US judge orders Trump lawyers to explain missed deadline in $10 billion BBC defamation lawsuit
Reuters Connect//June 9, 2026//
The BBC logo outside the BBC Broadcasting House, as U.S. President Donald Trump has said he would likely sue the BBC next week for as much as $5 billion after the British broadcaster admitted it wrongly edited a video of a speech he gave, in London, Britain, November 15, 2025. REUTERS/Jack Taylor
The BBC logo outside the BBC Broadcasting House, as U.S. President Donald Trump has said he would likely sue the BBC next week for as much as $5 billion after the British broadcaster admitted it wrongly edited a video of a speech he gave, in London, Britain, November 15, 2025. REUTERS/Jack Taylor
US judge orders Trump lawyers to explain missed deadline in $10 billion BBC defamation lawsuit
Reuters Connect//June 9, 2026//
Listen to this article(Reuters) – A Miami federal judge on Monday ordered Donald Trump’s lawyers to explain why they should not be penalized for missing a Friday deadline to respond to the BBC’s motion to dismiss the U.S. president’s $10 billion defamation lawsuit over a misleadingly edited clip of a speech.
Trump’s lawyers missed the deadline to respond to the BBC’s motion to dismiss the case, and on Monday U.S. District Judge Roy Altman directed them to explain why they should not be penalized for their “apparent disregard of court deadlines.” A representative for Trump’s lawyers did not immediately respond to a request for comment Monday.
Trump’s lawsuit accuses Britain’s publicly owned broadcaster of intentionally editing together different parts of a speech to make it appear he directed supporters to storm the U.S. Capitol after his loss in the 2020 presidential election.
The BBC previously apologized to Trump, admitted an error of judgment and acknowledged that the edit gave the mistaken impression that he had made a direct call for violent action.
The BBC said in a March court filing that the case should be dismissed because Trump had not plausibly alleged the BBC knowingly published false information or recklessly disregarded the truth.
Related Content
Case Digests
- Fourth Department – Election Law: Torres v. Zellner
- Second Circuit – Bankruptcy proceedings: Ryniker v. Sumec Textile Co.
- Court of Appeals – Murder: People v. Harris
- Court of Appeals – Justice for Injured Workers Act: Garcia v. Monadnock Construction Inc., et al.
- Second Circuit – Bankruptcy proceedings: Ryniker v. Sumec Textile Co.
- Fourth Department – Family Court: Werner v. Kenney
- Second Circuit – Appellate counsel: United States v. Samuels
- Fourth Department – Pre-answer motion to dismiss: Villalba v. City of Auburn, et al.
- Court of Appeals – Office of Children and Family Services: Lawyers for Children, et al. v. NYS Office of Children and Family Services, et a.
- Fourth Department – Assault: People v. Talley
- Court of Appeals – Family Court Act: Abdoch v. Abdoch
Law News
- Attorneys presented with Dillon Awards for child advocacy
- NY appeals court upholds tax exempt status for human service agency
- Convictions reversed over illegal NY State Police search
- President’s message: A view from the 18th tee or the 4th green
- NY judge rejects motion to collect on Iowa court judgment
- Bronx prosecutor misses filing deadline by 12 seconds
- Second-degree murder count reversed, leaving first-degree conviction
- Court of Appeals ends foster care program
Polls
Loading ...