The BBC filed a motion on Monday, seeking to dismiss a $10 billion lawsuit filed by former President Donald Trump in a U.S. court. The British public broadcaster contended that the Florida court, where the lawsuit is being heard, does not have jurisdiction over the case. Furthermore, the BBC argued that Trump has failed to demonstrate any intent to misrepresent him.

Trump initiated the lawsuit in December, citing issues with how a BBC documentary edited a speech he delivered on January 6, 2021. The lawsuit demands $5 billion in damages for defamation and an additional $5 billion for unfair trade practices. A judge at the federal court for the Southern District of Florida has provisionally scheduled a trial date for February 2027.

The BBC's motion to dismiss asserts that the disputed documentary, titled “Trump: A Second Chance?” was never broadcast in Florida or anywhere else in the U.S. As such, the BBC challenged the jurisdiction of the Florida court. In a statement, the broadcaster said, “We have therefore challenged jurisdiction of the Florida court and filed a motion to dismiss the president’s claim.”

In its 34-page motion, the BBC further argued that Trump did not provide sufficient facts to prove that the defendants had intentionally aimed to create a false narrative. The BBC stated that Trump’s case “falls well short of the high bar of actual malice.”

The controversial documentary, aired just days before the 2024 U.S. presidential election, utilized edited quotes from Trump’s speech on January 6. The edits combined fragments from two different sections of the speech, framing it to suggest that Trump explicitly encouraged his supporters to storm the Capitol building. Notably, this editing omitted critical context, including Trump’s statements urging his supporters to demonstrate peacefully.

The chairman of the BBC has acknowledged the editing inconsistency and has expressed regret to Trump, admitting that it created “the impression of a direct call for violent action.” However, the BBC maintains its stance that it did not defame Trump, despite the uproar that followed the documentary, which ultimately led to the resignations of the BBC's top executive as well as its head of news last year.

As the case progresses, the legal arguments surrounding jurisdiction and the claims of defamation and malice will likely be examined in detail, raising significant questions about both media representation and the impact of edited content on public perception.