US judge orders Trump to answer questions under oath in BBC defamation lawsuit
A US magistrate judge has ruled that President Donald Trump must give a deposition under oath by 11 December in his defamation lawsuit against the BBC. He cancelled a previously scheduled deposition on 16 October.

A US magistrate judge, Enjoliqué Lett, has ruled that President Donald Trump must sit for a deposition under oath by 11 December. The questioning is part of his defamation lawsuit against the BBC, the British public broadcaster. The order means testimony from the plaintiff could finally be obtained in the case, unless the discovery period, the phase in which evidence is gathered, is extended.
What the dispute is about
The lawsuit, filed in Florida, concerns an episode of the BBC programme Panorama. It edited together two different sections of a speech Trump gave before the riot at the US Capitol on 6 January 2021. Trump accuses the BBC of "intentionally, maliciously, and deceptively doctoring" the speech.
The BBC apologised for the error and acknowledged that the broadcast gave "the mistaken impression that President Trump made a direct call for violent action". It has asked the court to dismiss the case, arguing that the programme does not meet the legal criteria for defamation and was not available in the US.
The postponed deposition
Charles Tobin, a lawyer for the BBC, told the court that the plaintiff still had not been questioned with two months left in the discovery period. Trump cancelled the earlier deposition on 16 October, citing "matters of national importance". On that day he attended a midterms campaign rally in Dalton, Georgia, and a fundraiser at his Mar-a-Lago property in Florida. Attorneys later asked the judge to compel him to appear.
Earlier developments
In July, Trump's lawyers conceded they had no evidence that the documentary was available in the US on the BBC's BritBox subscription service, as originally claimed, or on the BBC's website, BBC Select or through US broadcasters. Trump also agreed to drop the claim against BBC Studios, the broadcaster's commercial arm, after the BBC argued it had no role in creating or producing the documentary.

