Skip to main content
LBC logo
On Air Now
Listen Now

1am to 4am

Listen Now

11pm to 6am

Donald Trump bids to block release of financial records in BBC defamation case

Mr Trump originally alleged a Panorama episode, broadcast shortly before the 2024 presidential election he won, had caused him both reputational and financial injury.

Share

Donald Trump
Donald Trump bids to block release of financial records in BBC defamation case. Picture: Getty

By Ella Bennett

Donald Trump is seeking to block the release of his financial records in his 10 billion dollar (£7.5 billion) defamation case against the BBC.

Listen to this article

Loading audio...

The US president’s legal team has secured an emergency suspension of a judge’s ruling that he must turn over documents sought by the broadcaster, pending the outcome of a bid to change his complaint and so limit disclosure.

Enforcement of the order, which required the first “substantial production” of paperwork by August 6, is now on hold as Mr Trump moves to narrow his claim to reputational injury rather than broader harm to his brand and businesses, as initially alleged.

The staying motion had been opposed by the BBC, according to court documents.

Mr Trump is seeking substantial damages in a Florida court over the editing of a Panorama documentary from 2024 about the US Capitol riots.

Read more: Donald Trump's helicopter Marine One came 'too close' to passenger jet after take-off from White House lawn

Read more: Still think Trump is a racist?: Miliband dodges questions about views on US President as he meets Rubio in Washington

Donald Trump speaks to supporters on January 6, 2021
Donald Trump speaks to supporters on January 6, 2021. Picture: Getty

Judge Enjolique Lett last month granted the request by BBC lawyers for information from the Donald J Trump Revocable Trust, which holds the president’s business interests and assets and is managed by his eldest son.

The trust, which is also represented by Mr Trump’s lawyers, had sought to resist the demand previously, arguing: “Although plaintiff has alleged that his businesses have suffered damages as a result of the documentary, that alone does not give defendants carte-blanche to obtain sweeping financial discovery from hundreds of non-parties.”

In seeking to pause enforcement of the subsequent order, the trust argued that Mr Trump had “sought leave to file an amended complaint”.

It said this would “update the damages allegations” made by the president and so render the “stated basis for the trust-wide financial production… moot”.

The published district court ruling allowing the emergency motion stated: “This is a compelling argument.

“If the plaintiff’s amendment obviates the need to compel a non-party to disclose confidential financial information, we think it’s prudent to enter a brief stay of the order until the amendment request is resolved.”

On narrowing Mr Trump’s complaint, his lawyer, according to court documents, said: “Even if there has been a harm to the brand, we are not pursuing that as part of our damages.

“So I don’t want to acknowledge that the brand has or has not suffered any injury, but I am telling the court that I am not going to leverage any such injury, to the extent it exists, as part of my damage claim.

“It is simply the reputational injury to the president, full stop.”

Trump supporters clash with police and security forces as they storm the US Capitol in Washington in 2021
Trump supporters clash with police and security forces as they storm the US Capitol in Washington in 2021. Picture: Getty

In suing the BBC, Mr Trump originally alleged the Panorama episode, broadcast shortly before the 2024 presidential election he won, had caused him both reputational and financial injury.

The documentary has faced criticism for giving the impression the US president had encouraged his supporters to storm the Capitol building on January 6 2021 after he lost the election to Joe Biden.

The allegations led the then-BBC director-general Tim Davie to announce his resignation.

BBC chairman Samir Shah apologised on behalf of the broadcaster over an “error of judgment”, and accepted the editing of the programme gave “the impression of a direct call for violent action”.

However, the broadcaster is seeking to have the case thrown out, warning of the “chilling effect” it would have on “robust reporting on public figures and events”.

It has also challenged the jurisdiction of a Florida court to hear the case given the programme was never aired in the state or the US.