MIAMI — President Donald Trump must sit for a sworn deposition in his own $10 billion defamation lawsuit against the BBC by December 11, or risk sanctions that could include dismissal of the case, a federal magistrate judge ruled Thursday. The order puts the sitting president in the unusual position of answering questions under oath in a lawsuit he himself filed.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Enjoliqué Lett issued the order on October 22, 2026, after lawyers for the British broadcaster told the court they still had not been able to question the plaintiff with roughly two months left in the discovery period.

Why the Judge Stepped In

The dispute centers on a deposition that was supposed to happen on October 16. According to filings, the date had been agreed to by both sides after the BBC first asked for dates in July. Trump's legal team postponed it on September 28, writing that the president "is no longer available for his deposition on October 16 due to other matters of national importance."

BBC attorney Charles Tobin argued that the delay left the defense unable to depose "the most central figure in this case: Plaintiff himself." Tobin also told the court that Trump was campaigning in Georgia on the day of the scheduled deposition. Trump's team offered an alternative window in the second or third week of January 2027, which falls after discovery is scheduled to close on December 18.

Judge Lett declined to let the calendar slide. She set the December 11 deadline and warned that failure to comply could bring sanctions up to and including dismissal. That consequence would not apply if the presiding judge extends the discovery period beyond December 18, a decision Lett said only the presiding judge can make. The defense has said it would accept a later deposition date if the trial date also moved back.

What the Lawsuit Claims

Trump filed the suit in December 2025, alleging defamation and deceptive and unfair trade practices tied to the BBC documentary "Trump: A Second Chance." His legal team has said the lawsuit holds the broadcaster accountable for what it calls defamation and reckless election interference.

The BBC has acknowledged that filmmakers spliced together quotes from different parts of Trump's January 6, 2021, speech, creating the impression that he directly urged violence. The network apologized, and both its director-general and its top news executive resigned after the edit came to light. The BBC nonetheless denies that it defamed Trump, and it has asked the court to dismiss the case. Reports indicate the lawsuit is headed toward a trial in 2027.

The Jack Smith Subpoena

A parallel fight involves former special counsel Jack Smith, whom the BBC subpoenaed earlier this month. Trump's lawyers argue that Smith is not a party to the case, has no personal knowledge of the speech or of Trump's state of mind, and that his testimony would be duplicative because his report and prior testimony are already public. The BBC counters that Smith is among the most knowledgeable people about the events of January 6. The outcome of that dispute had not been reported as of Thursday.

A Familiar Pattern?

Legal observers note that Trump has a history of avoiding depositions in cases where he is the plaintiff. In 2023, he voluntarily dropped a $500 million lawsuit against his former lawyer Michael Cohen days before he was scheduled to be deposed. Whether that history repeats itself is now the central question in the BBC case, because a plaintiff who refuses to testify can lose the right to proceed.

For Trump, the stakes are both legal and political. A deposition would put him under oath on questions about his January 6 speech, his intent, and what harm he says the documentary caused him, topics that could generate headlines regardless of how the case ends. Withdrawing the suit, by contrast, could be read as an admission that the claim was weaker than advertised.

What It Means for Americans

The ruling is a reminder that the civil justice system generally applies the same discovery rules to every litigant, including a sitting president. In Clinton v. Jones, the Supreme Court held in 1997 that a president can be required to answer in civil litigation, and the BBC case is now testing how that principle plays out when the president is the one who chose to sue.

It also bears on a broader question that matters to every news consumer: how far press-freedom protections reach when a major outlet admits to a flawed edit. A trial would likely force a public airing of editorial decisions at one of the world's largest news organizations, while also forcing the president to defend his own account under oath.

What Happens Next

Trump's team can ask the presiding judge to extend discovery or object to the magistrate's order. If neither happens, the clock runs to December 11. Between now and then, expect motions over the Smith subpoena, continued argument over the trial schedule, and a ruling on the BBC's request to dismiss. The next six weeks will show whether the president sits for questioning, negotiates a delay, or lets the lawsuit he started become a liability.