Connect with us

News

Trump’s BBC lawsuit: A botched report, BritBox, and porn

Published

on

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

Advertisement

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.

Advertisement

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.”

Advertisement

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.

Advertisement

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.)

Advertisement

“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.

Advertisement

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.”

Advertisement

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

The U.S. women’s hockey team is dominating the Olympics. Now they will play for gold

Published

on

The U.S. women’s hockey team is dominating the Olympics. Now they will play for gold

Team USA forward Taylor Heise, #27, celebrates scoring her team’s second goal during Monday’s Olympic semifinal match against Sweden. After a 5-0 win, the U.S. now advances to play in Thursday’s gold medal match.

Alexander Nemenov/AFP via Getty Images


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Alexander Nemenov/AFP via Getty Images

MILAN — Before Monday night, it might have been uncouth to admit the goal for the U.S. women’s hockey team has been an Olympic gold medal all along.

Now, after their sixth consecutive win has secured them a place in Thursday night’s gold medal match, there is no reason anymore for the team to pretend otherwise.

“Now that we’re here, that’s the bullseye,” said coach John Wroblewski after Monday’s win.

Advertisement

The U.S. entered the 2026 Olympic Games as favorites to win the gold medal after a series of dominating wins over their rivals, Canada, the defending gold medal winners, over the course of the past year.

The Americans have lived up to that promise in this Olympic run so far. They have outscored their opponents 31 goals to 1 through six matches, the last five of which have been shutouts, an Olympic record. And their undefeated record includes a 5-0 win over the Canadians, their likely opponent in Thursday’s final pending the results of a Monday semifinal match-up against Switzerland.

“Our play is only going to go up from here, honestly. I don’t even think we’re at the peak,” said Hayley Scamurra, whose second period goal pushed the score to 5-0.

In the Americans’ semifinal victory over Sweden, Team USA showed off their offensive capabilities during a four-minute stretch at the end of the second period. In quick succession, they doubled the score from 2-0 to 4-0 — first on a perfectly placed wrist shot by Abbey Murphy, followed by an Laila Edwards rocket from the blue line that tipped off Kendall Coyne Schofield’s stick.

In a desperate move to save their shot at a gold medal, Sweden swapped out goaltenders — only for Britta Curl-Salemme to send a pass across the crease into the waiting stick of Scamurra for the final goal of the game.

Advertisement

“Maybe today we needed a plexiglass in front of our net to stay in the game,” Swedish coach Ulf Lundberg said afterward.

That level of offense combined with six dominating performances by the team’s two starting goaltenders, Aerin Frankel and Gwyneth Phillips, has led to a high level of confidence. “We can tell when we’re on a roll. We can tell when we’re buzzing,” said defenseman Cayla Barnes after the game.

“The team is playing so, so well in front of me defensively. They’re making my job easy, making the plays in front of me predictable so I can do my job,” said Frankel, who played the entirety of Monday’s game. “Any time I can focus on my job and let them do theirs, that’s why we’re finding so much success.”

The U.S. has won two previous Olympic gold medals, one in 1998 and the other in 2018. Canada has won all five other Olympic tournaments.

An American gold medal would cap the historic career of team captain Hilary Knight, 36, who is playing in her record fifth Olympic Games. And it would give a new generation of young talent on Team USA — including the 22-year-old Laila Edwards to 23-year-olds Abbey Murphy and Caroline Harvey — their first golden achievement of what USA Hockey hopes will be a long and fruitful national team career together.

Advertisement

“It’s so important that they’ve gotten that time and we’ve given them those opportunities because they’re so confident when they get out there. You would never assume they’re 20, 21, 22 years old,” said Taylor Heise, 25. “I learn so much from them, and they keep me young at heart as well.”

Continue Reading

News

Video: We Tracked All the Lawsuits Against the Second Trump Administration

Published

on

Video: We Tracked All the Lawsuits Against the Second Trump Administration

new video loaded: We Tracked All the Lawsuits Against the Second Trump Administration

The Supreme Court and appeals courts have been much more likely to rule in President Trump’s favor than the district courts have been. Why? Our reporter Mattathias Schwartz describes what’s going on.

By Mattathias Schwartz, Christina Shaman, Rafaela Balster and Edward Vega

February 16, 2026

Continue Reading

News

Europeans push back at US over claim they face ‘civilizational erasure’

Published

on

Europeans push back at US over claim they face ‘civilizational erasure’

European Union foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas speaks during the Munich Security Conference in Munich, Germany, Sunday, Feb. 15, 2026.

Michael Probst/AP


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Michael Probst/AP

MUNICH — A top European Union official on Sunday rejected the notion that Europe faces “civilizational erasure,” pushing back at criticism of the continent by the Trump administration.

EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas addressed the Munich Security Conference a day after U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio offered a somewhat reassuring message to European allies. He struck a less aggressive tone than Vice President JD Vance did in lecturing them at the same gathering last year but maintained a firm tone on Washington’s intent to reshape the trans-Atlantic alliance and push its policy priorities.

Advertisement

Kallas alluded to criticism in the U.S. national security strategy released in December, which asserted that economic stagnation in Europe “is eclipsed by the real and more stark prospect of civilizational erasure.” It suggested that Europe is being enfeebled by its immigration policies, declining birth rates, “censorship of free speech and suppression of political opposition” and a “loss of national identities and self-confidence.”

“Contrary to what some may say, woke, decadent Europe is not facing civilizational erasure,” Kallas told the conference. “In fact, people still want to join our club and not just fellow Europeans,” she added, saying she was told when visiting Canada last year that many people there have an interest in joining the EU.

Kallas rejected what she called “European-bashing.”

“We are, you know, pushing humanity forward, trying to defend human rights and all this, which is actually bringing also prosperity for people. So that’s why it’s very hard for me to believe these accusations.”

Advertisement

In his conference speech, Rubio said that an end to the trans-Atlantic era “is neither our goal nor our wish,” adding that “our home may be in the Western hemisphere, but we will always be a child of Europe.”

He made clear that the Trump administration is sticking to its guns on issues such as migration, trade and climate. And European officials who addressed the gathering made clear that they in turn will stand by their values, including their approach to free speech, climate change and free trade.

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer said Saturday that Europe must defend “the vibrant, free and diverse societies that we represent, showing that people who look different to each other can live peacefully together, that this isn’t against the tenor of our times.”

“Rather, it is what makes us strong,” he said.

Kallas said Rubio’s speech sent an important message that America and Europe are and will remain intertwined.

Advertisement

“It is also clear that we don’t see eye to eye on all the issues and this will remain the case as well, but I think we can work from there,” she said.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending