Trump, the BBC, and the $1bn threat

Summary

---

Fame Under Fire

Episode: Trump, the BBC, and the $1bn Threat
Host: Anushka Mutanda-Dougherty (BBC Sounds)
Guest: Sean Kent (Resident Trial Attorney)
Date Recorded: November 12, 2025
Date Released: November 13, 2025

---

Overview

In this episode of “Fame Under Fire,” host Anushka Mutanda-Dougherty explores the BBC’s most explosive crisis in decades: the sudden resignation of its Director General and Head of News, accusations of institutional bias, and President Donald Trump’s public threat to sue the BBC for a staggering $1 billion. With legal insight from trial attorney Sean Kent, the episode dissects the underlying journalism controversy, the meaning of impartiality, and the chilling effect of massive, public legal threats on press freedom.

---

Main Discussion Points & Insights

1. The BBC in Crisis: Leadership Shake-Up and Allegations

[01:09–02:32]

• Tim Davie (Director General) and Deborah Turnis (Head of News) abruptly resigned, citing “personal and professional pressures.”
• Their resignations follow mounting criticisms of BBC impartiality and a string of recent controversies, dubbed “the summer of scandal” by the media.
  • Example issues: Gary Lineker’s sudden departure after controversial social posts; a documentary pulled over hidden bias; legal action from former presenter Greg Wallace for data mishandling and misconduct dismissal.

2. The Trump $1 Billion Threat: What Happened?

[02:32–05:22]

• President Trump accuses the BBC’s “Panorama: Trump A Second Chance” documentary (broadcast 28 Oct 2024) of maliciously editing his January 6th, 2021 speech to make it sound like he incited the Capitol riots.
  • Actual speech: “We’re going to walk down to the Capitol and cheer on our brave senators.”
  • Edited version: “We’re going to walk down to the Capitol and I’ll be there with you. And we fight. We fight like hell.” (Sections were actually 50+ minutes apart.)
• Trump announced on Fox News his intent to sue the BBC for $1 billion in damages, citing “dishonest” editing and institutional bias.

“They actually changed my January 6th speech, which was a beautiful speech, which was a very calming speech, and they made it sound radical… What they did was rather incredible.”
– Donald Trump, [03:49]

3. How Big Is the Fallout—UK vs. US Perspectives

[04:22–05:22]

• In the US, Trump’s threats are seen as yet another litigious action (“Donald Trump suing someone again”), lacking the shock value evident in UK discourse.
• Sean Kent: “Everybody universally agrees he probably is the most litigious president that we have ever had… Once you have sued just about everybody, it kind of loses its fervor.”

4. The Impartiality Debate: What Does It Mean for Journalism?

[05:22–09:36]

• BBC is supposed to reflect all strands of public debate rigorously and impartially.
• Anushka uses the previous Diddy trial coverage as a positive example—bringing in defense perspectives, not assuming guilt before trial.
• Sean notes American news is openly partisan, but “the BBC is held up as a gold-standard for impartiality. When things like this happen, you’re just like, ‘Ah, crap, here we go again.’”

5. Legal Mechanics: The Anatomy and Impact of Trump’s Demand Letter

[09:36–12:30]

• Trump’s letter to the BBC Chair is a standard “demand letter”: laying out three demands—retract, apologize, compensate—or face a billion-dollar suit.
• Such letters are typically private and used to prompt settlement, make positions clear, and avoid burdening court systems.

“The point of that demand letter is, you called it—it is a threat. It is a very carefully crafted political public stunt utilizing… President Trump’s authority.”
– Sean Kent, [12:30]

6. Is Trump's Public Lawsuit Threat Normal?

[12:30–13:41]

• Publicizing a demand letter is unusual; normally handled confidentially for maximum negotiation leverage.
• In this case, it’s “flexing” and intended as a public spectacle to influence reputation and possibly chill future reporting.

7. Can Trump Win a Billion-Dollar Defamation Case?

[13:41–18:40]

• Anushka and Sean recap US defamation law: For public figures, plaintiff must prove “actual malice” (knew it was false, or reckless disregard for truth).
• Sean: Trump may have a technical case due to the BBC’s edit and apology, but the claim is not necessarily winnable. The bar for “actual malice” is high.
• Damages are a massive hurdle: Since Trump won the election anyway, showing $1 billion in harm is “absolutely ridiculous.”

“How is the President going to say that I am damaged? The BBC ruined my opportunity to become president and I became president.”
– Sean Kent, [18:40]

8. Jurisdiction, Process, and Why This Lawsuit is Unlikely

[20:07–21:37]

• Statute of limitations stricter in the UK than Florida; Trump likely targets Florida for favorable timing and potential outcomes.
• The public letter undermines arguments for genuine mediation, but courts won’t care much; public stunts are legally permissible.
• Discovery risk: If Trump sued and BBC defended, broad discovery rights mean Trump could be deposed—a scenario highly unlikely for a sitting president.

“A sitting president sitting for a deposition… I think about zero percent.”
– Sean Kent, [22:26]

9. Precedent and Press Freedom Fears

[23:28–27:24]

• A Trump win wouldn’t set sweeping precedent but could embolden future strategic lawsuits to intimidate media.
• The real threat is a “chilling effect”: Worry over lawsuits may cause newsrooms to self-censor.
• Sean: “I am worried… are we chilling the actual right to freedom of the press? …If someone has threatened a $1 billion lawsuit, are you a little tenuous about your reporting?”

10. Responses from Key Players

[27:29–28:55]

• Trump: Insists BBC “butchered” his words, justifies lawsuit to prevent similar “dishonest” acts.
• Deborah Turnis (ex-Head of News): Resigned, takes responsibility but denies institutional bias.
• Tim Davie (ex-Director General): Expresses pride in BBC’s global trust and quality despite issues.
• Samir Shah (BBC Chair): Apologizes for error of judgment in the documentary but asserts there is no systemic bias.

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On US public reaction:
  “Not no, but hell no. Zero clue who that is.”
  — Sean Kent, on recognition of the BBC Director General in South Carolina [02:03]
• On the value of impartial journalism:
  “I enjoyed some of the BBC broadcasting… it is supposed to be Joe Friday: ‘Just the facts, ma'am.’”
  — Sean Kent [07:14]
• On the legal bar for defamation:
  “You’ve got to prove actual malice. You have to prove that you said something knowing it was false or recklessly disregarded the fact that it could be false and stated it as the truth anyway.”
  — Anushka Mutanda-Dougherty [14:10]
• On damages claim:
  “Give me a gazillion dollars if we’re just on random numbers. The biggest defamation case in history… was $1.44 billion. That is an outlier.”
  — Sean Kent [18:40]
• On chilling press freedom:
  “Are we chilling the actual right to freedom of the press? … That’s what I’m fearful of, is… the chilling of the press’s ability to say, ‘we don’t give a damn, we’re going to do what we want.’”
  — Sean Kent [27:24]

---

Key Timestamps

• 01:09: Episode and context introduction
• 02:32: Quick montage of recent BBC controversies
• 03:49: Trump’s Fox News interview and lawsuit declaration
• 05:22: Panorama documentary breakdown and detailed case timeline
• 08:00: Explanation of impartiality, referencing previous Diddy trial coverage
• 09:36: Legal explanation of Trump’s threat letter (demand letter)
• 12:30: Discussion of publicity in legal threats
• 13:41: Analysis of Trump’s defamation case prospects
• 18:40: Plausibility of proving actual damages
• 20:07: Jurisdiction and procedural hurdles
• 22:26: On the likelihood of presidential depositions
• 23:28: Will this set legal precedent?
• 26:08: Broader fears about press freedom
• 27:29: Official responses from Trump, Turnis, Davie, Shah

---

Tone and Style

The discussion is sharp, informal, yet deeply analytical; Anushka’s curiosity and legal fascination balance Sean’s candid Southern lawyer wisdom. The banter is lively (with quips about “gazillion” dollar lawsuits and gold star journalism), yet never distracts from the episode’s sobering theme: when leaders and institutions collide in the age of media scrutiny and legal brinkmanship, truth, impartiality, and press freedom are on the line.

---

Final Thoughts

This episode offers rare, clear-eyed insight into the high-stakes interplay of politics, journalism, and law—reminding listeners how quickly trust in powerful institutions can be shaken, and why defending rigorously impartial news (even when it falters) matters more than ever.

Transcript

[Sean Kent]

This BBC podcast is supported by ads outside the uk.

[Ad Voice]

What do you think makes the perfect snack?

[Sean Kent]

Hmm, it's gotta be when I'm really craving it and it's convenient.

[Ad Voice]

Could you be more specific?

[Sean Kent]

When it's cravinient.

[Anushka Mutandadawati]

Okay.

[Sean Kent]

Like a freshly baked cookie made with real butter, available right down the street at am, pm. Or a savory breakfast sandwich I can grab in just a second at a.m. pM.

[Ad Voice]

I'm seeing a pattern here.

[Sean Kent]

Well, yeah, we're talking about what I.

[Ad Voice]

Crave, which is anything from am, pm.

[Sean Kent]

What more could you want? Stop by AM pm where the snacks and drinks are perfectly craveable and convenient. That's Cravenians ampm.

[Ad Voice]

Too much Good stuff.

This is the story of the One As a custodial supervisor at a high school, he knows that during cold and flu season, germs spread fast. It's why he partners with Grainger to stay fully stocked on the products and supplies he needs, from tissues to disinfectants to floor scrubbers, all so that he can help students, staff and teachers stay healthy and focused. Call 1-800-GRAINGER Click grainger.com or just stop by Granger for the ones who get it done.

[Anushka Mutandadawati]

Hello and welcome back to Fame Under Fire from BBC Sounds with me, Anushka Matandadowty. Now, I want to say first, I'm going to timestamp this. We're recording this on Wednesday 12th November. It's a pretty fast moving story. So I'm not sure what's going to happen in the next couple of days. But right now I am joined by our resident trial attorney, Sean Kent, all the way from South Carolina. Shawn, this week we're renaming the program to BBC Under Fire. And just a warning, this episode may contain language. Sean, you kind of know this, we've spoken about it a little bit. But Sean, Last Sunday, the BBC's Big Boss, director General Tim Davy and Head of News Deborah Teness, they up and quit on a Sunday evening. On top of that, the BBC has been accused of having institutional bias. And then to top it off, President Donald Trump is threatening to sue for $1 billion. That's B with a billion. Sean, just out of, like, interest in South Carolina, if I say Director General, do you know who that is? Like, well, that means for the BBC.

[Sean Kent]

Not no, but hell no. Zero clue who that is.

[Anushka Mutandadawati]

So the dg, the DG is the chief executive and editor in chief of the BBC. Now, he said it was completely his choice to go, so he wasn't forced out and cited personal and professional pressures of the job. I've got a little clip here.

[Sean Kent]

I think we've got to fight for our journalism. I'm really proud of our work and the amazing work locally, globally that we're.

[Anushka Mutandadawati]

Doing is doing utterly precious.

[Sean Kent]

We have made some mistakes that have cost us, but we need to fight for that and I'm fiercely proud of that.

[Anushka Mutandadawati]

Now, I think it's really important to make clear, and I'm not sure if you know this either, but this isn't the first issue that there has been. And it's not just the BBC's journalism that has been under fire in recent years. An emotional farewell as Gary Lineker presents his final match of the day. He leaves the BBC earlier than planned following controversial social media posts. The documentary was pulled from the iplayer in February because it would emerge that the 13 year old narrator was the son of a hamas official. Former MasterChef presenter Greg Wallace is launching legal action against the BBC over a data protection claim. High court documents show the case has been filed, but no further details have yet been made public. Wallace was sacked in July after a report upheld more than 40 allegations about his conduct on Mastershire. His representatives have been approached for comment. So you heard there in a bit of a montage of some of the issues now, the media term this the summer of scandal, but last time I checked, we're in November and we have another issue. The sitting President of the United States of America, your commander in chief, has sent a letter indicating that he might sue the BBC over a defamation claim and he's explained why to Fox News.

[Sean Kent]

They actually changed my January 6th speech, which was a beautiful speech, which was a very calming speech, and they made it sound radical and they actually changed it. What they did was rather incredible. They're showing me the results later on, the results of what they did, how they butchered it up. But it was very dishonest. And the head man quit and a lot of the other people. We're actually going to play it. But tonight you are saying to our viewers that you will go forward and file a defamation lawsuit against the BBC. Well, I think I have an obligation to do it because you can't get people, you can't allow people to do that.

[Anushka Mutandadawati]

I mean, we hear in that clip he says the head man quit and a lot of the other people quit. We've had two people resign. That's the Director General, Tim Dan, Tim Davy, and the Head of News, Deborah Turner. This institution, the BBC, has been going for a really long time and this is seismic. That's the way they've referred to it. But, Sean, you're in South Carolina. How much of why Trump is pissed off has made its way organically over to you? Not through conversations with me.

[Sean Kent]

It's out there, people are talking about it. But not to the level that you would think. It would be more akin of Donald Trump is suing somebody again, as opposed to, my God, can you believe that Donald Trump is suing the BBC because whether you like him, don't like him, voted for him, not voted for him, everybody universally agrees he probably is the most litigious president that we have ever had. And so at a point in time, once you have sued just about everybody, it kind of loses its fervor. So people are talking about it, but not to the level that you guys would be talking about over there.

[Anushka Mutandadawati]

So perhaps the details of what actually happened are a bit lost. Let's just walk through them. Okay, so we have a Panorama documentary, Trump A Second Chance, which was broadcast in the UK on 28 October 2024, just days before the US presidential election. Now, the program edited a Trump speech together and he appeared to explicitly encourage the Capitol hill riots of January 2021. In Trump's speech on 6 January, he said, we're going to walk down to the Capitol and we're going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women. In the Panorama program, he was shown saying, we're going to walk down to the Capitol and I'll be there with you. And we fight. We fight like hell. The two sections that were stitched together were originally more than 50 minutes apart. Now, although the documentary aired last year, the criticisms of it were exposed in a leaked memo published in the Telegraph newspaper last week. The memo was written by ex journalist Michael Prescot was an adviser to the BBC on how it could uphold its impartiality and editorial rules. He said this and other failings revealed institutional bias. For example, he said the BBC often published stories celebrating the trans experience without adequate balance of objectivity. He said there was anti Israel bias in BBC Arabic coverage. Now, the BBC chair, Samir Shah accepted a quote, error of judgment had been made on the Trump documentary. I know you have feelings about that, Sean. We're going to get into your feelings up. He added, it was simply not true. The corporation had done nothing to tackle problems. Now, this is big. This is big. This is a big thing because the BBC's output has to be both impartial and accurate. When we are talking about the impartiality, do you Think that's broadly understood what's meant there. I mean, do you. I know you're a lawyer, so you understand what I'm saying, but do you get, like, how it applies to all of the news?

[Sean Kent]

Well, I get how it's supposed to, but let's not forget the news that we see in America is slanted. Anybody will tell you that. We have Fox News, we have CNN News, and everybody knows in America there's certain news stations you watch if you support a Republican agenda, and there's certain news stations you watch if you support a Democratic agenda. So it is supposed to be fair, it is supposed to be impartial. It's not. That's one of the things that we sometimes have trouble with journalism in America is that we have the slant. That's one of the reasons you and I have been talking about is forever, that I enjoyed some of the BBC broadcasting, because I would say that it is supposed to be. And you uphold the tenets that I believe in journalism, that it is Joe Friday. Just the facts, ma'. Am. Just the facts. And so when things like this happen, you're just like, ah, crap, here we go again.

[Anushka Mutandadawati]

Yeah. So impartiality, it means not taking sides, reflecting all relevant strands of public debate and challenging them with consistent rigor. And I think let's walk through this with Diddy. Let's think about how we did it on that, because we did it all the time. It every episode after the federal government released the indictment where they accused him of sex trafficking, transportation for prostitution and racketeering with conspiracy. Some super, super serious charges there that could lead up to life in prison. A lot of the reaction, and I think one of the first things we spoke to you about was, well, doesn't it mean that he's definitely guilty? Because that's a federal indictment from the United States of America. It's got that heft, that weight behind it. Now, if I got on the podcast and said basically that this is from the feds, you know, the prosecutors in the sdny, the Southern District of New York, they have a really, really high conviction rate. So he's obviously guilty and they're probably going to get him, that view would be partial rather than impartial, as it would favor one side over the other. Having you on the program was a decision as a criminal defense attorney explaining how a federal indictment is just a list of allegations that the prosecution absolutely have to litigate in court and prove, and that Diddy, at the same time was still innocent until proven guilty. Having that pushback from you repeatedly. That was impartiality in that matter. That's how it plays out in like real terms. And I think it's good to go through it like that. I mean, it always helped me to go through things like that. But obviously, Sean, let's get into the legals of this. We've got Donald Trump, President Donald Trump, threatening to sue the BBC. You know that he sent a letter to the chair of the board. Is that demand letter?

[Sean Kent]

That is you. I get so excited 100%. That is just a demand letter. That is just. You can call it a threat, you can call it what it want, but it is basically a letter to you saying do blank so that we don't go into a lawsuit. Demand levers are prevalent. That's what happened. This is a proper demand letter.

[Anushka Mutandadawati]

A demand letters, that's like typical practice.

[Sean Kent]

In some situations are almost required. Some states there's sort of like send a demand first. Because what we don't want is we don't want our court systems burdened with cases that just can be worked out. And so a lot of times we try to work these things out via demand letters so both sides know where they are, so they're not surprised by a lawsuit.

[Anushka Mutandadawati]

So part of the function of a demand letter is potential mediation.

[Sean Kent]

I love these phrases. Absolutely. Because again, our court systems are when I say backed up. And there are cases still going on pre Covid that were filed and brought pre Covid. And so what the court doesn't want is Mr. Trump files a lawsuit today. This ain't going to be heard for three and four years. The problem with waiting for three and four years to hear cases is, as you now know, people get fired, people quit, people don't participate, people die, evidence disappears. So we want cases to go quickly and that just can't happen. So that's why we have demand letters. That's why we have mediation, so we can make the system move faster.

[Anushka Mutandadawati]

Well, there you say he sent a typical demand letter. He's laid down an ultimatum with three key demands for the BBC Immediately issue a full and fair retraction of the documentary and all and any other false, defamatory, disparaging, misleading and inflammatory statements about President Trump in as conspiracy conspicuous a manner as they were originally published. Immediately issue an apology for the false, defamatory, disparaging, misleading and inflammatory statements about President Trump. Appropriately compensate President Trump for the harmed caused. Now it reads, if the BBC does not comply with the above by November 14, 2025 at 5:00pm EST, President Trump will be Left with no alternative but to enforce his legal and equitable rights, all of which are expressly reserved and are not waived, including by filing legal action for no less than $1 billion in damages. The BBC is notice firstly, the expressly reserved and not waived. What does that actually mean?

[Sean Kent]

All he is just saying is, all things are on board. I can sue you for anything I want. You either do what I want or don't take this letter to mean. This is the only thing that I can sue you for. All this letter is putting you on notice is that I can file suit. And there might be stuff that's not even contemplating this letter that I'm not telling you about. So don't just go later and say, but you only said this in the letter. All the letter is saying is, I got a bunch of stuff I possibly could sue you for.

[Anushka Mutandadawati]

Now, in terms of the BBC's response, BBC chair Sameer Shah said the BBC was considering how to respond to the legal threat. A BBC spokesperson said the broadcaster would, quote, respond directly in due course. We spoke about the demand letter being kind of a typical thing that happens. Is it common for it to be so public?

[Sean Kent]

No, absolutely not. That's ridiculous. The point of that demand letter is. You called it. It is a threat. It is a very carefully crafted political public stunt utilizing to basically flex the authority and power of President Trump. Because usually when we send demand letters, and you and I have talked about a lot of them, if you look at the. The Jay Z situation, the Diddy situation, a lot of these lawsuits, these demands are sent privately and said, look, let's settle this quietly. Nobody will know about it. Give me the money, and we won't have to worry about your reputation. When you send something out so publicly, you're saying, I want the world to know that I'm coming after you. And that's a different reason why you send demand letters. So, no, normally we don't send them to the papers, anything of that nature. We send it privately to the other party. We let them know what they're looking at so they can settle it privately. Because, Anushka, one of the great things about demand letters, the strength of a demand letter, is it helps your bargaining strength because you're saying, you don't want this to get out here. So since you don't want that to get out, pay me. So nobody in the world knows about it, and this letter does the opposite.

[Anushka Mutandadawati]

We're talking about defamation again. I feel like we talk about defamation a lot, but I'm gonna call you.

[Sean Kent]

As my Expert on defamation. You've talked about it more than anybody.

[Anushka Mutandadawati]

I would say you have to pay me a lot, but you don't. I just enjoy this.

[Sean Kent]

I'll give you $1 billion.

[Anushka Mutandadawati]

Defamation. What do we talk about? We've spoken about this so many times. Let's think about the Macrons episode that we did when you are alleging defamation of a public figure in the United States of America. I feel like we're doing revision here. The bar is, come on, you gotta give it to me. You have to prove actual malice. You have to prove that you said something knowing it was false or recklessly disregarded the fact that it could be false and stated it as the truth anyway. Do you think that he has a legal leg to stand on in terms of claiming defamation?

[Sean Kent]

It is going to be so hard to make a claim that it was not done with actual malice when you put together one who he is to the stuff that he has said. 3. The edit, the problem that he has had with the January 6 riots, and the most important part, the damn apology that you guys sent out. I think he 100% has a leg to stand on as far as actual malice and defamation. Now that doesn't take us to the rest of the stuff that you need for a lawsuit. But I think he does have a leg. I didn't say he's gonna win. He has a leg to stand on.

[Ad Voice]

What do you think makes the perfect snack?

[Sean Kent]

Hmm, it's gotta be when I'm really craving it and it's convenient.

[Ad Voice]

Could you be more specific?

[Sean Kent]

When it's cravenient. Okay, like a freshly baked cookie made with real butter, available right down the street at a.m. p.m. Or a savory breakfast sandwich I can grab in just a second at a.m. pM.

[Ad Voice]

I'm seeing a pattern here.

[Sean Kent]

Well, yeah, we're talking about what I.

[Ad Voice]

Crave, which is anything from AM pm.

[Sean Kent]

What more could you want? Stop by ampm where the snacks and drinks are perfectly craveable and convenient. That's cravenience ampm. Too much good stuff.

[Ad Voice]

This is the story of the One as head of maintenance at a concert hall, he knows the show must always go on. That's why he works behind the scenes, ensuring every light is working, the H Vac is humming, and his facility shines with Granger's supplies and solutions for every challenge he faces. Plus 24. 7 customer support. His venue never misses a beat. Call quickgranger.com or just stop by Granger for the ones who get it done.

[Anushka Mutandadawati]

Okay, but the BBC have said that mistakes were made. The Use of the word mistake, doesn't that offer up a level of protection? Because if it was a true and honest mistake, journalistic mistake, aren't they then protected by New York versus Sullivan and. And if so, oh, I love it. I'm getting so excited.

[Sean Kent]

Yes.

[Anushka Mutandadawati]

I'm getting so excited I'm going to get a gold sticker. Can you explain that and explain am I right or am I wrong?

[Sean Kent]

You are spot on. Of course, Donald Trump, because he is a public figure, is held to a higher standard when he's accusing someone of a defamatory act. Because by way of being the President of the United States, everybody look at any comedian, look at any satire. People talk trash about the president all the time. It comes with the office. And so you cannot be thin skinned to be a public official. And so in that vein, people are going to say things and mistakes are going to be made. That's why there's such that high standard. And so for him to prevail, he's going to have to say, one, it was done, which it was, check. Two, it was done with actual malice. The person who did this did this specifically to hurt Donald Trump. That's going to be a high bar to prove, especially when we come back and say, look, this was simply a mistake. We regret what has happened. Now, mind you, that's just your defense. He's going to say something completely otherwise. And that's when depositions go back and forth. People are going to be asked questions, why did you do this? Why would you have done that? Why would you splice this? It's going to be interesting. But yes, it is such a high bar for someone to prove actual malice, that someone did something specifically with an intent to hurt. What makes this case interesting, Anushka, is his theory in a weird way makes sense. He's almost saying, you guys were trying to hurt me, you don't want me to be president or something of that nature. And that's why he would have done it. And that's what gets us to the last part of it, that he's going to have trouble with the damages and all the other situations.

[Anushka Mutandadawati]

Well, I was just about to say that because he goes on to become president. So in terms of proving damages, we have to prove what you say, cognizable damages. I mean, it's not going to be in this case. I don't think it will be. This caused me emotional distress and I had to go to a therapist and here's my therapy bills. But it would be reputational harm and, or influencing the election, which he won, which went in, in his direction. So doesn't that, that damages his damages?

[Sean Kent]

You hit it spot on. So even though I said there's a leg to stand on, you have to go to the other part. And let's make this clear. And I want to explain a couple of things. People here and you and I've talked about this. Just because a lawyer throws a number in a lawsuit or a demand letter doesn't mean that that's what the case is worth. Just because you throw this random. I give, give me $1 billion. Okay. Give me a gazillion dollars if we're just on random numbers. The biggest defamation case in history is the one that recently happened involving the Sandy Huck shooting and so forth. And that was for $1.44 billion. That's the biggest in history. That is an outlier for defamation cases usually. I mean, the highest I've ever seen is like 750 million, 740 million. And I think in London, I think it's like 1.5 million or something, or pounds or whatever the hell y' all call it. This billion number is so arbitrary, it's absolutely ridiculous. And two, how is the President going to say that I am damaged? The BBC ruined my opportunity to become president and I became president. I just don't see a billion dollars worth of damage. There might be damages, there might be reputational damages, but if we do it even more simply, by definition, more than half of the United States voted for him to be president, which means more than half of the United States don't give a damn about what the BBC said about him dealing with the January 6th situation. So it is going to be difficult for him to get in front of a jury and say, you have damaged me to the tune of $1 billion.

[Anushka Mutandadawati]

Jurisdictionally. There's a question there as well. He couldn't raise a lawsuit in the UK because it's outside of the statute for information. It's a. Yeah, yeah, you guys have a one year statute, but in Florida it's. Yeah, what's going on? You're coming over here. You seem to come.

[Sean Kent]

Two years, two years in Florida.

[Anushka Mutandadawati]

Two years in Florida. So, I mean, the question asked, question answered, why raise it in Florida? Because you, you have a longer amount of time to raise it. So what makes this tricky for him is damages. Could the fact that the letter was sent so publicly could, if this went to court, could the BBC. This man had no intention of mediation. This is a publicity stunt. Look at what he did here. And could that weaken his case.

[Sean Kent]

They can argue it. It won't work. We hear that all the time. People say that stuff all the time. And the court's gonna say they have a right. You as a plaintiff, have the right to do it however you wanna do your lawsuit. You wanna send a demand and let the world know. Let the world know. I mean, you're in journalism. Think about it. How many times do we get tipped off about lawsuits or things of that nature? This happens all the time. He just happened to let the world know what he was doing. There's nothing wrong with it, especially if this is part of his strategy. And his strategy is put the world on notice that he's mad at the BBC. Maybe his strategy is to say the BBC is not as fair and impartial as they attempt to be. I don't know. But he clearly has some strategy that he's seeming to employ and ain't gonna get him a billion dollars unless for some reason y' all write a billion dollar check. And if y' all do, can I get a billion dollars? I like a billion dollars. BBC. I am offended. I would like a billion dollars. Because if y' all just giving money out, I'm gonna send a threatening letter.

[Anushka Mutandadawati]

This is not the first time Trump sued a news organization. Lots have settled in the United States. Is there any legal jeopardy if this goes to trial for Donald Trump?

[Sean Kent]

What do you mean? Like, is. Does he face anything that could get him in trouble?

[Anushka Mutandadawati]

Well, I'm thinking there about discovery.

[Sean Kent]

Oh, absolutely. Let's make that per. That is such a great question. And this is never going to go to a lawsuit. You hit it head on. If you dig into a lot of these situations and a lot of these quote unquote settlements, and then later there is a murder and acquisition of these companies and things of that nature, that almost always happens. But yeah, if you guys fight back, if you say, no, we're not going to be bullied, and you force him to sit to depositions, could just remind.

[Anushka Mutandadawati]

Everybody discovery what that entails in the u. Like it's open season, kind of open.

[Sean Kent]

Season in discovery as a plaintiff, which say whatever you want. President Donald J. Trump is threatening to sue. So let's say we take it six months down the road and he files his lawsuit. When you file a lawsuit, period, you are saying, ask me anything. And so he sits down in a chair and he is allowed to be asked anything. A sitting president sitting for a deposition would the Secret Service. You ain't sitting for a deposition. You have too many secrets, too Many things that we don't want them to ask you about. And in a defamation case, people are like, well, things would be limited, a defamation case. You're saying, these things have hurt my reputation. So a crafty lawyer could be like, look, I want to ask about anything about his reputation. I want to ask about his threats with other countries. I want to ask about the war in Ukraine. I want to ask about his relationship with Putin. All of these things come in because you want to talk about his reputation. So, yeah, the odds of this sitting for a deposition, I think about zero percent.

[Anushka Mutandadawati]

Okay. But given the fact that he's sued a lot of other news organizations in the US and he's now threatening to sue the BBC, say if he did that and he won, what kind of a precedent would that set in civil courts? Would it set a precedent?

[Sean Kent]

I don't think it sets any precedents whatsoever. I think it just flat out hits our defamation laws. I think it holds journalists to a much higher standard, which I believe they should be held to a higher neutral standard. So I don't think it sets any precedent. As a matter of fact, I think it does the opposite. I think it shows that the law.

[Anushka Mutandadawati]

Works when it comes to the resignations of Deborah Teness and Tim Davy. They resigned before Trump threatened to sue. He sent that letter. Is that important? Do you find that important?

[Sean Kent]

I actually do. I did not realize that. And so there could be a situation which that could be used now, because if he resigned, if they resign unrelated, he can. You can almost make a claim and a nuance for anything. So you can make the argument that the resignation was based upon a categorical history of doing stupid stuff at the BBC and they knew that the problems that they were making were reaching this boiling point. And so he can say that you can make a claim now like you can say they resigned and it had nothing to do with the lawsuit. It had everything to do with the fact that y' all just keep messing up would be his argument. And then my argument would be, if I was representing BBC, this has nothing to do with anything is exactly what they said. And this is probably stronger for the BBC. We are internally trying to fix the mistakes that have been made. This has nothing to do with Mr. Trump's threats. We as an organization want to be neutral and detached, and as a result, from the problem starts at the top. And so we have to fix these problems. And he had nothing to do with us trying to fix our internal mistakes.

[Anushka Mutandadawati]

Yeah, well, right now, when we're recording this, the BBC chair Samir Shah said the BBC was considering how to respond to the legal threat. A BBC spokesperson said the broad broadcaster would respond directly in due course. You've just told us what you think would be the best thing to say. But I think there's a broader question here about freedom of the press, which is constitutionally enshrined in the United States of America. He sued several news organizations that have settled. He's now attempting to sue an outside news organization. We have a potential merger of CBS and cnn, which would put them both under the control of Larry Ellison. And he's friendly with Trump. So the two, two big dog news organizations could potentially become under the control of, like, one family that has positive relations with Trump. He could potentially sue one of the biggest news organizations in the world in the BBC, I guess, maybe. As an American citizen, are you worried about freedom of the press?

[Sean Kent]

Absolutely. And the reason I am worried is, and it's very funny, the settlements are what scares me, Anoushka, not the fact that these cases are going to trial. I would prefer if they went to trial, because I would prefer that if it's an open trial, that people challenge and challenge the rights. Because I, the lawyer in me applauds Donald Trump because what he is doing is he threatens a lawsuit. He says, I'm going to sue you for $16 million, and people give him money. It's a dream scenario. No one ever challenges and forces these cases that go to court. And so as an American, as just a human being, it's just like, are we chilling the actual right to freedom of the press? Because if I am a press agency, if I am the BBC and someone has threatened a $1 billion lawsuit, and then there is some beat reporter sitting there saying, hey, I've got this story on Donald Trump that he is doing X, or I've got a story on Donald Trump about Epstein. Are you a little tenuous about your reporting? Because we might get sued and I might get fired. That's what I'm fearful of, is the chilling of the press's ability to say, we don't give a damn. We're going to do what we want. That's my fear as an American, as a citizen who loves the Constitution, that we are slowly chilling our freedom of speech.

[Anushka Mutandadawati]

Sean, thank you so much for joining us today.

[Sean Kent]

Thank you so much for having me. I appreciate you.

[Anushka Mutandadawati]

That was our resident trial attorney, Sean Kent, joining us from South Carolina. Now, in the interest of fairness and impartiality, we have the responses from Trump and Deborah Turnis. Trump says they actually changed my January 6th speech, which was a beautiful speech, which was very calming, and they made it sound radical and they actually changed it. What they did was rather incredible. They showed me the results later on, the results of what they did, how they butchered it up, but it was very dishonest. And then the headman quit and a lot of other people. Trump goes on to say, I think I have an obligation to do it, it being, you know, file the lawsuit because you can't allow people to do that. And from Deborah Tennis, who is the outgoing CEO of News. She said she took the difficult decision to resign because, quote, work stops with me. She added, while mistakes have been made, I want to be absolutely clear, recent allegations that BBC News is institutionally biased are wrong. Now, in his letter to staff, Tim Davy, who's the outgoing director general, said he was, quote, proud that the BBC remains the most trusted news brand globally. And he added, despite the inevitable issues and challenges, our journalism and quality content continues to be admired as a gold standard. On Monday, BBC chair Samir Shah accepted an error of judgment had been made on the documentary and that the edited speech gave the impression of a direct call for action and said the BBC would like to apologize for it. He insisted there is no systemic bias at the corporation. And that's it for this episode of Fame Under Fire from BBC Sounds with me, Anoushka Mutandadawati. Send me stories, suggestions or questions on social media. You can find me at anushkamd on TikTok and Instagram. Make sure you subscribe and turn on your push notifications on BBC Sound so you never miss a thing. It's not funny. It's true. Lily Allen and Makita Oliver Keats. I've got some questions for you, BBC Sounds.

[Ad Voice]

Tell me what you've enjoyed about our podcast so far.

[Anushka Mutandadawati]

I like that you've got more and more comfortable in this space and I've watched you show all parts of yourself. We've both cried. Miss Me with Lily Allen and Makita Oliver. We're just up having a chat. Feels like we've been doing it forever.

[Ad Voice]

We kind of have.

[Anushka Mutandadawati]

Listen. On BBC Sounds.

[Ad Voice]

This is the story of the one. As a custodial supervisor at a high school, he knows that during cold and flu season, germs spread fast. It's why he partners with Granger to stay fully stocked on the products and supplies he needs, from tissues to disinfectants to floor scrubbers, all so that he can help students, staff and teachers stay healthy and focused. Call 1-800-GRANGER-GREEGRANGER.com or just stop by Grainger for the ones who get it done.

This is the story of the One as head of maintenance at a concert hall, he knows the show must always go on. That's why he works behind the scenes, ensuring every light is working, the H Vac is hot, and his facility shines with Grainger's supplies and solutions for every challenge he faces. Plus 24. 7 customer support. His venue never misses a beat. Call quickgranger.com or just stop by Grainger for the ones who get it done.