In brief
A U.S. judge has ordered Donald Trump to sit for a deposition under oath in his defamation lawsuit against the BBC by December 11. The case centers on a Panorama episode that edited Trump’s 2021 Capitol speech, leading the former president to claim the broadcaster doctored his words. Trump cancelled a prior deposition citing “matters of national importance,” but court documents show he prioritized campaign events instead. The judge noted that failure to comply could result in sanctions, up to dismissal of the lawsuit. Trump’s lawyers have yet to agree to a deposition, reopening the legal battle over the BBC’s alleged misrepresentation.
U.S. Magistrate Judge Enjoliqué Lett has ordered former President Donald Trump to answer questions under oath in his defamation lawsuit against the BBC by 11 December.
The lawsuit stems from a BBC Panorama episode that edited together different sections of Trump’s speech before the January 6 Capitol riot, leading his lawyers to accuse the broadcaster of deliberate misrepresentation.
Trump previously cancelled a deposition on 16 October, citing “matters of national importance.” Court filings, however, show he was campaigning in Georgia that day and prioritized those events over the interview.
The discovery phase of the case is still underway, with two months remaining. Lett warned that failure to depose could lead to sanctions, potentially including dismissal of the lawsuit unless the discovery period is extended.
Depositions in defamation suits are out‑of‑court statements made under oath and recorded verbatim; they can later be used as evidence in trial. Trump’s attorneys have requested a later date between 11 and 22 January, asserting the BBC’s claim of avoidance is unfounded.
Trump’s suit accuses the BBC of “intentionally, maliciously and deceptively doctoring” his speech, while the BBC apologized for the error and argued the program did not meet U.S. defamation criteria and was not available in the United States.
Later this year, Trump dropped a lawsuit against BBC Studios after the broadcaster clarified its non‑involvement in producing the documentary. The case remains a focal point of ongoing legal battles over media content and political accountability.
