Trump Urges Court to Block BBC Subpoenas in $10 Billion Defamation Fight

President Donald Trump is asking a federal court to reject the BBC’s effort to obtain testimony and documents from his children and son-in-law as the legal battle over a $10 billion defamation lawsuit intensifies.

Trump’s lawyers argue that the BBC’s attempt to subpoena Ivanka Trump, Jared Kushner and Donald Trump Jr. is politically motivated and represents an effort to gain leverage in the case. The BBC has asked the court for permission to serve the subpoenas by certified mail after attempts to deliver them personally were unsuccessful.

The dispute stems from a BBC documentary that edited portions of Trump’s Jan. 6, 2021, speech in a way the president says falsely portrayed his remarks. Trump’s lawsuit alleges the broadcaster deliberately spliced together separate sections of the speech and used the resulting edit to misrepresent his words shortly before the 2024 presidential election.

The BBC has apologized for the misleading edit but continues to deny that it defamed Trump.

The case is now before U.S. District Judge Jeffrey Kuntz in Miami, who was nominated by Trump and recently inherited the lawsuit. The previous judge had set a February trial date.

At the center of the latest dispute is how far the BBC can go in seeking evidence from members of Trump’s family. Trump’s attorneys say the broadcaster’s discovery efforts are overly broad and politically driven, while the BBC is seeking testimony it considers relevant to its defense.

The legal fight adds another layer to the continuing political and media battles surrounding Trump’s account of the events of Jan. 6. The lawsuit argues that the BBC’s documentary was released shortly before the 2024 election in an attempt to influence voters against Trump.

For now, the court has not ruled on whether the BBC will be allowed to serve the subpoenas by certified mail. The decision could determine whether Trump’s family members become part of the evidence-gathering process ahead of next year’s trial.

The case also highlights the continuing consequences of the Jan. 6 speech, with questions over media editing, political reporting, defamation law and presidential speech now converging in a high-stakes courtroom battle.