Donald Trump threatens BBC with legal action after resignations over speech edit

Start your day informed with Metro’s News Updates newsletter or get Breaking News alerts the moment it happens.

Dear Caroline,

Thank you for your letter of 4 November.

I want to put on record the BBC’s position on a number of issues that have been raised in the last week following the leak of a letter to the BBC Board from Michael Prescott, a former external advisor to the BBC’s Editorial Guidelines and Standards Committee (EGSC). In doing so, I will also address the questions you asked me in your letter.

[…]

It is worth stating at the outset that some of the coverage of Mr Prescott’s memo has implied that he has ‘uncovered’ a list of stories and issues that the BBC have sought to ‘bury’. That interpretation is simply not true. The issues raised by Mr Prescott are precisely the issues that have been considered by the EGSC and the Board. The EGSC is the senior forum in which we scrutinise BBC output when concerns have been raised (from either internal or external sources) and where we determine what action needs to be taken. Put simply: the Committee’s job is to examine the bad news not the good news. Sometimes the mistakes are one-offs, others may point to underlying problems. The job is never complete. But it is only by identifying and highlighting these issues and implementing changes that the BBC demonstrates its commitment to continuous improvement.

There is another view that has gained currency in the coverage that the BBC has done nothing to tackle these problems. That is also simply not true. Over the three years Mr Prescott was an advisor to the EGSC, the BBC has: published corrections where we have got things wrong; changed editorial guidance to make the BBC’s position on issues clearer; made changes to leadership where the problems point to underlying issues; and carried out formal disciplinary measures.

[…]

First, the EGSC accepts that there are occasions when the BBC gets things wrong or our reporting requires more context and explanation. This is the case in some of the issues mentioned in Mr Prescott’s letter, where BBC executives fully accepted the conclusions of the EGSC commissioned research. These include the car insurance story, the insecure jobs item, the Scarlett Blake case, the ICJ order, and the reporting of casualty figures in Gaza. Action in these areas ranged from published corrections and clarifications to new editorial guidance being issued. In other cases considered by EGSC, disciplinary action has been taken.

On top of the specific stories, EGSC also identified concerns about underlying problems – for example in the Arabic service or long form journalism. These two areas have been discussed at length at the EGSC and action has been taken to tackle this kind of problem. The BBC Arabic Team has been restructured, a new Arabic speaking Head of Editorial Quality and Standards has been appointed in the World Service, and a new social media research unit has been set up to verify those who appear on the service. In the UK, BBC News have appointed a new Executive Editor of Editorial Quality and Standards to oversee domestic News output. BBC News will immediately appoint a new Director of News Documentaries and Long Form Journalism who will oversee current affairs output.

[…]

Michael Prescott’s memo gives only a partial description of the evidence that EGSC received and considered.

For example, on the US election section, the EGSC did accept there wasan issue with the Iowa poll but also noted that the BBC’s overall polling coverage was ‘very good, particularly online’.

And on the review of sex and gender identity, the EGSC noted much of the coverage met the BBC’s standards of impartiality and accuracy.

Let me turn now to a specific story. The editing of President Trump’s speech on January 6th in the Panorama, Trump: A Second Chance?

The editing of President Trump’s speech on January 6th has attracted significant attention. This issue was the subject of discussion at EGSC in January 2025 and again in May 2025. There was concern expressed by members of the Committee, as well as Mr Prescott, of the way programme was edited. However, the EGSC also heard from BBC News that the purpose of editing the clip, was to convey the message of the speech made by President Trump so that Panorama’s audience could better understand how it had been received by President Trump’s supporters and what was happening on the ground at that time. This issue was considered and discussed as part of a wider review of the BBC’s US Election coverage, commissioned by the Committee, rather than handled as a specific programme complaint, given it had not attracted significant audience feedback and had been transmitted before the US election, so the point wasn’t pursued further at that time. The points raised in the review were relayed to the Panorama team, including the decision making on this edit. With hindsight, it would have been better to take more formal action.

Since the publication of Mr Prescott’s memo, this issue has led to over 500 complaints. These are now being dealt with in the normal way. It has also prompted further reflection by the BBC. The conclusion of that deliberation is that we accept the way the speech was edited did give the impression of a direct call for violent action. The BBC would like to apologise for that error of judgement.

[…]

I would like to assure you and the Committee that I am absolutely clear that the BBC must champion impartiality. It is more necessary now than ever before. All the policies and practices we have implemented so far, and will implement as we reshape the EGSC, will be driven by the need to hold the highest standards in all our content – video, audio and online.

As Chair I take full responsibility for that. i hope this letter demonstrates that the BBC has taken significant action over the past three years. I will personally ensure that the BBC continues to take the necessary actions in the future to ensure the BBC retains the trust and confidence of the public we serve.

I’d like to conclude by restating the importance of high quality, independent journalism in today’s polarised society. There is an increasing need for the public to be informed in a way that is impartial, truthful and is based on evidence they can trust. That is the sacred job of the BBC.

Samir Shah
BBC Chair

Natalie Fenton, a professor of media and communications at Goldsmiths University of London, told Metro: ‘The main issue that this debacle brings to the fore is the key issue of ensuring the BBC’s independence from government.

‘Of course, the BBC should be held to account for its content but by the public who pay the license fee and not by parliamentarians with a vested political interest in what it does.

‘When a government appoints key BBC officials and holds the purse strings it results in a much weakened service.

‘We need a BBC that is fully independent, held to account by the public and able to do its job free from interference from politicians of all persuasions.

‘The latest crisis shows that now is the time to reform the structures of governance of the BBC to ensure it is fit for the future.’

When asked whether the latest saga will impact the BBC licence fee negotiations ahead of its Royal Charter ending after December 2027, she said: ‘The process of Charter Review for the BBC needs to recognise that its lack of independence is at the heart of all its problems and allow for much more public involvement in the process rather than the pseudo-consultations that have become the norm.

‘This is a public service broadcasting service and it is time that the public had a say.’