Sir Keir Starmer is facing mounting calls to intervene after former US President Donald Trump filed a $10 billion defamation lawsuit against the BBC over an edited Panorama broadcast linked to the January 6, 2021 Capitol riots. Trump has accused the UK public broadcaster of “intentionally, maliciously and deceptively” editing a speech he delivered before the riots to make it appear that he incited violence.
His legal team confirmed on Monday that the lawsuit has been filed in a Florida court, alleging defamation and violations of trade practices. The BBC has now said it will contest the case. “As we have made clear previously, we will be defending this case. We are not going to make further comment on ongoing legal proceedings,” a BBC spokesperson said.
The lawsuit has triggered a political debate in the UK, with Liberal Democrat leader Sir Ed Davey urging Prime Minister Starmer to publicly back the BBC. Davey said the prime minister must “stand up for the BBC against Trump’s outrageous legal threat” and protect licence fee payers, alleging that Trump’s actions amount to interference in British democracy.
Labour minister Stephen Kinnock said the government would “always stand up for the BBC as a vitally important institution,” while stressing that the broadcaster operates independently of political control. However, former Conservative culture secretary Baroness Nicky Morgan argued that government intervention would be inappropriate.
She said the BBC’s board must take responsibility, adding that Trump’s legal action was “inevitable” but unlikely to succeed. The case adds to existing tensions between Trump and international media organisations and places renewed scrutiny on the BBC’s editorial standards as it prepares to fight the lawsuit in court.
The lawsuit has also reignited debate over media freedom and editorial independence in the UK. Supporters of the BBC argue that legal action by a powerful political figure risks creating a chilling effect on investigative journalism. They warn that allowing such lawsuits to intimidate public broadcasters could undermine press freedom. Critics, however, say the case highlights the need for rigorous editorial accountability in high-stakes political reporting.
