November 17, 2025 • 11 mins
U.S. President Donald Trump has announced plans to sue the BBC for up to $AU7.5 billion. It comes after the British broadcaster apologised to Trump over an allegedly misleading edit of a speech he gave on 6 January 2021 – the day of the deadly Washington insurrection. However, the BBC has rejected compensation claims from Trump’s lawyers. Today, we’ll explain the speech edit in question, the fallout, and whether Trump is likely to succeed in his action against the broadcaster.
Hosts: Emma Gillespie and Lucy Tassell
Producer: Orla Maher
Want to support The Daily Aus? That's so kind! The best way to do that is to click ‘follow’ on Spotify or Apple and to leave us a five-star review. We would be so grateful.
The Daily Aus is a media company focused on delivering accessible and digestible news to young people. We are completely independent.
Want more from TDA?
Subscribe to The Daily Aus newsletter
Subscribe to The Daily Aus’ YouTube Channel
Have feedback for us?
We’re always looking for new ways to improve what we do. If you’ve got feedback, we’re all ears. Tell us here.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Already and this this is the Daily Ars.
Speaker 2 (00:03):
This is the Daily ohs oh, now it makes sense.
Good morning, and welcome to the Daily OS. It's Tuesday,
the eighteenth of November. I'm Emma Gillespie.
Speaker 1 (00:20):
I'm Lucy Tassel.
Speaker 2 (00:21):
US President Donald Trump has announced plans to sue the BBC,
the British Broadcasting Corporation, for up to seven point five
billion Ossie dollars. It comes after the British broadcaster apologized
to Donald Trump over an allegedly misleading edit of a
speech he gave on the sixth of January twenty twenty one,
the day of the deadly Washington insurrection. But the BBC
(00:44):
has rejected compensation claims from Trump's lawyers. And today we'll
explain that the speech edit in question, the fallout, and
whether Trump is likely to succeed in his action against
the broadcaster.
Speaker 1 (01:00):
Emma, this story has been in the global spotlight for
a little over a week now. But let's go back.
So much is changing so fast. Where did this actually start?
Speaker 2 (01:10):
I think to understand all the pieces of the puzzle,
we probably need to take it all the way back
to twenty twenty. That was the year that Donald Trump
lost his reelection bid to Joe Biden. And you may
remember that Trump initially refused to concede defeat. He alleged
election fraud and was accused of spreading false claims and
obstructing the transition of power to President Biden. All of
(01:34):
that came to a head on the sixth of January
twenty twenty one, when Trump supporters stormed the US Capitol
and attempted to block official procedures confirming Biden's victory. It
was a huge day in global media in US history.
Seven people ended up dying as a result of the riots,
and there have been countless inquiries and questions ever since
(01:57):
in terms of the conduct that led to that.
Speaker 1 (02:01):
So then what's the connection between January sixth and the
BBC documentary.
Speaker 2 (02:06):
So about a week before the US presidential election in
November last year, So fast forward to twenty twenty four,
the BBC's flagship current affairs program, a show called Panorama,
aired an episode called Trump a Second Chance question Mark.
So the documentary was essentially analyzing Trump's history and you know,
(02:27):
his reelection bid, whether or not it was looking likely
to succeed, And part of painting that picture included a
bit of analysis around the Jan six riots. So the
episode showed excerpts of Donald Trump's speech on that day
in twenty twenty one, the day his support had stormed
the Capitol, and the episode was later accused of appearing
(02:48):
to suggest that Trump encouraged the attack. So at the
time after the Panorama episode aired, an independent editorial standards
advisor wrote to the BBC board describing the program as
quote neither balanced nor impartial. Now that is important as
it retains to the BBC because it is the public
broadcaster in the UK. British citizens residents pay a licensing
(03:12):
fee to keep it running and it's held to certain
standards like our ABC, certain editorial standards about its news
coverage and impartiality. But this review of the Panorama episode
found that it quotes spliced together two clips from separate
parts of a speech that Trump made almost an hour
apart to suggest quote Trump said something he did not.
(03:34):
The report also alleged that BBC managers dismissed concerns raised
about this edit. And we've only recently become aware of
all of this because this review, that report by the
independent advisor was leaked to the Telegraph. A conservative British
newspaper and published earlier this month.
Speaker 1 (03:53):
What did the White House say in response to this report?
Speaker 2 (03:56):
The Trump administration and the White House has been very
critical of the BBC. In response, White House Press Secretary
Caroline Levitt called the edit election interference. She said it
was designed to influence the results of the twenty twenty
four election, given the documentary aired just days before American
voters headed to the polls. Trump has been similarly critical.
(04:19):
He posted on truth social saying the BBC had been
caught red handed in his words, and calling for action
against what he described as fake news.
Speaker 1 (04:28):
What has been the fallout at the BBC over this.
Speaker 2 (04:32):
It's been pretty significant. So we saw two senior news
executives resign on the tenth of November, and then on Friday,
the BBC issued a formal apology to Donald Trump. The
Director General of the broadcaster, Tim Davies, said the edit
quote did not meet the BBC's editorial standards. He said
the corporation apologizes for this error and announced that the
(04:55):
BBC has launched an internal review into the processes into
the decision behind the edit. To kind of paint more
of a picture to understand that Panorama episode.
Speaker 1 (05:06):
We'll be right back with more on this story, Emma,
but first a quick word from our sponsor. Now we're
at the point of there being a possible lawsuit. When
did Trump threaten to sue and what are his grounds.
Speaker 2 (05:20):
Trump's lawyers sent a letter to the BBC actually last week,
demanding compensation. They've claimed that the edit is defamatory, that
it damaged Trump's reputation, and they've argued that the doco
portrays him as inciting violence. On January sixth, which Trump
has consistently denied since twenty twenty one, Trump gave a
(05:41):
little bit more of an indication about the sum of
money he is seeking in terms of the scale of
these alleged damages. Here's a little bit of what he
said to reporters aboard Air Force one over the weekend. Well,
we'll sue them.
Speaker 1 (05:54):
We'll sue them for anywhere between a bidion and five
billion dollars, probably sometime next week. So now the BBC
has apologized to Trump, but have they responded to these
threats of legal action.
Speaker 2 (06:06):
The BBC has rejected the compensation claims. It needs to
be said. So they did issue that apology. They've made
it clear that they understand the editing of that Panorama
episode was perhaps misleading, but they've also made it clear
they will not be paying these billions in dollars that
Trump is demanding as compensation. A BBC spokesperson said the
(06:27):
corporation does take its editorial standards seriously. It's apologized for
the error, but that they believe Trump's compensation demands are
without merit.
Speaker 1 (06:37):
This is all centering on a BBC documentary that aired
in the UK on UK public television in November twenty
twenty four. Did it ever actually air anywhere else?
Speaker 2 (06:49):
This is a really important detail because no, the Panorama
documentary never aired in the US. It was broadcast, as
you said, Lucy, on BBC one. In the US, it
was available on the BBC's streaming platform, a service called
iPlayer that is primarily accessible in the UK. You could
suggest that there's a gray area with VPNs. Some Americans
(07:13):
may have been able to access it through VPNs or
other means, but there was no official US broadcast or
distribution of the program. The reason that that is significant
is if Trump is proceeding with legal action, the US
has very strong protections for freedom of speech and the press.
The standard for proving defamation there, particularly for public figures
(07:34):
like Trump, is extremely high, and there would be a
bit of a gap that would need to be filled
or prosecutors would need to be enlightened as to why
a UK program would matter to a US election. In
the UK, though the burden of proof is different, there
are fewer protections for publishers compared to the US. But
(07:55):
it does seem Trump wants to sue in the US.
That appears to be what he's indicating, and US courts
generally won't hear defamation cases about material that was only
published in another country. If the BBC had done a
distribution deal with a broadcaster like the PBS, and it
had played to US audiences on a public service network,
we might be talking about a different set of circumstances.
Speaker 1 (08:18):
What does that mean for Trump's legal options?
Speaker 2 (08:20):
Then he could try to file a suit in the UK,
but he would need to show that he suffered serious
harm to his reputation because of the documentary. Now, given
that Trump went ahead and won the election after the
doco aired, it'd be difficult to argue that he suffered
any serious reputational or financial harms because of it.
Speaker 1 (08:42):
Could he argue something along the lines of the edit
being misleading, with that strengthen his case.
Speaker 2 (08:47):
In some way potentially, But the BBC has already acknowledged
that the edits didn't meet its standards. I do think
it's important to note, though, that acknowledge of a mistake
is not an knowledge of defamation. They have an admitted defamation.
The challenge here is that the words in the edit,
so the way the speech was edited together, were still
(09:11):
Trump's own words. It's not as though, you know, you
sometimes hear about the way Reality TV is produced. A
Frankenstein editor in a phrase that might refer to when
you can hear that seven different words from seven different
contexts are stitched together as one sentence. These were Trump's
words from his speech. So legal experts have been pretty
(09:33):
skeptical about his chances of success, particularly if he tries
to sue in the US. He also, it has to
be noted, has a long history of these kinds of threats.
You know, Trump is no stranger to a civil lawsuit.
He regularly threatens news organizations. Many of those threats never
result in actual court filings, but sometimes they do result
(09:53):
in settlements outside of courts, and some commentators are suggesting
that this is a lot more about intimidation and a
lot more about Trump's relationship with legacy media traditional media
quote unquote mainstream media than it is about actually winning
damages and taking it to court.
Speaker 1 (10:10):
What do we think are going to be the next
steps here.
Speaker 2 (10:13):
Well, so far, nothing has been filed officially in terms
of legal action, but the BBC is continuing with that
internal review that will take some time, and there might
be some revelations about editorial processes that come to light
that could give Trump more of a case whether or
not this ends up in court. You know, I doubt
it's going to be the last time we hear about
(10:34):
Donald Trump having issues with mainstream media. I doubt it's
going to be the last time we see a bit
of a back and forth about him disagreeing with the
way certain news publishers talk about him or the way
he's presented in traditional media. Either way, you know, there's
plenty to come, I think, Lucy.
Speaker 1 (10:52):
Thanks so much for explaining that, Emma, and thank you
for joining us today on the Daily Ohs. We'll be
back this afternoon with the headlines. Until then, have a
great day. My name is Lily Maddon and I'm a
proud Arunda Bunjelung Calkatin woman from Gadighl country. The Daily
oz acknowledges that this podcast is recorded on the lands
(11:15):
of the Gadighl people and pays respect to all Aboriginal
and torrest Rate island and nations. We pay our respects
to the first peoples of these countries, both past and present.
Already and this this is the Daily Ars.
Speaker 2 (00:03):
This is the Daily ohs oh, now it makes sense.
Good morning, and welcome to the Daily OS. It's Tuesday,
the eighteenth of November. I'm Emma Gillespie.
Speaker 1 (00:20):
I'm Lucy Tassel.
Speaker 2 (00:21):
US President Donald Trump has announced plans to sue the BBC,
the British Broadcasting Corporation, for up to seven point five
billion Ossie dollars. It comes after the British broadcaster apologized
to Donald Trump over an allegedly misleading edit of a
speech he gave on the sixth of January twenty twenty one,
the day of the deadly Washington insurrection. But the BBC
(00:44):
has rejected compensation claims from Trump's lawyers. And today we'll
explain that the speech edit in question, the fallout, and
whether Trump is likely to succeed in his action against
the broadcaster.
Speaker 1 (01:00):
Emma, this story has been in the global spotlight for
a little over a week now. But let's go back.
So much is changing so fast. Where did this actually start?
Speaker 2 (01:10):
I think to understand all the pieces of the puzzle,
we probably need to take it all the way back
to twenty twenty. That was the year that Donald Trump
lost his reelection bid to Joe Biden. And you may
remember that Trump initially refused to concede defeat. He alleged
election fraud and was accused of spreading false claims and
obstructing the transition of power to President Biden. All of
(01:34):
that came to a head on the sixth of January
twenty twenty one, when Trump supporters stormed the US Capitol
and attempted to block official procedures confirming Biden's victory. It
was a huge day in global media in US history.
Seven people ended up dying as a result of the riots,
and there have been countless inquiries and questions ever since
(01:57):
in terms of the conduct that led to that.
Speaker 1 (02:01):
So then what's the connection between January sixth and the
BBC documentary.
Speaker 2 (02:06):
So about a week before the US presidential election in
November last year, So fast forward to twenty twenty four,
the BBC's flagship current affairs program, a show called Panorama,
aired an episode called Trump a Second Chance question Mark.
So the documentary was essentially analyzing Trump's history and you know,
(02:27):
his reelection bid, whether or not it was looking likely
to succeed, And part of painting that picture included a
bit of analysis around the Jan six riots. So the
episode showed excerpts of Donald Trump's speech on that day
in twenty twenty one, the day his support had stormed
the Capitol, and the episode was later accused of appearing
(02:48):
to suggest that Trump encouraged the attack. So at the
time after the Panorama episode aired, an independent editorial standards
advisor wrote to the BBC board describing the program as
quote neither balanced nor impartial. Now that is important as
it retains to the BBC because it is the public
broadcaster in the UK. British citizens residents pay a licensing
(03:12):
fee to keep it running and it's held to certain
standards like our ABC, certain editorial standards about its news
coverage and impartiality. But this review of the Panorama episode
found that it quotes spliced together two clips from separate
parts of a speech that Trump made almost an hour
apart to suggest quote Trump said something he did not.
(03:34):
The report also alleged that BBC managers dismissed concerns raised
about this edit. And we've only recently become aware of
all of this because this review, that report by the
independent advisor was leaked to the Telegraph. A conservative British
newspaper and published earlier this month.
Speaker 1 (03:53):
What did the White House say in response to this report?
Speaker 2 (03:56):
The Trump administration and the White House has been very
critical of the BBC. In response, White House Press Secretary
Caroline Levitt called the edit election interference. She said it
was designed to influence the results of the twenty twenty
four election, given the documentary aired just days before American
voters headed to the polls. Trump has been similarly critical.
(04:19):
He posted on truth social saying the BBC had been
caught red handed in his words, and calling for action
against what he described as fake news.
Speaker 1 (04:28):
What has been the fallout at the BBC over this.
Speaker 2 (04:32):
It's been pretty significant. So we saw two senior news
executives resign on the tenth of November, and then on Friday,
the BBC issued a formal apology to Donald Trump. The
Director General of the broadcaster, Tim Davies, said the edit
quote did not meet the BBC's editorial standards. He said
the corporation apologizes for this error and announced that the
(04:55):
BBC has launched an internal review into the processes into
the decision behind the edit. To kind of paint more
of a picture to understand that Panorama episode.
Speaker 1 (05:06):
We'll be right back with more on this story, Emma,
but first a quick word from our sponsor. Now we're
at the point of there being a possible lawsuit. When
did Trump threaten to sue and what are his grounds.
Speaker 2 (05:20):
Trump's lawyers sent a letter to the BBC actually last week,
demanding compensation. They've claimed that the edit is defamatory, that
it damaged Trump's reputation, and they've argued that the doco
portrays him as inciting violence. On January sixth, which Trump
has consistently denied since twenty twenty one, Trump gave a
(05:41):
little bit more of an indication about the sum of
money he is seeking in terms of the scale of
these alleged damages. Here's a little bit of what he
said to reporters aboard Air Force one over the weekend. Well,
we'll sue them.
Speaker 1 (05:54):
We'll sue them for anywhere between a bidion and five
billion dollars, probably sometime next week. So now the BBC
has apologized to Trump, but have they responded to these
threats of legal action.
Speaker 2 (06:06):
The BBC has rejected the compensation claims. It needs to
be said. So they did issue that apology. They've made
it clear that they understand the editing of that Panorama
episode was perhaps misleading, but they've also made it clear
they will not be paying these billions in dollars that
Trump is demanding as compensation. A BBC spokesperson said the
(06:27):
corporation does take its editorial standards seriously. It's apologized for
the error, but that they believe Trump's compensation demands are
without merit.
Speaker 1 (06:37):
This is all centering on a BBC documentary that aired
in the UK on UK public television in November twenty
twenty four. Did it ever actually air anywhere else?
Speaker 2 (06:49):
This is a really important detail because no, the Panorama
documentary never aired in the US. It was broadcast, as
you said, Lucy, on BBC one. In the US, it
was available on the BBC's streaming platform, a service called
iPlayer that is primarily accessible in the UK. You could
suggest that there's a gray area with VPNs. Some Americans
(07:13):
may have been able to access it through VPNs or
other means, but there was no official US broadcast or
distribution of the program. The reason that that is significant
is if Trump is proceeding with legal action, the US
has very strong protections for freedom of speech and the press.
The standard for proving defamation there, particularly for public figures
(07:34):
like Trump, is extremely high, and there would be a
bit of a gap that would need to be filled
or prosecutors would need to be enlightened as to why
a UK program would matter to a US election. In
the UK, though the burden of proof is different, there
are fewer protections for publishers compared to the US. But
(07:55):
it does seem Trump wants to sue in the US.
That appears to be what he's indicating, and US courts
generally won't hear defamation cases about material that was only
published in another country. If the BBC had done a
distribution deal with a broadcaster like the PBS, and it
had played to US audiences on a public service network,
we might be talking about a different set of circumstances.
Speaker 1 (08:18):
What does that mean for Trump's legal options?
Speaker 2 (08:20):
Then he could try to file a suit in the UK,
but he would need to show that he suffered serious
harm to his reputation because of the documentary. Now, given
that Trump went ahead and won the election after the
doco aired, it'd be difficult to argue that he suffered
any serious reputational or financial harms because of it.
Speaker 1 (08:42):
Could he argue something along the lines of the edit
being misleading, with that strengthen his case.
Speaker 2 (08:47):
In some way potentially, But the BBC has already acknowledged
that the edits didn't meet its standards. I do think
it's important to note, though, that acknowledge of a mistake
is not an knowledge of defamation. They have an admitted defamation.
The challenge here is that the words in the edit,
so the way the speech was edited together, were still
(09:11):
Trump's own words. It's not as though, you know, you
sometimes hear about the way Reality TV is produced. A
Frankenstein editor in a phrase that might refer to when
you can hear that seven different words from seven different
contexts are stitched together as one sentence. These were Trump's
words from his speech. So legal experts have been pretty
(09:33):
skeptical about his chances of success, particularly if he tries
to sue in the US. He also, it has to
be noted, has a long history of these kinds of threats.
You know, Trump is no stranger to a civil lawsuit.
He regularly threatens news organizations. Many of those threats never
result in actual court filings, but sometimes they do result
(09:53):
in settlements outside of courts, and some commentators are suggesting
that this is a lot more about intimidation and a
lot more about Trump's relationship with legacy media traditional media
quote unquote mainstream media than it is about actually winning
damages and taking it to court.
Speaker 1 (10:10):
What do we think are going to be the next
steps here.
Speaker 2 (10:13):
Well, so far, nothing has been filed officially in terms
of legal action, but the BBC is continuing with that
internal review that will take some time, and there might
be some revelations about editorial processes that come to light
that could give Trump more of a case whether or
not this ends up in court. You know, I doubt
it's going to be the last time we hear about
(10:34):
Donald Trump having issues with mainstream media. I doubt it's
going to be the last time we see a bit
of a back and forth about him disagreeing with the
way certain news publishers talk about him or the way
he's presented in traditional media. Either way, you know, there's
plenty to come, I think, Lucy.
Speaker 1 (10:52):
Thanks so much for explaining that, Emma, and thank you
for joining us today on the Daily Ohs. We'll be
back this afternoon with the headlines. Until then, have a
great day. My name is Lily Maddon and I'm a
proud Arunda Bunjelung Calkatin woman from Gadighl country. The Daily
oz acknowledges that this podcast is recorded on the lands
(11:15):
of the Gadighl people and pays respect to all Aboriginal
and torrest Rate island and nations. We pay our respects
to the first peoples of these countries, both past and present.
Popular Podcasts
Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang
Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.