As many readers of this article will be aware, President Donald Trump is locked in a legal dispute with the BBC over the way in which his speech of 6 January 2021 was edited in a Panorama documentary. The purpose of this article, I hasten to add, is not to make any political comment. Similarly, the reader should bear in mind that I am not qualified to comment on the finer details of Florida or American law. However, the President reportedly filed a lawsuit on 15 December 2025 against the broadcaster in Florida. News reporting on the suit suggests that part of the basis for the claim is that the editing of the documentary has defamed the President.
So to the question which is the purpose of this article: given that the BBC is a British institution and the documentary was primarily aired in the UK, why has a claim not been brought in UK courts? Of course, I can only speculate as to the reasons, but there is one explanation which could serve as a cautionary tale to all those looking to bring a claim for defamation.
Very generally, defamation in English and Welsh law requires a party to publish a statement which lowers the claimant in the estimation of right‑thinking members of society generally. In this case, “publish” means to communicate it to a third party, and generally this can be done in one of two ways. “Libel” concerns lasting forms of publication such as print, online content, or broadcasting, whereas “slander” concerns more momentary forms such as spoken words or gestures. In other words, the question of whether a statement is defamatory is whether it causes a person to think less of the individual to whom the statement refers. It is also worth bearing in mind that a statement is not defamatory unless its publication has caused, or is likely to cause, serious harm to the reputation of the claimant. There are defences to such a claim, and these can be based on, amongst other things, assertions that the statement was true; that it was an honest opinion; that it concerned a matter of public interest; or that privilege applies.
It is worth noting that the BBC Panorama broadcast was first aired on 28 October 2024, just a few days before the presidential election of 5 November 2024, and so it is not difficult to see why the President might allege that its timing had the potential to cause him harm in the final stages of that campaign. Similarly, as he was successful in his bid to be re‑elected, it is not impossible to see why the BBC might argue that he has, in fact, not suffered any harm at all. These are all allegations and arguments which have been widely reported in the media, of course, but they simply serve to explain why President Trump might have a claim against the BBC in defamation under English and Welsh law. As the documentary was widely available on this side of the Atlantic, surely such a claim would make sense?
Well, one explanation as to why a claim has been favoured in America (and the only explanation I can offer) is simply one of timing. As a matter of public policy, claims are limited by statute and must be brought – i.e., provided to the court to be issued – within the time specified by statute. If a claim is not brought within the specified time, then it shall be a defence to assert that the claim is out of time. In this way, prospective defendants do not have to be fearful of claims hanging over them indefinitely like a Sword of Damocles. Many of these periods are specified within the Limitation Act 1980. However, section 5 of the Defamation Act 1996 limits the period for bringing a defamation claim to one year which, in civil litigation terms, is a relatively short time frame. To give some context – a claim for breach of contract must be brought within six years of the date of the breach. The day on which the cause of action accrued is excluded from the calculation of the limitation date. In other words, as the BBC Panorama broadcast first aired on 28 October 2024, a claim needed to be brought by 28 October 2025.
As the claim was not issued until December 2025, that would tend to suggest that the statutory deadline had passed. Whilst that may not, of course, be the reason, it is nonetheless interesting.
As to the remainder of the case – well, that is now for those qualified in Florida law to comment on. For now, it serves to highlight the importance of statutory limitation periods in all claims, not just defamation.