Judge orders Trump to testify in $10 billion BBC defamation case by December 11

President Donald Trump will have to sit for a deposition in the $10 billion defamation lawsuit he filed against the BBC, a federal magistrate judge ordered Thursday in a Miami courtroom. The judge gave Trump until Dec. 11 to appear for sworn questioning, warning that failure to comply could bring sanctions. The ruling comes after the former president’s legal team canceled a scheduled deposition on Oct. 16, citing “matters of national importance.”

Trump sued the British broadcaster over a Panorama documentary that aired in October 2024, just weeks before the U.S. presidential election. The program edited footage of Trump’s Jan. 6, 2021 speech to suggest he urged violence to stop the certification of President‑elect Joe Biden. Trump’s lawyers argue the segment is false, deceptive and defamatory under Florida law, and they are seeking $10 billion in damages. The case highlights the broader clash between the president’s claim of immunity from ordinary court processes and the judiciary’s insistence on adhering to procedural rules.

The magistrate judge said the president’s claim that he “does a lot more things than you could possibly know” does not excuse him from discovery obligations. The judge noted that Trump’s team had already handed over material that the BBC had provided or that had been removed from the internet, but had not produced any private records. The court found that explanation “strained credulity.” The judge also ordered the president’s side to turn over additional evidence and warned that any further delay could shift the discovery deadline, which is set for mid‑December.

The decision puts the president’s legal strategy under pressure as the case moves toward trial. If Trump complies, the deposition could reveal more about the BBC’s editing process and the evidence behind the defamation claim. If he resists, the court may impose fines or other sanctions, underscoring the principle that even the nation’s highest office must follow the same rules as other litigants. The outcome could set a precedent for how sitting presidents are treated in civil lawsuits.