I’m pleased to see the BBC have decided to defend Trump’s defamation lawsuit. I didn’t think they would, but credit to them, they have been very clear about it. A former controller of BBC Radio, Mark Damazer, said it would be "extremely damaging to the BBC's reputation not to fight the case". He told Radio 4’s Today programme: “This is about the BBC's independence and, unlike American media organisations which have coughed up the money, the BBC doesn't have commercial business interests that depend on President Trump's beneficence in the White House.” A spokesman for the corporation said they would not comment further on the legal action.
I would bet that Trump will very soon ban the BBC from the White House as a purveyor of fake news.
Imagine that. The BBC! If there is one news outlet in the world that bends over backwards more to be accurate and balanced, it’s the Beeb, against the worlds greatest liar.
In another article on the BBC website (it’s odd how the BBC reports on itself as if the news operation and the rest are totally separate) claims Trump’s case rests on a claim of malice: that the BBC intended to do him harm. He is arguing that it published the documentary one week before the 2024 election with "the express intent of interfering with it and trying to undermine President Trump's odds of winning re-election".
But it wasn’t even aired in the USA?
The CEO of Newsmax, a right-wing news outlet in America that vies with Fox for biased reporting, said on the Today programme that going to court would cost $50-100m, whereas he claimed the BBC could settle for $10m. This is a sign of the madness that has gripped America. How can a defamation case cost $100 million? He admitted it was a very high bar to prove defamation in a US court anyway.
With Trump it’s the threat that's the real point. Make the threat and offer them a cheap $10 million get-out clause. That’s the way it works in the US, where money is all and reputations are valueless. But for the BBC the opposite is true.
I forecast the case will never reach court.
The BBC's legal representative in America, Charles Tobin, has already written to Trump's legal team pointing out that he has received a public apology, the broadcast has been withdrawn, people have resigned, Trump has been indicted by a grand jury on four criminal counts stemming from the 6 January events and that he won Florida in 2024 by a "commanding 13-point margin, improving over his 2020 and 2016 performances in the state."
What has he lost? Apparently, one of the potential consequences for Trump is that the BBC could demand to see his tax returns since 2016 and his medical reports, to show that he has not, in fact, suffered any financial harm or mental anguish. And he could be subpoenaed to appear on the witness stand under oath, something he has never done.
Another reason for Trump to be cautious is that yesterday, Jack Smith, the special prosecutor appointed to look into the 6 January case against Trump, gave evidence to the House Judiciary committee in a closed session.
The former Justice Department special counsel told the House Judiciary Committee that his team developed "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" that Trump took part in a criminal scheme to overturn the 2020 election. n.pr/3N5wwln— NPR (@npr.org) 17 December 2025 at 20:11
You can see what Smith says about the events of 6 January 2021 in the first volume of his report published in January 2025, HERE. He also apparently told senators that he had ‘powerful’ evidence against Trump on the Mar-a-Lago classified documents case. I assume it would become available to the BBC's lawyers.
When you look at what Smith has claimed, you are tempted to think the BBC didn't defame Trump nearly enough.
If, or rather when, the BBC win or Trump backs down, it will cement the BBC’s standing as the world’s most trusted news source, and that can only be a good thing. The constant sniping at Auntie from the Tories and Reform, voices on the authoritarian right, would be silenced. How could you defund the BBC after that?
Erasmus
It’s excellent news that the UK will be rejoining the Erasmus exchange scheme, (at a cost of £570 million a year!), which we only left because of Johnson’s stupidity and vetoing it at the last minute, when all the details of an agreement had been written. It can only be welcomed.
But, hidden in the EU announcement on Erasmus is another on Britain moving to rejoin the EU’s internal energy market.
“The United Kingdom and the European Commission have also concluded exploratory talks on the United Kingdom's participation in the European Union's internal electricity market, with the details set out in letters to be published in the coming days. The European Commission and the United Kingdom will now work towards negotiating the United Kingdom's participation in the internal electricity market of the European Union and set out the necessary framework for that participation. Closer cooperation on electricity would bring real benefits to businesses and consumers across Europe, drive up investment in the North Seas and strengthen energy security.”
We are putting the salami slices back together. I think Starmer is hoping nobody will notice. At this rate, it will soon be more expensive to stay out.
