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.
On the night of her resounding win in last fall’s election for Virginia governor, Abigail Spanberger told her supporters that they had sent a message to the world. “Virginia,” she said in the opening lines of her victory speech, “chose pragmatism over partisanship.”
But even then it was clear that the first big issue of her term would be as partisan as it gets: a proposed amendment by her fellow Democrats to allow them to gerrymander the state’s 11 congressional districts.
The push to redraw the Virginia map was another salvo in a barrage of redistricting spurred by President Trump in a bid to keep Republicans in control of the House in this year’s midterm elections.
Virginians vote on Tuesday on whether to adopt the proposed map, and if the “Yes” vote wins, Democrats could end up with as many as 10 seats, up from the six they hold now. The redistricting battles of the last year would end up in something of a draw, with gains for Democrats in California and Virginia offsetting gains for Republicans in Texas, Missouri and North Carolina — unless Florida lawmakers decide in the coming weeks to draw a new, more Republican-friendly map.
Historically, redrawing of congressional maps has been done each decade after the U.S. census. But with Republicans holding such a slim majority in the House, Mr. Trump began by pressing Texas to redraw its maps, touching off the wave of gerrymandering
Virginia Democratic legislators rolled out their redistricting plan last October, setting in motion the state’s lengthy amendment process just as the campaign for governor was entering its final weeks. At the time, Ms. Spanberger expressed support for the plan, though she emphasized that its passage was up to the legislature and then to the voters.
But even if her formal role in the process was relatively minor — Ms. Spanberger signed the bill setting the date for the referendum — the politics of the effort has loomed over the first few months of her term. Her support for the amendment has drawn accusations of hypocrisy from the right and complaints from some on the left that she has not been outspoken enough in her advocacy.
“There’s always going to be somebody who wants me to do something differently,” the governor said in an interview on Saturday at a rally in support of the amendment outside a home in Northern Virginia. “I will always make someone unhappy, and I will always make someone happy.”
Ms. Spanberger, a former C.I.A. officer and three-term congresswoman, won a 15-point victory in 2025 after running on a campaign focused on pocketbook issues. Centrism has been her political brand since she was first elected to the House in 2018, flipping a district that had long leaned to the right.
Now Republicans campaigning against the amendment have made Ms. Spanberger a prime target, deriding her as “Governor Bait-and-Switch” and highlighting an interview in August 2025 in which she said she had “no plans to redistrict Virginia.”
“This was the perfect opportunity for her to show that she is the middle-of-the-road suburban mom that she portrayed herself as,” said Glen Sturtevant, a Republican state senator. He dismissed the notion that this was an effort that had been thrust upon her, pointing out that she had signed the bill setting the date for the referendum. “She is certainly an active participant in this whole process,” he said.
Republicans have eagerly highlighted recent polls suggesting that Ms. Spanberger’s honeymoon is over, though because governors in Virginia cannot serve two consecutive terms, public approval is less of a pressure point than it might be elsewhere. Some of her political adversaries have tied the drop in her ratings to her involvement in the campaign for the amendment.
But a number of factors are at play in those sagging poll numbers. Some on the right are irked by her support of standard Democratic priorities like gun control measures and limits to cooperation with federal immigration agents.
But some of the most vociferous criticism of her from Republicans, up to and including the president, has been for a host of proposed taxes and tax hikes in the legislature — on everything from dog grooming to dry cleaning — that she in fact had nothing do with. Most of those taxes, which were floated by various lawmakers, never even came up for a vote.
But Ms. Spanberger did not publicly hit back against these attacks until recent days, a delay that some Democrats say was costly.
“She let other people define her,” said Scott Surovell, the State Senate majority leader.
Mr. Surovell’s frustration echoed a growing discontent among Democrats about the governor’s recent moves. For all the Republican criticism of her, some operatives and lawmakers said, Ms. Spanberger has not been aggressive enough in pushing for Democratic priorities, redistricting among them.
This criticism broke out into the open in recent days, after the governor made scores of amendments to bills that had passed the General Assembly. Some lawmakers and Democratic allies accused her of unexpectedly diluting long-sought goals like expanded public sector unions and a legal retail marketplace for cannabis.
“Our party base is looking for us to stand up and fight and advocate and deliver,” said Mr. Surovell, who represents a solidly Democratic district in Northern Virginia. “It’s hard to deliver when you’re standing in the middle of the road.”
In the interview, Ms. Spanberger insisted that she supported the purpose of many of the bills but had to make amendments to ensure that her administration could implement them.
And she said she had been explicit in her support of the redistricting effort, appearing in statewide TV ads encouraging people to vote “Yes” even as an anti-amendment campaign has sent out mailers suggesting that the governor opposes the effort.
But she said she had never been in a position to barnstorm the state as Gov. Gavin Newsom did in the months leading up to the redistricting referendum that passed in California. Mr. Newsom is a second-term governor in a much bluer state, she said, while she only recently took office and has been “in the crush of their legislative session,” with hundreds of bills to read and examine in a short period.
“Those who may not be focused on the governing and only on the politics, they’re going to want me to do politics 100 percent of the time,” she said. “And for people who care about the governing and not the politics, they’re going to want me to do governing 100 percent of the time.”
Her preference, as she has often made apparent, is for the governing over the politicking. But she acknowledged that it is all part of the job.
Asked if she lamented that the highest-profile issue of her term so far was such a polarizing matter, rather than the cost-of-living policies she emphasized on the campaign trail, she said: “Any person in elected office wants to talk about the thing they want to talk about all the time, and that’s it. So I won’t say ‘No’ to that question.”
new video loaded: Singer D4vd Is Charged With Murder of Celeste Rivas Hernandez
transcript
transcript
Singer D4vd Is Charged With Murder of Celeste Rivas Hernandez
The musician D4vd was charged with murder on Monday, seven months after the police said that the body of a teenage girl, Celeste Rivas Hernandez, had been found in the trunk of his Tesla. D4vd, whose real name is David Burke, pleaded not guilty to the charges.
-
“On April 23, 2025, as has been alleged by the complaint, Celeste, a 14-year-old at that time, went to Mr. Burke’s house in the Hollywood Hills. She was never heard from again.” “These charges include the most serious charges that a D.A.‘s office can bring. That is first-degree murder with special circumstances. The special circumstances being lying in wait, committing this crime for financial gain or murdering a witness in an investigation. These special circumstances carry with it, along with the first-degree murder charge, a maximum sentence of life without the possibility of parole, or the death penalty.” “We believe the actual evidence will show David Burke did not murder Celeste Revis Hernandez nor was he the cause of her death.”
By Jackeline Luna
April 20, 2026
In this photo illustration, The Onion website is displayed on a computer screen, showing a satirical story titled Here’s Why I Decided To Buy ‘InfoWars’, on November 14, 2024 in Pasadena, California.
Mario Tama/Getty Images North America
hide caption
toggle caption
Mario Tama/Getty Images North America
The satirical website, The Onion, has a new deal to take over Infowars, conspiracy theorist Alex Jones’s far-right media company. If approved by a Texas judge, the deal would take away his Infowars microphone, and allow The Onion to resume its plans to turn the website into a parody of itself.
Families of those killed in the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, who sued Jones for defamation, want the sale to happen. They’re still waiting to collect on the nearly $1.3 billion judgement they won against Jones for spreading lies that they faked the deaths of their children in order to boost support for gun control. That prompted Jones’s followers to harass and threaten the families for years.
The families are also eager to take away Jones’s platform for spewing such conspiracy theories. The deal not only would divorce Jones from his Infowars brand, but it would turn the platform against him by allowing The Onion to mock his kind of conspiracy mongering and advocate for gun control.
The families “took on Alex Jones to stop him from inflicting the same harm on others” by using “his corrupt business platform to torment and harass them for profit,” said Chris Mattei, one of the attorneys for the families. “When Infowars finally goes dark, the machinery of lies that Jones built will become a force for social good, thanks to the families’ courage and The Onion’s vision, persistence and stewardship.”
A mourner visits the Sandy Hook Permanent Memorial on the 10th anniversary of the school shooting on Dec.14, 2022 in Newtown, Connecticut. Twenty-six people were shot and killed, including 20 first graders and 6 educators, in one of the deadliest elementary school shootings in U.S. history.
John Moore/Getty Images
hide caption
toggle caption
John Moore/Getty Images
For its part The Onion called it a “significant step in an effort to transform one of the internet’s more notorious misinformation platforms into a new comedy network for satire.” The company says it could announce its new rollout of Infowars in a matter of weeks if the judge approves the deal.
“Eight years, almost to the day, after the Sandy Hook parents first filed suit against Alex Jones, they’ll finally get some justice, and even some money,” said Ben Collins, CEO of The Onion. “This is a chance to make something genuinely new out of a very broken piece of media history.”
On its website Monday, The Onion posted a satirical message from the fictional CEO of its parent company, Global Tetrahedron, “Bryce P. Tetraeder,” stating a “dream is finally coming true.”
Jones’s posted on X Monday that “The Onion Has Fraudulently Claimed AGAIN That It Owns Infowars!!!” adding that “The Democrat Party Disinformation Publication Is Publicly Bragging About Its Plan To Silence Alex Jones’ Infowars And Then Steal & Misrepresent His Identity!”
On a podcast in March, Jones alluded to the impending demise of Infowars, saying, “We’re getting shut down. We beat so many attacks. But finally, we’re shutting down like the middle of next month,” before insisting, “We’re going to be fine.”
Jones suggested Monday he would appeal any court decision to approve the leasing deal. And even if he loses control of Infowars, Jones could continue to broadcast from another studio, under another name.
Jones’s attorneys did not respond to a request for comment.
More than a year ago, a federal bankruptcy judge rejected The Onion’s first attempt to buy Infowars through a bankruptcy auction, saying the process was flawed. Since then, the bankruptcy court clarified that because Infowars’ parent company, Free Speech Systems, is not itself in bankruptcy, its property should be handled instead by a Texas state receiver. That cleared the way for the new pending deal to lease Infowars to The Onion, with the hope that a future sale could be approved.
In papers filed in state court, the Texas receiver said he “determined that licensing the Intellectual Property is in the best interest of the receivership estate.”
The deal calls for The Onion to pay $81,000 a month to license the Infowars.com domain and brand name, which the receiver says will “cover carrying costs to preserve and protect the assets of the receivership estate” until an appeal filed by Jones is decided and the path is cleared for a sale.
Jones’s personal bankruptcy case is proceeding in federal bankruptcy court, where a trustee continues to sell off Jones’s personal property, including cars, homes, watches and guns, with proceeds intended for the families.
A memorial to massacre victims stands near the former site of Sandy Hook Elementary on Dec. 14, 2013 in Newtown, Connecticut, one year after Adam Lanza shot and killed 20 first graders and six adults at the school.
John Moore/Getty Images
hide caption
toggle caption
John Moore/Getty Images
-
Pittsburg, PA6 minutes agoRoad closures begin April 22 around downtown Pittsburgh for NFL Draft
-
Augusta, GA12 minutes ago
James Byron Duncan Obituary April 19, 2026 – Thomas Poteet & Son Funeral Directors
-
Washington, D.C18 minutes agoHow much you need to earn to be middle class in DC, MD and Virginia
-
Cleveland, OH24 minutes agoCleveland Browns News and Rumors 4/21/26: You’ll Take this Draft Speculation and You’ll Like It
-
Austin, TX30 minutes agoTexas DMV launches authorization system for automated commercial vehicles
-
Alabama36 minutes agoNew Alabama Privacy Law Adds to Compliance Challenges for Businesses | PYMNTS.com
-
Alaska42 minutes agoAlaska’s embattled economic development agency approves $700,000 PR budget
-
Arizona48 minutes agoPilot Jessica Cox to be inducted into Arizona Aviation Hall of Fame