Tim Davie tells BBC staff ‘we have to fight for our journalism’ as Trump threatens $1bn lawsuit – UK politics live

12.59pm GMT Davie avoids discussing Trump lawsuit threat, or giving transition timeline, in call with BBC staff Frances Mao is a Guardian reporter. Here are some of the other key points from Tim Davie’s all-staff call with BBC colleagues Davie did not address the billion-dollar lawsuit threatened by US President Trump or the BBC’s potential response, and whether it would pay compensation to stave off the litigation. On the offending video edit of Trump’s speech, Davie said: “We did make a mistake and there was an editorial breach and I think some responsibility had to be taken”. It was one of the reasons he’d chosen to resign, he said, along with the “relentlessness” of the role and the opportunity to clear the runway for a new director general in the lead-up to 2027 charter renewal. He mentioned “transition” a few times, but did not disclose details or any timeline for his departure and replacement. Shah, who joined in the call halfway, said the board was in “succession mode”. Davie acknowledged that senior news editors were unhappy that their journalism had not been more vigorously defended, and said that while it was important to be “out there making our case”, when it came to responding to attacks, “we have to make sure we’re getting it right when we go out” and a sense of proportionality was also communicated – the few mistakes for several hundred hours of content. “It’s important that we calmly communicate to people the wood from the trees.” 12.38pm GMT There has been no shortage of former BBC journalists setting out their views on the corporation’s current crisis. Here are three articles worth reading. Danny Shaw, a BBC former home affairs correspondent, says in an article for the Spectator today that groupthink was a problem when he was at the corporation. There is nothing wrong with being proud of the organisation you work for – and there is everything right about working closely together as a team. But the danger is that it breeds a kind of ‘groupthink’ in which alternative or unfashionable views are marginalised, and where external complaints about your output are dismissed. I was sometimes guilty of it myself during 31 years at the BBC and I believe it’s at the root of the scandal that has now cost Tim Davie, the Director-General, and Deborah Turness, the CEO of News, their jobs. Indeed, the tunnel vision that has led some BBC shows and journalists down the wrong track on the Middle East and trans issues reminds me of our past reporting on immigration. From about 2004, when the expansion of the EU sparked an influx of migrants to the UK, to the Brexit referendum in 2016, BBC News failed properly to reflect concerns about the impact of mass migration, in particular, the way it was changing the nature of many of our towns and cities. Lewis Goodall, a former Newsnight journalist who is now a presenter on the News Agents podcast, says in a post on his Goodall and Good Luck Substack that he does not have sympathy for Tim Davie. I despair at the position it is now in. I have little to no sympathy for Tim Davie. He has helped create the problem by constantly opining on the BBC being too liberal. He has legitimised the critique which has toppled him. He appeased the same forces who have brought him down. He seemed to me to think little about what impartial journalism means in this age of universal deceit. I am also unmoved by some of the complacency the BBC often has when it talks about itself- talking about doing things “only the BBC can do”. This list is much more limited than is often presented as being. I think there is still value to a national broadcaster funded by some kind of national levy- but if the BBC cannot or will not defend itself, and if it will not stand true for a truly radical concept: fearlessly impartial journalism, not fearful management of impartiality, then it will fade away. And it’ll deserve to. And Mark Urban, another former Newsnight journalist, says in a post on his Substack that there is some substance in the concerns raised by Michael Prescott. For most of the time I worked on Newsnight a lively spirit of contrarianism, an ability to set aside one’s own prejudices, a commitment to seeking a diversity of views, and having a longer production day in which to debate a topic, worked in our favour. It was balanced on most issues, particularly domestic politics. But more recently, and in common with every other big developed world news organisation I know, generational change brought a younger, more dirigiste kind of progressivism onto the team. The language of ‘lived experience’, ‘don’t be a bystander’, and formulas such as ‘silence is violence’, entered the editorial conversation. Thus I was in a meeting where one producer with strong views on trans issues tried to veto an interview bid for JK Rowling, saying she was “very problematic” (she didn’t want to come on anyway). On different occasion another of our journalists told Rod Liddle, who did make it on to the show, to his face that they were dead against inviting him on, triggering a (justified) complaint from the columnist. 12.31pm GMT Davie 'bullish' on BBC charter renewal, telling staff 'we have a very strong case' Frances Mao is a Guardian reporter. Pressed on charter renewal, which the next director general will have to negotiate through to the end of 2027, Tim Davie told colleagues in his all-staff call that the BBC’s work so far had put it in good stead. “We’re in a really good position to get a good charter” he said, adding that “the government of the day are supportive of public institutions and have been saying they want sustainable, long-term funding.” He pointed to the success of local newsrooms across the UK and programmes like Celebrity Traitors – “the numbers are outstanding”. All of the Brits use us and they care about us and we’re important.” We just need to do our business, keep strong …. I’m quite bullish about it. I think we have a strong case. 12.15pm GMT Racism returning to UK politics – and people are very scared, says Starmer Decades-old racism is returning to British politics, and “it makes people feel very scared” Keir Starmer has said, warning that divisive hard-right politics was “tearing our country apart”. As Eleni Courea reports, in an interview for ITV’s Lorraine show, Starmer accused Nigel Farage’s Reform UK of overseeing a return of the racist and divisive politics “that frankly I thought we had dealt with decades ago”. Related: Racism returning to UK politics – and people are very scared, says Starmer 12.07pm GMT Davie urges staff to carry on doing the work - 'that speaks louder than any newspaper, any weaponisation' Frances Mao is a Guardian reporter. In his all-staff call (see 11.35am), Tim Davie said he knew staff were probably feeling concern during such a “tumultuous” period. You can ask questions of ‘Where is the BBC going? Are we rudderless? What happens to the future? And they’re stressful [questions], they’re difficult … one of my biggest emotions at the moment is I care desperately about the organisation, the thousands of people who work for it. He said the staff, more than 23,000 people making news and programmes, need to carry on with their quality work. It’s all of our actions together, and us working and doing our business every single day. He had been listening to the radio services yesterday, watching the programmes, even “went to iPlayer to try and find a bit of relaxation”. It’s all there. And if we keep delivering, the facts speak. Don’t let anyone stop you thinking that we are doing a fantastic job. We’ve actually grown trust, let’s get that narrative out there.” I’m fiercely proud of this organisation. There are difficult times it goes through but it just does good work. And that speaks louder than any newspaper, any weaponisation. 11.57am GMT What lawyers and commentators are saying about Trump's threat to sue BBC Here is a round-up of what various lawyers and commentators have been saying about Donald Trump’s legal case against the BBC. Joshua Rozenberg, the legal commentator and a former BBC journalist, has said in a post on his A Lawyer Writes Substack that the corporation should settle. He explains: Given what Brito is claiming, the lawyer is unlikely to be impressed with the BBC’s assertion 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”. So the BBC would be well advised to draft a retraction and apology in terms that the president’s lawyer finds acceptable. Brito is also calling for this to be broadcast as prominently as the original programme. And the corporation will have to pay compensation. As the BBC reported yesterday, the BBC’s US partner CBS News and its parent company Paramount settled in July for $16 million (£13.5m) after legal action by Trump, who alleged deceptive editing of an interview with then vice-president and Democratic candidate Kamala Harris ahead of the 2024 election. Settling won’t be cheap. But it will be cheaper than a billion dollars. George Peretz KC, chair of the Society of Labour Lawyers, says on Bluesky, commenting on Rozenberg’s blog, that the BBC might be better off with a more robust approach. So at the moment, despite @joshuarozenberg.bsky.social’s piece, I wonder whether a better BBC response would be the Arkell v Pressdram one. proftomcrick.com/2014/04/29/a... (You really need to click on the link.) (At least to the extent he’s seeking more than a formal apology limited to the obvious mistake and a very modest offer of compensation.) There is, after all, the risk of a dangerous precedent here. The BBC will often offend foreign leaders – some worse than Trump. Sometimes it will make factual mistakes in reporting on them. Yield to Trump now, and who next? Mark Stephens, a media lawyer, told BBC Breakfast that a court case could reflect badly on Trump. He said: Every damning quote that he’s ever uttered is going to be played back to him and picked over – not great PR. Trump risks turning what’s currently a PR skirmish with the BBC very much on the back foot into a global headline that the court finds Trump’s words were incendiary … [It’s] difficult to see how the claim stacks up either financially or legally. George Freeman, executive director of the Media Law Resource Center in New York and a former lawyer for the New York Times, told the BBC that Trump “has a long record of unsuccessful libel suits – and an even longer record of letters like the one you received that don’t end up as lawsuits at all”. Christopher Steele, the former MI6 officer who is trying to recover costs from Trump after the president sued him unsuccessfully in the UK, says Trump’s latest threat is preposterous. Donald Trump’s threat to sue the BBC in London is preposterous. He remains in breach of English High Court orders in a case he brought and lost against Orbis 18 months ago. So any further abuse of the UK courts by him for such legal tourism and intimidation should be prohibited. Robert Peston, ITV’s political editor, says the BBC has been told Trump does not have a case. The legal advice to the BBC I am told is that President Trump was not meaningfully damaged by Panorama’s manipulation of his 6 January speech, and that therefore there is no legal necessity to pay him compensation. The BBC board is therefore likely to resist and fight his demand to be “appropriately compensated” out of court, and will risk him carrying through on his threat to seek $1bn in damages by going to court. 11.35am GMT Tim Davie tells BBC staff 'this narrative will not just be given by our enemies' Frances Mao is a Guardian reporter. Tim Davie, the BBC director general, has this morning addressed all BBC staff in an online call. He opened the address with an acknowledgment of the “very tough” period. Then he rallied the troops, with a tacit acknowledgment of the “enemies” of the BBC, and the “weaponisation” of its mistakes. These times are difficult for the BBC but we will get through it. We will get through it and we will thrive. This narrative will not just be given by our enemies. It’s our narrative. We own things. He said he heard the calls from staff to stand up for their journalism. I see the free press under pressure. I see the weaponisation. I think we have to fight for our journalism. We have made some mistakes that have cost us but we need to fight for that. BBC Chair Samir Shah also addressed staff in the call. We’ll have more shortly. Updated at 12.07pm GMT 11.11am GMT Trump's legal action against BBC will benefit 'community as a whole', his lawyer claims In an interview with GB News last night, Alejandro Brito, Donald Trump’s lawyer, claimed that the president was taking legal action against the BBC not just for his own benefit, but for the benefit of the community. Referring to the legal letter sent to the BBC, he said: The letter completely states our position with respect to what transpired as well as what the president seeks, which are three things. Number one, a full and complete retraction of the defamatory statements made by the BBC. Two, an apology to the president for engaging in such intentional and biased reporting, and three, a monetary settlement proposal to be made by the BBC in order to remedy the financial harm that they caused the president to suffer as a result of their intentional conduct. If they don’t respond, then we will be left with no alternative but to enforce the president’s legal and equitable rights. And it’ll be up to the president to decide how and when he seeks to do so. The president is clearly not seeking to sting or damage the consumers and the public as a whole. In fact, his decision to take legal action and to enforce his rights is not simply for his benefit, but for the community as a whole. Because if the BBC and other institutions can engage in this sort of conduct and damage his reputation and engage in such nefarious conduct, it can happen to anyone. Brito also said Trump was “not inciting anyone” on 6 January 2021. The president clearly was not inciting anyone and anyone who reads the transcript of what the president actually said, as opposed to what the BBC wanted the viewers to believe he said, would make it abundantly clear that what the president was asking for was a peaceful demonstration, was not seeking to incite any sort of violence, and the broadcast that was aired by the BBC tried to intentionally alter that. And so if in fact the BBC seeks to take a position that what the president actually did was to incite violence that will be demonstrated to be demonstrably false and will only compound the problems that the BBC is confronted with right now. The BBC has admitted that it was wrong to present Trump’s speech on 6 January as a “direct call for violent action”. But that is not the same as saying that he had no responsibility for the attack on the Capitol. A congressional inquiry into the violence that day concluded: [The] evidence has led to an overriding and straight-forward conclusion: the central cause of January 6th was one man, former President Donald Trump, who many others followed. None of the events of January 6th would have happened without him. Here is a summary of what the 6 January committee investigation concluded. In his memo to the BBC board complaining about the Panorama broadcast, and other alleged impartiality lapses, the standards adviser Michael Prescott played down the committee’s findings, describing it as “a Democrat-packed committee, not an objective source of truth”. 10.57am GMT Huddleston criticises those trying to 'hound out' Robbie Gibb from BBC Ed Davey, the Lib Dem leader, has called for Robbie Gibb to be removed from the BBC board. Gibb, a rightwing Conservative who worked as Theresa May’s director of communications after a career as a BBC journalist, has been described as the lead critic at board level over the way that the BBC newsroom is run. Gibb argues that he is defending BBC impartiality, but his many critics in the organisation view his version of impartiality as overtly partisan and rightwing. In his GB News interview, Nigel Huddleston, the shadow culture seceretary, defended Gibb. He said: The fact that they’re now trying to hound out Robbie Gibb, the one person who’s openly Conservative, speaks volumes about their inability to understand the strength of the problem here. The BBC tries to pursue diversity in every single area other than diversity of thought, and now they’re going after Robbie Gibb. I mean, did these people have the same arguments when James Purnell, the former Labour DCMS Secretary of State was made director of strategy at the BBC? No, of course they didn’t. 10.36am GMT Tory culture spokesperson Nigel Huddleston says BBC should apologise and 'grovel' to Trump over Panorama broadcast Nigel Huddleston, the shadow culture secretary, has said that the BBC should apologise and “grovel” to President Trump over the editing error that implied he was explicitly urging his supporters to resort to violence when they marched on the US Capitol on 6 January 2021. In an interview on GB News, asked how the BBC should respond to Trump’s legal threat, Huddleston replied: Well, with a big apology and grovel because they were wrong, and Donald Trump has a perfectly legitimate concern here. It wasn’t ‘could be perceived’ to be misleading, it transparently was. Echoing the points made the Michael Prescott, the former BBC standards adviser whose letter to the BBC board complaining about the Trump programme and other alleged incidents of bias ultimately led to Tim Davie’s resigation, Huddleston said the editing error was not the only problem with the Panorama programme about Trump. If you look at the number of people who were interviewed, it was 10 to one the people who opposed Donald Trump to those who supported him, and there wasn’t a compensatory programme for Kamala Harris. So I think the president has some legitimate concerns … What they did was mislead the public and give the impression that Donald Trump said something that he transparently did not. That was not a mistake, that was a deliberate and conscious decision by a whole production team, by the editors, by the journalists. It was then decided to broadcast. Complaints were raised and nothing was done. You can read the Prescott memo in full here. Samir Shah, the BBC chair, included it as an appendix to the letter he sent to the culture committee yesterday. 10.19am GMT Starmer all but confirms that two-child benefit cap will be fully abolished in budget Yesterday Rachel Reeves, the chancellor, gave an interview that indicated very strongly that she will get rid of the two-child benefit cap in full in the budget. It had been reported that the government was only going to partially remove it (by replacing the cap with a softer version, like a three-child benefit cap), but Reeves signalled that the cap will go in its entirety. Related: Rachel Reeves signals plan to remove two-child benefit cap in budget If anyone did not get the message, Keir Starmer has signalled exactly the same intention – only even more strongly. In an interview with Amir Khan, a doctor and ITV broadcaster, the PM said he was determined to drive child poverty down. In the clip, recorded yesterday but broadcast this morning, Starmer said: I can tell you in no uncertain terms I’m determined to drive child poverty down. It is what the last Labour government did. And it’s one of the things we were proudest of. I am personally determined that is what we’re going to do. You won’t have to wait much longer to see what the measures are. Some of them are already in place; the free school meals, the breakfast clubs, free childcare are all part of it. But we need to do more than that. And I can look you in the eye and tell you I’m personally committed to driving down child poverty. When asked again if he would get rid of the two-child benefit cap, Starmer said: You won’t have to wait much longer. But I wouldn’t be telling you that we’re going to drive down child poverty if I wasn’t clear that we will be taking a number of measures in order to do so. PM signals two child benefit cap could be lifted @DrAmirKhanGP asks Starmer if he will scrap the cap on @lorraine'I wouldn't be telling you we're going to drive down child poverty if I wasn't clear that we will be taking a number of measures in order to do so', PM says pic.twitter.com/fWDeGIUGmi— ITVPolitics (@ITVNewsPolitics) November 11, 2025 Starmer’s words are significant because economists have argued that a partial abolition of the two-child benefit cap would not drive down child poverty. This is what the Resolution Foundation said in a report on budget options published last week. It is unsurprising, then, that it is rumoured the government has been exploring options for partial reform of the two-child limit, most notably lifting the limit for working families only; moving to a three-child limit which would restore benefit entitlement for third children, but not for any fourth or subsequent child; and scrapping the limit in full, but then paying the UC child element at a reduced rate for third and subsequent children. Each of these options would cost around £1bn less in 2029-30 compared to fully scrapping the policy. But, crucially, as figure 10 shows, all of these partial-repeal alternatives would leave child poverty rates higher at the end of the forecast period than at the beginning (just under 32 per cent compared to just under 31 per cent in 2024-25), an outcome that is inconsistent with the government’s promise to be ambitious with respect to reducing child poverty. And here is the chart (figure 10). They read Resolution Foundation reports in No 10, and take them seriously. Torsten Bell, the Treasury minister who is one of the lead figures drawing up the budget, was chief executive of the Resolution Foundation until the last election. It is very hard to imagine Starmer saying what he did if full abolition of the two-child benefit cap was not now agreed. Updated at 10.19am GMT 9.52am GMT Trump ally says BBC will win if case goes to court in Florida - but president likely to sue anyway as part of war on 'fake news' On the Today programme, Christopher Ruddy, CEO of Newsmax, a rightwing news organisation in the US, and someone who has been a friend of Donald Trump for years, was interviewed about Trump’s threat to sue the BBC. Here are the main points he made. Ruddy said that, if the BBC were to fight the case in the Florida courts, they would probably win. He explained: The fact is, I’m from the state of Florida. I’m very familiar with the Florida libel laws. I have no doubt the BBC misrepresented what the president said. And that’s pretty clear. I think everybody agrees, otherwise you wouldn’t have had those resignations. I’m also very assured that if the BBC took the case to court, they would prevail. They would prevail because the state of Florida has pretty strong libel laws that defend media companies and free speech. But Ruddy also acknowledged that other media organisations sued by Trump had decided to settle rather contest his claims. “What’s happening is that a lot of media companies would prefer not to go through the media spectacle of all this,” he said. Ruddy said that, when Trump forced other media organisations to settle, he viewed that as proving his case that they were peddling “fake news”. Referring to the CBS and ABC lawsuits (see 9.22am), Ruddy said: I think he sees these as victories … He sees this as legitimising his claims that there’s fake news, that the news is out to get him. Ruddy said Trump regarded the BBC resignations announced on Sunday as a victory. I congratulate that the BBC and people resigned, and they were held accountable. In American media organisation oftentimes you don’t see that and there’s not a sense of accountability. The president sees this as a big victory for him in his claim the media is out to get him. Ruddy said he thought there was a good chance that Trump would go ahead with his threat to sue the BBC. He may very well sue the BBC because he’s had a winning record on bringing these suits. Ruddy said that the fact that the BBC is funded by the taxpayer would not deter Trump. I think that he he feels that there are very big wealth funded organisation and if they did him wrong then and he could be compensated for that. And I think he sees that as a win for him and a win for truth. Ruddy said he did not think Trump would worry about legal action damaging his relationship with the UK government. I do think that it [legal action] doesn’t hurt his relationship [with the UK government]. He has a very good relationship with Keir Starmer. He’s certainly widely respects King Charles. He does not see this as impinging at all on the very good relationship that he has with Britain. I was with him at Windsor Castle, when he was there [for the state visit]. I think he and Melania felt that was one of the high points of his presidency so far. Updated at 9.54am GMT 9.27am GMT Tim Davie, the outgoing BBC director general, has arrived for work at Broadcasting House, according to the BBC’s live blog. He said he was “very, very proud” of the BBC journalists working in the building, adding: The BBC is going to be thriving and I support everyone on the team. He did not answer questions about Donald Trump’s proposed lawsuit. 9.22am GMT How Trump has track record of using the law to threaten media organisations Here is an analysis by Jeremy Barr of how Donald Trump’s threatened legal action against the BBC is just the latest example of how he has always used “legal threats and lawsuits to pressure news companies who put out coverage he does not like”. Related: With his threat of a $1bn lawsuit against BBC, Trump’s assault on the media goes global 9.07am GMT Minister suggests BBC should apologise to Trump over editing error - but doesn't comment on his $1bn lawsuit threat Good morning. Yesterday the BBC in crisis story, that had primarily been about the resignations of its director general and its head of news, veered into international diplomacy when Donald Trump threatened to sue the BBC for $1bn over the way it edited a clip of the speech he gave before his supporters attacked the US Capitol and people working there on 6 January 2021. Related: Trump threatens BBC with $1bn legal action over edit of speech in documentary This is obviously awkward for the government, not least because the BBC is funded with taxpayers’ money and so any payout to the president would ultimately come from them. This morning there is quite a lot of legal comment around addressing the question of whether or not Trump has much of a legal case. I’ll summarise some of it later, but, bluntly, the answer is no. But a lot of this analysis falls under the heading of category error; Trump has launched several high-profile cases against US media organisations with little or no legal merit, and almost always they have settled, not because they thought Trump had a case, but because being in ongoing dispute with the White House created other risks and it was safer and easier to cave. The BBC probably does not need the approval of the Federal Communications Commission for any deals in the US, but there are countless other ways that the Trump administration could make life difficult for it. Perhaps Trump will just drop his legal threat and let the whole row blow over. For the BBC, and the UK government, that would be the ideal outcome. But it does not seem likely. Lisa Nandy, the culture secretary, is due to make a statement to MPs about the BBC later. As well as addressing what can be done in the immediate term to restore confidence in the BBC, and what might be done in the medium term to give it a secure funding model (Reform UK was making the case for the abolition of the licence fee yesterday), she will also have to respond to questions about Trump’s threat. Not easy for a minister in a government where any criticism of the president is more or less banned. Alison McGovern, the local government minister, has been doing interviews this morning. In an interview with Times Radio, asked about Trump’s threat to sue, she just said that was a matter for him and for the BBC. I think the president can say what he wants, and he will do. And we know that. Asked again about his threat, she replied: “Well, that’s for him, and the BBC, I’m sure, will respond to whatever happens. And that is for them to do.” In a separate interview on LBC, McGovern was asked if the BBC should apologise to Trump for the way his 6 January 2021 speech was edited in the Panorama programme about him shown just before last year’s election. McGovern replied: If they’ve made an editorial mistake, then they should apologise … I think the BBC is probably chock full of policies on what they should do when they make editorial mistakes, so I think they should stick to it. Yesterday the BBC did apologise for the way the speech was edited in the programme. But that was in a letter to the Commons culture committee. McGovern seemed to be saying the BBC should apologise to Trump directly. I will be mostly focusing on the BBC story today, but there is other politics around. Here is the agenda for the day. 9am: Keir Starmer is due to appear on ITV’s Lorraine, in a pre-recorded interview. Noon: Downing Street holds a lobby briefing. 2.30pm: David Lammy, the deputy PM and justice secretary, takes questions in the Commons. 2.30pm: Peter Kyle, the business secretary, gives evidence to the Commons business committee. After 3.30pm: Lammy is expected to make a statement about prisoner release mistakes, and Lisa Nandy, the culture secretary, is expected to make a statement to MPs about the BBC. Lammy will probably go first, but that has not been confirmed yet. If you want to contact me, please post a message below the line when comments are open (normally between 10am and 3pm BST at the moment), or message me on social media. I can’t read all the messages BTL, but if you put “Andrew” in a message aimed at me, I am more likely to see it because I search for posts containing that word. If you want to flag something up urgently, it is best to use social media. You can reach me on Bluesky at @andrewsparrowgdn.bsky.social. The Guardian has given up posting from its official accounts on X, but individual Guardian journalists are there, I still have my account, and if you message me there at @AndrewSparrow, I will see it and respond if necessary. I find it very helpful when readers point out mistakes, even minor typos. No error is too small to correct. And I find your questions very interesting too. I can’t promise to reply to them all, but I will try to reply to as many as I can, either BTL or sometimes in the blog. Updated at 9.24am GMT