Judge: Trump trust must disclose financial records to BBC

A federal magistrate judge in Miami ruled Tuesday that a trust that 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 Corp. in the president's $10 billion defamation lawsuit.

Donald Trump sued the BBC in December over a 2024 documentary that he alleges misleadingly edited a speech he gave shortly before the Jan. 6, 2021, events at the U.S. Capitol to make it appear he directly called for violence. The BBC apologized in November, but the apology did not prevent the lawsuit.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Enjolique Lett of the Southern District of Florida said at a hearing that subpoenas issued by the BBC are reasonable given the breadth of Donald Trump's lawsuit, which claims the 12-second clip of his speech had a devastating impact on the value of his brand, properties, and future financial prospects.

The judge also granted the BBC's request to compel compliance with a subpoena issued to the Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust seeking a wide array of financial documents, Bloomberg reported. Even so, Lett said, the information sought by the BBC might need to be narrowed.

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

Her decision opens the door for the BBC to seek financial records related to nearly 400 entities affiliated with President Donald 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 in a court filing that the subpoena to the trust would help test Donald Trump's claim that the documentary damaged the value of his brand, properties, and businesses. It also argued that Donald Trump's wealth has increased by more than $1 billion over the past year.

Lett said that in both disputes — over the subpoenas to Donald Trump's inner circle and the subpoena issued to the trust — the information being sought was "overbroad" because it sought virtually everything related to Jan. 6, agreeing with a key contention by the president's legal team.

"I do not believe that a full relitigation of Jan. 6 is called for simply because the documentary itself was related to Jan. 6," Lett said, according to Bloomberg.

Donald Trump's attorneys tried to back away from some of his initial damage claims, abandoning assertions that the documentary had caused him economic injuries and diminished the value of his companies.

Attorney Alejandro Brito, seeking to bolster his argument that the subpoena to the trust wasn't necessary, told Lett that he would amend the lawsuit to show that the president was seeking compensation only for damage to his reputation and the cost of repairing that damage.

Brito told Lett the president's approach to the case has "evolved" and he is now pursuing only damage to his reputation — not his businesses.

"The damages are limited in a way that is different from when the case was originally filed," Brito said in court, according to Politico. "Even if there has been a harm to the brand, we are not pursuing that as part of our damages. ... It's a far more narrow scope of what this case is about."

BBC attorney Chuck Tobin said the distinction Donald Trump's attorneys were seeking to draw between his reputation and his business was meaningless.

"He ran for president of the United States on a platform of the art of the deal," Tobin said, according to Politico. "You cannot separate the man and his reputation from his operation of his businesses."

Lett said she lacked the power to drop the allegations of business damages from the complaint.