The British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) is seeking to depose former special counsel Jack Smith as part of its defense against President Donald Trump’s lawsuit over a documentary that he alleges falsely portrayed his January 6, 2021, speech, according to a new federal court filing.
In a joint motion filed Monday in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Trump and the BBC laid out opposing positions over a subpoena the broadcaster served on Smith on October 1.
The lawsuit centers on the BBC Panorama documentary Trump: A Second Chance? which Trump alleges falsely portrayed his January 6 speech as inciting or fomenting the U.S. Capitol riot through an edit the BBC later acknowledged created the mistaken impression that he had made a “direct call for violent action.”
Trump’s attorneys are asking the court to quash the subpoena, while the BBC argues Smith possesses information relevant to whether the president's speech fomented or incited the violence that followed at the U.S. Capitol.
The filing does not mean Smith has been ordered to testify. The two sides are now asking the court to hold a discovery hearing after failing to resolve the dispute themselves.
Newsweek reached out to the legal team for Smith by email Monday for comment.
...
Smith said in his December 2025 congressional deposition that investigators had developed “proof beyond a reasonable doubt” that Trump criminally conspired to overturn the results of the 2020 election, a claim which he repeated during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing this past September.
Smith indicted Trump in August 2023 over his alleged efforts to overturn the 2020 election, but the case never went to trial and was dismissed in November 2024 after Trump returned to office because of Justice Department policy barring the federal prosecution of a sitting president.
The fight over Smith's testimony centers on how far the BBC can go in seeking evidence about Trump’s conduct and intentions surrounding January 6 as it defends itself against his lawsuit.
The court has previously ruled that the BBC is entitled to discovery concerning the message and impression conveyed by Trump’s speech but cannot use the lawsuit to investigate every aspect of January 6.
Trump's lawyers argue that the BBC is overreaching and point to a September ruling quashing its subpoena to former White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson, in which the court cautioned against turning discovery into a “fishing expedition.”
The BBC argues Smith is different because, according to the broadcaster’s filing, Smith himself is not objecting to the subpoena.
What Trump's Lawsuit Alleges
According to the filing, Trump alleges in his $10 billion lawsuit that the BBC published false and defamatory statements about him and violated Florida’s Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act through its portrayal of his January 6 speech.
The filing quotes BBC chair Samir Shah acknowledging that the way Trump's speech was edited in the documentary created a “misleading impression” by making excerpts from different portions of the speech appear continuous.
Shah said the edit created the “mistaken impression” that Trump had made a “direct call for violent action,” calling it an “editorial error” for which the BBC apologized.
Trump's attorneys argue that Shah's statement means falsity is no longer genuinely disputed and say discovery in the case has not produced information showing that the challenged statements were true or substantially true. That is Trump's position in the litigation, not a finding by the court.
The BBC, however, disputes that interpretation. Its attorneys argue Shah's statement addressed whether the editing made it appear Trump had issued a direct call for violence, while the broader issue of whether his speech conveyed an impression that he wanted the crowd to riot remains relevant to the case.
The controversy over the documentary also led to the resignations of Tim Davie, the BBC’s director-general, and Deborah Turness, the chief executive of BBC News, with Davie saying mistakes had been made and Turness saying the controversy had reached the point where it was damaging the BBC.
Neither was reported as being fired. Davie said his departure was “entirely my decision,” while Turness said she stepped down because “the buck stops with me.”
...
Why Does the BBC Want Jack Smith to Testify?
The BBC argues Smith's testimony could shed light on a central issue in the lawsuit: whether Trump's January 6 speech conveyed the impression that he fomented or incited the Capitol riot.
In the filing, the BBC points to Smith's special counsel report and its description of evidence related to whether the violence was foreseeable to Trump, whether he caused it and whether he and alleged coconspirators leveraged the violence.
Those assertions are part of the BBC's argument for taking Smith's deposition and have not been established by the court in the BBC lawsuit.
The BBC maintains that while Smith’s conclusions have been made public, some of the evidence that informed them has not. Its attorneys argue that Smith previously declined to discuss some sources of evidence because of concerns about federal grand-jury secrecy.
Smith has repeatedly addressed his investigation publicly. According to the court filing, he released his final special counsel report on January 7, 2025, testified before Congress for nearly eight hours on December 17, 2025, appeared before the House Judiciary Committee for more than five hours on January 22, 2026, and testified again before the Senate Judiciary Committee on September 29, 2026.
The BBC argues a deposition could allow Smith to answer questions about evidence underlying his conclusions, subject to court rulings and federal grand-jury secrecy requirements. The broadcaster cites a provision of federal criminal procedure allowing a court to authorize disclosure of grand-jury matters in connection with a judicial proceeding.
Trump’s lawyers argue Smith is not a proper witness because he was not present when Trump delivered his speech, did not participate in preparing it and lacks personal knowledge of Trump's state of mind when he gave it. They also argue that Smith's report and extensive public testimony would make another deposition duplicative and disproportionate to the needs of the lawsuit.
Trump's attorneys further maintain that evidence underlying Smith's conclusions may be protected by grand-jury secrecy and argue the BBC has not demonstrated sufficient grounds for that secrecy to be lifted.
Newsweek’s reporters and editors used Martyn, our AI assistant, to produce this story. Learn more about Martyn here. Contact Newsweek editors for this story: Anthony Murray and Samantha Beech.