MIAMI - A federal magistrate judge has ordered President Donald Trump to sit for a deposition by Dec. 11 in his $10 billion defamation lawsuit against the BBC, warning that failure to appear could bring sanctions up to dismissal of the case.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Enjolique Lett set the deadline Thursday after attorneys for the British broadcaster said they still had not been able to question the plaintiff with less than two months remaining in discovery. The order allows a later date only if the judge overseeing the case extends the discovery schedule.

Discovery is currently due to end Dec. 18. It is the pretrial period in which both sides exchange documents, question witnesses and test the factual claims that could eventually reach a jury.

The BBC said Trump's deposition had previously been scheduled for Oct. 16, but his lawyers canceled it because of what they described as a matter of national importance. In a court filing, the broadcaster noted that Trump appeared at a campaign rally in Georgia that day and later attended a Republican National Committee event at Mar-a-Lago. His legal team proposed dates in January, after the present discovery deadline.

Trump filed the lawsuit in December 2025 over a BBC documentary titled Trump: A Second Chance. The broadcaster acknowledged that the program joined remarks from different portions of Trump's Jan. 6, 2021, speech in a way that made his words appear continuous. The BBC apologized for the edit, and senior executives resigned amid the controversy, but the organization denies that it legally defamed the president.

The president alleges that the documentary falsely portrayed him as directly urging violence before supporters breached the U.S. Capitol and that its broadcast shortly before the 2024 election damaged him. The BBC is contesting those claims and seeking evidence about his reputation and alleged losses.

Trump's attorneys also asked that any deposition be recorded only by a court reporter. Lett ruled that lawyers may make a video recording but that it will be restricted to the attorneys and will not be released publicly.

A separate dispute concerns the BBC's effort to question former special counsel Jack Smith, whose office investigated Trump's conduct surrounding the transfer of presidential power after the 2020 election. Federal rules require current and former Justice Department personnel to obtain agency permission before testifying. Lett directed the department to respond to Smith's request by Nov. 2.

None of Thursday's decisions resolves whether the BBC's editing was defamatory or whether Trump suffered compensable harm. They govern how the parties must gather evidence before those issues can be decided.

Accountability runs in both directions

The BBC's edit deserves serious scrutiny. Splicing words delivered nearly an hour apart can change how an audience understands a speaker's intent. A news organization with global reach cannot demand trust while treating sequence and context as disposable. Its apology was necessary, and a court is entitled to examine whether the mistake crossed the demanding American threshold for defamation of a public figure.

But filing a lawsuit also carries obligations. A plaintiff cannot ask a court for $10 billion, demand extensive evidence from the defendant and then remain unavailable for ordinary questioning. A deposition is not persecution or a verdict. It is the mechanism that lets the other side test the plaintiff's account under oath.

That principle matters more, not less, when the plaintiff is the president. American courts preserve their legitimacy by applying familiar rules to powerful people without theatrical exemptions. The presidency brings grave responsibilities and genuine security concerns, but judges can accommodate those needs without abandoning deadlines altogether.

The dispute also illustrates why an independent press and an independent judiciary must coexist. Journalism needs freedom to investigate leaders aggressively. That freedom is protected by high legal barriers against political figures using defamation suits to punish criticism. It is also sustained by editorial discipline, transparent corrections and consequences when a broadcaster misleads viewers.

The cleanest path is evidence. Trump should answer relevant questions, the BBC should disclose how the edit was made, and the court should separate a serious journalistic failure from a legally actionable falsehood. Political loyalty should decide none of it.

In authoritarian systems, leaders can silence broadcasters by command and media institutions can serve power without meaningful challenge. America's harder model requires both sides to submit to rules they do not control. That process can be slow and uncomfortable, but it is a strength. The Dec. 11 deadline is a reminder that anyone who invokes the law must also accept the law's examination.