Federal judge refuses to dismiss Trump’s $10 billion defamation suit over Jan. 6 documentary: ‘Huge victory against fake news BBC’
False narratives.
A federal judge has kept a massive legal battle alive by refusing to dismiss the $10 billion defamation lawsuit filed by Donald Trump against the BBC. According to Variety, this decision, handed down on Tuesday, November 10, 2026, centers on a documentary about the events of January 6, 2021. The case will now move forward into the discovery phase. This is a major development for the legal team representing the President.
Judge Jeffrey T. Kuntz issued the ruling. The lawsuit claims that the BBC manipulated footage of the President to create a false narrative. Specifically, the documentary titled Trump: A Second Chance? spliced together two different segments of a speech.
One segment featured the President saying he would walk to the Capitol. Another segment, which occurred nearly an hour later, featured his comments about fighting for the country. The edit made it look like the President was calling for violence at that specific moment.
Judge Kuntz was not convinced by the defense offered by the BBC
The network argued that the editing was just a way to condense a long speech into a short clip. The judge disagreed with this framing in his written opinion. “BBC tries to frame this editing as ordinary editing done to condense a seventy-minute-long speech into twelve seconds. But the Court is not persuaded,” Kuntz ruled. He added, “This was not trimming around the edges but creating something different than what was stated in the speech.”
Trump took to Truth Social to share his thoughts on the outcome. He celebrated the news as “a Huge Victory against Fake News BBC” and labeled the network “a terrible abuser of the truth.” He also praised Judge Kuntz, who was appointed to the bench by the President earlier this year. The President wrote, “We will continue fighting against, and defeating, all of those who try to deceive the American People!”
This is not the first time Judge Kuntz has handled cases involving the President. When he served as a Florida appellate judge, Kuntz wrote an opinion that allowed the President to sue members of the Pulitzer board. In this latest case, the judge also weighed in on the legal standard for defamation.
While he acknowledged that he must follow the precedent set by the Supreme Court in New York Times v. Sullivan, he expressed his own skepticism regarding that ruling. “It cannot be said that Sullivan is grounded in the original meaning of the Constitution, at least not in any meaningful sense,” the judge wrote. He noted that the history of the common law does not support the heightened standard that public figures currently face.
The BBC has maintained its own position throughout the legal process
In its motion to dismiss, the broadcaster argued that the editing did not reach the level of defamation. It also claimed that the President could not prove he suffered actual damages. Furthermore, the network argued that Trump failed to show actual malice, which is the high standard required for defamation cases involving public figures.
A spokesperson for the BBC said, “We are surprised by this decision but respect the Court’s authority and note the case will now proceed to the next stage.” The network added, “We remain confident in our position and will continue to respond through the proper legal process.”
The documentary at the center of the dispute aired shortly before the 2024 election. It notably left out other parts of the speech where the President encouraged his supporters to march “peacefully and patriotically.” The fallout from this editing has already been significant for the broadcaster.
In November 2025, the BBC issued an apology. It admitted that the edit had given “the mistaken impression that President Trump had made a direct call for violent action.” This admission was followed by the resignation of two top BBC executives.
The court has already set a timeline for the next steps in the lawsuit
Trump has been ordered to sit for a deposition by December 11. While this date could potentially be pushed back, it remains a firm deadline for now. The President was previously expected to testify in October, but his legal team indicated he could not attend then due to other matters of national importance.
The judge seems to believe the case has enough merit to proceed. “Accepting the allegations in the complaint as true, the Court finds Trump plausibly pled damages where Trump alleges a defamatory documentary released toward the election caused reputational harm,” Kuntz wrote, per The Hill. “On its face, the editing may independently establish the plausibility of actual malice,” he added.
Have a tip we should know? [email protected]
Follow The Mary Sue:
