denied the BBC’s request to stay merits based discovery, the stage of litigation in which both parties gather evidence from each other. The judge ruled that the broadcaster’s request was premature and found that it had not demonstrated it would suffer prejudice if discovery continued.
In a separate order, the court set a two week trial date for February 2027, signaling that the case is moving forward on schedule.
Trump’s complaint alleges that the BBC edited together sections of his speech, including remarks in which he told supporters to march on the Capitol and to fight like hell, while omitting a longer portion in which he called for peaceful protest. The lawsuit claims that the edited version created a misleading impression that damaged his reputation.
The legal action includes two counts. Trump argues that the broadcaster committed defamation and also violated a Florida statute that prohibits deceptive and unfair trade practices. He is seeking at least 5 billion dollars in damages for each count.
The BBC has previously said it intends to defend the case vigorously and seek dismissal. The broadcaster has argued that the U.S. court lacks jurisdiction because it did not broadcast the program in Florida. It has also contended that Trump cannot demonstrate actual damages, noting that he was subsequently re elected after the program aired.
The case raises broader questions about media liability, editorial standards and jurisdiction in cross border defamation disputes. Legal experts say discovery will likely focus on internal editorial decisions, communications and the context in which the footage was compiled and aired.
As the matter moves into the evidence gathering stage, both sides are expected to intensify their legal strategies. The outcome could have implications not only for the parties involved but also for how international media organizations navigate coverage of U.S. political events and public figures.
