Former President Donald Trump has initiated legal proceedings against numerous media organisations seeking more than $30 billion in damages throughout his political career, with dramatically different outcomes across various high-profile cases.
Recent BBC Confrontation Escalates Legal Pattern
The latest development involves Trump threatening to sue the BBC for up to $5 billion over the editing of his speeches on Panorama. The broadcaster has already complied with two out of three demands from the White House, including a personal apology from chairman Samir Shah for what was termed an 'error of judgement'.
The controversy led to significant leadership changes at the Corporation, resulting in the departure of director-general Tim Davie and CEO of news Deborah Turness. Despite these concessions, Trump maintains he will pursue charges against the broadcaster for making what he describes as 'false, defamatory, disparaging, and inflammatory statements'.
Major Media Legal Battles and Outcomes
Trump's litigious relationship with media organisations spans nearly a decade, beginning during his first term in office. While many companies have settled out of court, numerous cases have been dismissed by judges who found them without legal merit.
ABC News Settlement: In 2017, Trump sued ABC News over political commentator George Stephanopoulos's claims that he had 'raped' author E. Jean Carroll. Following a seven-year legal battle that concluded in December 2024, ABC's parent company Walt Disney agreed to donate $15 million to the Trump Presidential Library plus an additional $1 million in legal costs.
CBS Resolution: Trump demanded $20 billion from CBS News, accusing the network of deceitfully manipulating an interview with Kamala Harris before the 2024 election. The channel maintained it had simply edited for time constraints. In July 2024, parent company Paramount settled for $16 billion paid to Trump's presidential library, though notably without any statement of regret or apology.
Failed Legal Challenges and Dismissed Cases
Not all legal actions have resulted in favourable outcomes for the former president. Several high-profile lawsuits against major publications have been thrown out by courts.
In 2020, Trump's reelection campaign sued both the New York Times and Washington Post over opinion pieces discussing his alleged Russian connections. Judges dismissed both lawsuits in 2021 and 2023 respectively.
A separate $100 million lawsuit against the New York Times, three reporters, and his niece Mary Trump was also dismissed. The case alleged an 'insidious plot' to smuggle out his tax records. The presiding judge ruled the case failed 'as a matter of constitutional law'.
The Wall Street Journal faced a $10 billion lawsuit after publishing a letter Trump sent to convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein. Trump claimed the 'bawdy' message containing a drawing of a naked woman was fake, insisting he 'couldn't draw'. Dow Jones, the company behind WSJ, maintained full confidence in their reporting accuracy.
Legal Strategy Analysis: SLAPP Lawsuits as Political Weapon
American political scientist Robert Spritzer suggests understanding Trump's approach requires recognising litigation as a primary weapon honed over decades. 'He utilised it in thousands of cases while he was a businessman and before he entered politics,' Spritzer told Metro.
'The point is not necessarily to win lawsuits. In Trump's case, it is less about winning than it is generating publicity that he views as favourable to himself, to harass whoever it is that he is suing, to ratchet up the anxiety for the individuals or organisations.'
Spritzer characterises these lawsuits as potentially constituting SLAPP lawsuits - strategic litigation against public participation designed to harass opponents and generate negative publicity rather than achieve legal victory.
Regarding the BBC case specifically, Spritzer notes the statute of limitations for filing such a suit in Britain has passed, meaning any action would likely proceed in American courts where different limitations apply.
Trump's ongoing legal campaigns against media organisations continue to shape his relationship with press freedom while testing the boundaries of defamation law in both the United States and internationally.
