United States President Donald Trump must answer questions under oath in the discovery stage of his $10bn lawsuit against the BBC, a federal judge has ruled, warning that failure to cooperate could lead to the dismissal of his case. The dispute centres on a BBC documentary which combined separate excerpts from a speech he gave before the January 6, 2021 attack on the US Capitol. The broadcaster has apologised for the edit but denies that Trump has grounds for a defamation claim.
Here is what the ruling means and how the case reached this point. Trump has been ordered to make himself available for questioning by the BBC’s lawyers by December 11, unless the judge overseeing the case extends the time frame for gathering evidence. That process is currently scheduled to end on December 18.
The ruling comes after the president’s legal team sought to postpone questioning until January. Judge Enjolique Lett also rejected his lawyers’ attempt to prevent the session from being filmed. Access to the recording will initially be restricted to lawyers involved in the case.
Separately, she gave Trump’s side 30 days to hand over relevant documents requested by the BBC. A deposition is a formal interview under oath, usually conducted outside the courtroom before a trial. Lawyers question a witness and the answers are recorded in a transcript.
The testimony can later be used in court, including to challenge a witness whose account changes. It forms part of “discovery” – the stage of a US civil lawsuit in which both sides are given time to obtain relevant evidence through examining documents, submitting written questions and taking witness testimony. The process allows each side to examine the other’s claims and prepare its case.
Trump’s deposition is expected to last up to seven hours. Trump filed his lawsuit against the British broadcaster in federal court in Florida on December 15, 2025, over a Panorama documentary which was broadcast shortly before the 2024 US presidential election. His complaint seeks at least $5bn for alleged defamation and another $5bn for alleged violations of Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act.
Extract — continue reading at the source.
