Judge Orders Trump to Sit for BBC Suit Deposition

A federal magistrate judge in Florida gave President Donald Trump a firm deadline Thursday: sit for a deposition in his $10 billion defamation lawsuit against the BBC by Dec. 11, or risk having the case thrown out. U.S. Magistrate Judge Enjoliqué Lett issued the order after BBC lawyers argued Trump was stalling.

The courtroom friction centered on a canceled appointment. Trump had been scheduled to testify on Oct. 16, six days before Thursday’s hearing, but canceled, citing a “matter of national importance.” BBC attorney Charles Tobin told the judge what that matter turned out to be. “He was participating in party politics and prioritized that over sitting for the deposition,” Tobin said. According to Tobin, Trump had a political rally and fundraiser to attend.

A Plaintiff Who Wants Billions but Won’t Sit Down

The timing matters because Trump is the one asking for the money. Tobin said Trump is the case’s most important witness: he claims the BBC’s 2024 story caused billions of dollars in damages. Trump’s attorneys proposed moving the deposition to late January. Tobin objected, saying that date was far too late, since discovery in the case is scheduled to close Dec. 18, 57 days from now.

Lett split the difference and kept pressure on the plaintiff. She ruled that the deposition can be videotaped, rejecting an objection from Trump attorney Alejandro Brito. She also said the date could move if the district judge overseeing the case extends the discovery deadline. Only that judge, Jeffrey Kuntz, can do so. Without an extension, Trump has 50 days from today to appear.

What the Lawsuit Alleges

Trump filed suit against the British news organization last year, alleging it aired a “false, defamatory, deceptive, disparaging, inflammatory, and malicious depiction” of him in a documentary. The program spliced together comments from his Jan. 6, 2021, speech at the Ellipse before the Capitol riot. The BBC has acknowledged splicing the comments together, but says Trump wasn't defamed and suffered no damages.

Where the documentary aired remains a sticking point. Trump says it aired in the days before the 2024 election. The BBC says the special was never shown in the United States.

Business Records Come Into Play

That dispute led to another fight, this time over Trump’s Mar-a-Lago club. The BBC subpoenaed the club for information on whether the documentary affected membership applications and fees, even though it didn't air in the United States. Brito argued the subpoena should be quashed because Trump isn't claiming the program affected his business. Tobin pointed to Trump’s own complaint, which says the documentary “injured President Trump in his profession, occupation and trade.” Lett agreed the information “falls within” the type that should be produced.

A spokesman for Trump’s personal legal team defended the suit. “President Trump’s powerhouse lawsuit is holding the BBC accountable for its defamation and reckless election interference just as he has held other fake news mainstream media responsible for their wrongdoing,” the spokesman said. The BBC declined to comment.

Why This Matters: Defamation suits are a legitimate tool, but they work only when plaintiffs face the same scrutiny as defendants. Here, a sitting president is demanding $10 billion from a news organization while, according to the BBC, putting a political fundraiser ahead of sworn testimony. The ruling shows courts applying ordinary rules to an extraordinary litigant: show up, answer questions, and open your business records if you claim business harm. That principle reaches beyond this case. Press freedom advocates have long worried that wealthy plaintiffs can use litigation to pressure news outlets, and discovery is where those claims get tested. If Trump’s damages claim can't survive questions under oath, the public deserves to know. If it can, he’ll have his answer too.