Trump Trust Ordered to Disclose Financial Records in $10 Billion Defamation Lawsuit Against BBC

A federal magistrate judge in Miami ruled on Tuesday that the Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust, which holds many of President Donald Trump’s business interests and is administered by his son Donald Trump Jr., must disclose financial records sought by the British Broadcasting Corporation in the president’s $10 billion defamation lawsuit.

The lawsuit was filed by President Trump in December over a 2024 documentary that he alleges misleadingly edited a speech he delivered shortly before the January 6, 2021, events at the U.S. Capitol to make it appear he directly called for violence. Although the BBC apologized in November, that apology did not prevent the lawsuit.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Enjolique Lett of the Southern District of Florida stated at a hearing that subpoenas issued by the BBC are reasonable given the scope of Trump’s $10 billion defamation claim, which asserts that a 12-second clip of his speech caused significant damage to his brand, properties, and financial prospects. The judge also granted the BBC’s request to compel compliance with a subpoena for a wide array of financial documents from the Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust. However, Lett noted that the information sought might need to be narrowed.

“All of President Trump’s brand, properties, and businesses are impugned or said to have been impugned,” Lett stated at the conclusion of a three-hour hearing. “Reputational, economic damages, all of that is now at issue in this case.”

Her decision allows the BBC to seek financial records related to nearly 400 entities affiliated with President Trump held by the trust, but the president can appeal the ruling to U.S. District Judge Roy Altman, whom he appointed. The BBC argued that subpoenaing the trust would help test Trump’s claim that the documentary damaged his brand and businesses. It also contended that Trump’s wealth has increased by more than $1 billion over the past year.

Lett acknowledged that in both disputes—the subpoenas for Trump’s inner circle and the trust—the information sought was “overbroad” because it covered virtually everything related to January 6, but she said a full relitigation of January 6 is unnecessary simply because the documentary involved those events. “I do not believe that a full relitigation of Jan. 6 is called for,” Lett stated.

Trump’s attorneys had previously abandoned claims that the documentary caused economic injuries and diminished company values. Instead, they now seek compensation only for reputational damage and the cost to repair it. Attorney Alejandro Brito told Lett he would amend the lawsuit to limit damages to reputation-related harm alone, stating that Trump’s approach to the case has “evolved.”

BBC attorney Chuck Tobin countered that such distinctions are meaningless, noting that Trump ran for president on a platform of business dealings and that his reputation cannot be separated from his enterprises. Lett ruled she lacked the authority to drop allegations related to business damages from the complaint.