You file a massive ten billion dollar defamation lawsuit against a major media network, but when it’s finally time to testify under oath, you suddenly claim you're too busy. That is exactly what's happening right now between Donald Trump and the British Broadcasting Corporation.
The BBC has officially asked a U.S. magistrate judge to step in and force the president to sit for a sworn deposition. Lawyers for the broadcaster are tired of waiting. After nearly eight months of discovery and seven deposed BBC witnesses, the most important person in the courtroom drama—the plaintiff himself—has managed to dodge the hot seat.
It's a bizarre twist in a high-stakes legal battle that has increasingly turned into an uphill struggle for the plaintiff.
How the Ten Billion Dollar Lawsuit Began
The legal feud started back in December 2025. Trump sued the BBC over a Panorama documentary episode that aired just before the 2024 presidential election. The network's program edited together remarks the politician made during a rally on January 6, 2021.
The BBC later acknowledged editing errors and faced internal fallout, including senior resignations. But Trump's legal team took things much further, filing a massive lawsuit in Florida under the state's Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act. They accused the broadcaster of intentional election interference and severe reputational damage, slapping the media giant with a staggering ten billion dollar price tag.
Yet, as the case progressed, things started going sideways for the plaintiff. Courts ordered the disclosure of sensitive financial records, and the BBC's lawyers began pushing hard to throw out the entire lawsuit. They argued that the program never actually aired in the United States, let alone Florida, leaving the local court without proper jurisdiction.
The Canceled Deposition and Scheduling Games
Both sides had agreed back in July that Trump would sit for his deposition on October 16. It was supposed to happen behind closed doors with strict confidentiality regarding the location and setup.
Then the goalposts moved. On September 28, Trump's attorneys announced that the date no longer worked. By last week, they formally canceled the session entirely, citing pressing presidential responsibilities and "matters of national importance." Instead of the October timeline, they suggested pushing the questioning all the way to January 2027.
That proposed delay isn't just an inconvenience. It is a procedural roadblock.
The current discovery deadline is set to expire right around the time Trump wants to reschedule his testimony. If the judge allows the delay, the entire evidence-gathering schedule collapses. BBC attorney Charles Tobin pointed out the obvious absurdity in court filings, noting that after months of digging, the defense still has no schedule or commitment from the person who initiated the lawsuit in the first place.
A History of Evading Questioning Under Oath
For anyone paying attention to Trump's litigious history, avoiding depositions when things get real is a familiar playbook. In 2023, he famously dropped a five hundred million dollar lawsuit against his former lawyer and fixer Michael Cohen mere days before he was scheduled to give a deposition.
Suing media outlets for astronomical sums makes great headlines and fires up political supporters, but answering tough questions under oath is an entirely different ballgame. In a defamation case, the plaintiff has to prove actual malice and concrete financial harm. When defense lawyers start asking deep questions about how a foreign broadcast caused ten billion dollars in brand damage—especially when the program wasn't broadcast in the local jurisdiction—things get sticky fast.
The upcoming discovery hearing before U.S. Magistrate Judge Enjoliqué Aytch Lett will determine whether Trump gets his extended timeline or if the court forces him to face the music immediately.
If you're watching this case unfold, don't expect the BBC to back down quietly. They're betting that forcing the plaintiff onto the record will dismantle a lawsuit they argue poses a dangerous threat to international journalism.
The judge's ruling next week will decide if accountability applies equally to the person who brought the charges.
