BBC Petitions Florida Federal Court to Authorize Subpoenas for Trump Family in $10B Panorama Defamation Suit

MIAMI, FL — Defense counsel for the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) filed a contested motion in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on Monday, asking a federal judge to compel formal deposition testimony and document production from Donald Trump Jr., Ivanka Trump, and Jared Kushner in connection with President Donald Trump's $10 billion defamation lawsuit.

Subpoena Demands and Evidentiary Scope

The litigation arises from a 2024 episode of the BBC investigative program Panorama, which featured an edited sequence of Trump's January 6, 2021, public remarks that spliced together statements delivered 50 minutes apart. Trump's complaint alleges the broadcast intentionally and maliciously distorted his words to suggest an immediate incitement to violence, causing severe reputational and commercial harm to the Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust.

In its latest federal filing, BBC attorneys argue that immediate family members and senior campaign advisers who were present at the White House and backstage on January 6 possess irreplaceable, first-hand evidence regarding the President's contemporaneous intentions, speech revisions, and state of mind.

Security Screening and Service Obstacles

The broadcaster's motion details repeated unsuccessful attempts to serve process on Trump family members, alleging private process servers were turned away by Secret Service and protective details at Mar-a-Lago and private residences in Miami and New York. The BBC has requested an order permitting alternative service through plaintiffs' counsel of record.

Financial Discovery and Damages Defense

Concurrently, the BBC is seeking broad accounting disclosures from the Trump family trust to challenge the $10 billion damages figure, demanding proof of concrete commercial losses attributable specifically to the documentary broadcast, which did not air on U.S. linear television. Trump's legal team has opposed the subpoenas as an invasive fishing expedition and moved for a protective order limiting third-party discovery while a pending motion to dismiss is adjudicated.