News
Columbia activist Mahmoud Khalil says Trump administration has failed
Columbia University activist Mahmoud Khalil has said the Trump administration failed to suppress pro-Palestinian voices, following his release from more than three months in immigration detention.
“My existence is a message” to the Trump administration, he told the BBC after returning to New Jersey from a detention centre in Louisiana. “All these attempts to suppress Pro-Palestinian voices have failed now.”
Mr Khalil was a prominent voice in the New York university’s pro-Palestinian protests last year, and his 8 March arrest sparked demonstrations in New York and Washington DC.
The US government wants to deport him, arguing his activism is detrimental to foreign policy interests.
Speaking at the airport in Newark, New Jersey, Mr Khalil vowed to continue to advocate for Palestinian rights, and for the rights of the immigrants “who are left behind in that facility” where he was jailed in Louisiana.
He accused the White House of attempting to “dehumanise anyone who does not agree with the administration”.
Mr Khalil’s remarks come a day after a judge ordered him released from jail after determining that he was not a flight risk or threat to his community while his immigration proceedings continue.
The Trump administration has vowed to appeal against his release, as it continues its efforts to remove him from the US.
News
Video: Man on Roof Faces Off with ICE Agents for Hours in Minnesota
new video loaded: Man on Roof Faces Off with ICE Agents for Hours in Minnesota
transcript
transcript
Man on Roof Faces Off with ICE Agents for Hours in Minnesota
A man clung to a partially built roof for hours in frigid temperatures during a standoff with immigration agents in Chanhassen, Minn., a suburb of Minneapolis. The confrontation was part of the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown in the state to remove what it calls “vicious criminals.”
-
“What a [expletive] embarrassment.” “Look at this guy.” “What’s with all the fascists?” “The Lord is with you.” “Where’s the bad hombre? What did this guy do?” “He’s out here working to support his [expletive] family.” “Gestapo agents.” “Oh yeah, shake your head, tough guy.” “This is where you get the worst of the worst right here, hard-working builders.” “Crossing the border is not a crime. Coming illegally to the United States is not a crime, according to you.” “C’mon, get out of here.” “Take him to a different hospital.”
By Ernesto Londoño, Jackeline Luna and Daniel Fetherston
December 17, 2025
News
Trump’s BBC lawsuit: A botched report, BritBox, and porn
Journalists report outside BBC Broadcasting House in London. In a new lawsuit, President Trump is seeking $10 billion from the BBC for defamation.
Kirsty Wigglesworth/AP/AP
hide caption
toggle caption
Kirsty Wigglesworth/AP/AP
Not content with an apology and the resignation of two top BBC executives, President Trump filed a $10 billion defamation lawsuit Monday against the BBC in his continued strategy to take the press to court.
Beyond the legal attack on yet another media outlet, the litigation represents an audacious move against a national institution of a trusted ally. It hinges on an edit presented in a documentary of the president’s words on a fateful day. Oddly enough, it also hinges on the appeal of a niche streaming service to people in Florida, and the use of a technological innovation embraced by porn devotees.
A sloppy edit
At the heart of Trump’s case stands an episode of the BBC television documentary program Panorama that compresses comments Trump made to his supporters on Jan. 6, 2021, before they laid siege to the U.S. Capitol.
The episode seamlessly links Trump’s call for people to walk up to the Capitol with his exhortation nearly 55 minutes later: “And we fight, we fight like hell, and if you don’t fight like hell you don’t have a country anymore.”
Trump’s attorneys argue that the presentation gives viewers the impression that the president incited the violence that followed. They said his remarks had been doctored, not edited, and noted the omission of his statement that protesters would be “marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.”
As NPR and other news organizations have documented, many defendants in the Jan. 6 attack on Congress said they believed they had been explicitly urged by Trump to block the certification of President-elect Joe Biden’s victory.
Trump’s lawsuit calls the documentary “a false, defamatory, deceptive, disparaging, inflammatory, and malicious depiction of President Trump.”
The lawsuit alleges that the depiction was “fabricated” and aired “in a brazen attempt to interfere in and influence the Election to President Trump’s detriment.”
While the BBC has not filed a formal response to the lawsuit, the public broadcaster has reiterated that it will defend itself in court.
A Nov. 13 letter to Trump’s legal team on behalf of the BBC from Charles Tobin, a leading U.S. First Amendment attorney, argued that the broadcaster has demonstrated contrition by apologizing, withdrawing the broadcast, and accepting the executives’ resignations.
Tobin also noted, on behalf of the BBC, that Trump had already been indicted by a grand jury on four criminal counts stemming from his efforts to overturn the 2020 election, including his conduct on Jan. 6, 2021, on the Capitol grounds.
The appeal of BritBox
For all the current consternation about the documentary, it didn’t get much attention at the time. The BBC aired the documentary twice on the eve of the 2024 elections — but never broadcast it directly in Florida.
That matters because the lawsuit was filed in Florida, where Trump alleges that the program was intended to discourage voters from voting for him.
Yet Tobin notes, Trump won Florida in 2024 by a “commanding 13-point margin, improving over his 2020 and 2016 performances in the state.”
Trump failed to make the case that Floridians were influenced by the documentary, Tobin wrote. He said the BBC did not broadcast the program in Florida through U.S. channels. (The BBC has distribution deals with PBS and NPR and their member stations for television and radio programs, respectively, but not to air Panorama.)
It was “geographically restricted” to U.K. viewers, Tobin wrote.
Hence the argument in Trump’s lawsuit that American viewers have other ways to watch it. The first is BritBox, a BBC streaming service that draws more on British mysteries set at seaside locales than BBC coverage of American politics.
Back in March, then-BBC Director General Tim Davie testified before the House of Commons that BritBox had more than 4 million subscribers in the U.S. (The BBC did not break down how many subscribers it has in Florida or how often Panorama documentaries are viewed by subscribers in the U.S. or the state, in response to questions posed by NPR for this story.)
“The Panorama Documentary was available to BritBox subscribers in Florida and was in fact viewed by these subscribers through BritBox and other means provided by the BBC,” Trump’s lawsuit states.
NPR searched for Panorama documentaries on the BritBox streaming service through the Amazon Prime platform, one of its primary distributors. The sole available episode dates from 2000. Trump does not mention podcasts. Panorama is streamed on BBC Sounds. Its episodes do not appear to be available in the U.S. on such mainstream podcast distributors in the U.S. such as Apple Podcasts, Spotify or Pocket Casts, according to a review by NPR.
Software that enables anonymous browsing – of porn
Another way Trump’s lawsuit suggests people in the U.S. could watch that particular episode of Panorama, if they were so inclined, is through a Virtual Private Network, or VPN.
Trump’s suit says millions of Florida citizens use VPNs to view content from foreign streamers that would otherwise be restricted. And the BBC iPlayer is among the most popular streaming services accessed by viewers using a VPN, Trump’s lawsuit asserts.
In response to questions from NPR, the BBC declined to break down figures for how many people in the U.S. access the BBC iPlayer through VPNs.
Demand for such software did shoot up in 2024 and early 2025. Yet, according to analysts — and even to materials cited by the president’s team in his own case — the reason appears to have less to do with foreign television shows and more to do with online pornography.
Under a new law, Florida began requiring age verification checks for visitors to pornographic websites, notes Paul Bischoff, editor of Comparitech, a site that reviews personal cybersecurity software.
“People use VPNs to get around those age verification and site blocks,” Bischoff says. “The reason is obvious.”
An article in the Tampa Free Press cited by Trump’s lawsuit to help propel the idea of a sharp growth of interest in the BBC actually undercuts the idea in its very first sentence – by focusing on that law.
“Demand for Virtual Private Networks (VPNs) has skyrocketed in Florida following the implementation of a new law requiring age verification for access to adult websites,” the first paragraph states. “This dramatic increase reflects a widespread effort by Floridians to bypass the restrictions and access adult content.”
Several legal observers anticipate possible settlement
Several First Amendment attorneys tell NPR they believe Trump’s lawsuit will result in a settlement of some kind, in part because there’s new precedent. In the past year, the parent companies of ABC News and CBS News have each paid $16 million to settle cases filed by Trump that many legal observers considered specious.
“The facts benefit Trump and defendants may be concerned about reputational harm,” says Carl Tobias, a professor of law at the University of Richmond who specializes in free speech issues. “The BBC also has admitted it could have done better and essentially apologized.”
Some of Trump’s previous lawsuits against the media have failed. He is currently also suing the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Des Moines Register and its former pollster, and the board of the Pulitzer Prize.
News
Video: Prosecutors Charge Nick Reiner With Murdering His Parents
new video loaded: Prosecutors Charge Nick Reiner With Murdering His Parents
transcript
transcript
Prosecutors Charge Nick Reiner With Murdering His Parents
Los Angeles prosecutors charged Nick Reiner with two counts of first-degree murder in the deaths of his parents, the director Rob Reiner and Michele Singer Reiner.
-
Our office will be filing charges against Nick Reiner, who is accused of killing his parents, actor-director Rob Reiner and photographer-producer Michele Singer Reiner. These charges will be two counts of first-degree murder, with a special circumstance of multiple murders. He also faces a special allegation that he personally used a dangerous and deadly weapon, that being a knife. These charges carry a maximum sentence of life in prison without the possibility parole or the death penalty. No decision at this point has been made with respect to the death penalty.
By Shawn Paik
December 16, 2025
-
Iowa3 days agoAddy Brown motivated to step up in Audi Crooks’ absence vs. UNI
-
Washington1 week agoLIVE UPDATES: Mudslide, road closures across Western Washington
-
Iowa4 days agoHow much snow did Iowa get? See Iowa’s latest snowfall totals
-
Maine1 day agoElementary-aged student killed in school bus crash in southern Maine
-
World1 week ago
Chiefs’ offensive line woes deepen as Wanya Morris exits with knee injury against Texans
-
Maryland3 days agoFrigid temperatures to start the week in Maryland
-
Technology6 days agoThe Game Awards are losing their luster
-
South Dakota3 days agoNature: Snow in South Dakota