In recent months, former President Donald Trump has secured multi-million dollar settlements from major U.S. media companies like ABC and CBS in defamation lawsuits widely viewed by legal experts as weak and unlikely to succeed in court. This strategy reveals a pattern of using litigation not to win in court, but to force financially vulnerable news organizations into “pay-to-play” settlements, creating a dangerous climate for press freedom.
Now, this campaign has gone international with a $5-$10 billion lawsuit against the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC). The BBC’s response—a firm refusal to settle—highlights the unique vulnerability of American media whose parent companies face extensive federal regulation and business interests directly impacted by the Trump administration.
How Settlements Replaced Courtroom Battles
The settlements with major U.S. networks demonstrate a consistent pattern.
ABC News
· Issue at Stake: Anchor George Stephanopoulos incorrectly stated Trump had been found civilly liable for rape. A jury had found him liable for sexual abuse, but a judge noted the distinction.
· Legal Experts’ View: Six media lawyers consulted by NPR said ABC had an “exceptionally strong case” due to the high “actual malice” standard public figures must meet.
· Settlement: $15 million payment to Trump’s presidential library, plus $1 million in legal fees.
CBS/Paramount Global
· Issue at Stake: Alleged deceptive editing of a “60 Minutes” interview with Kamala Harris during the 2024 campaign.
· Settlement: $16 million to Trump for his presidential library and legal fees.
In both cases, settlements were reached before the merits of the lawsuits could be tested in court. As First Amendment scholar Clay Calvert notes, the real goal of such suits is often not victory, but to “chill the press” and turn a critical “watchdog” into a compliant “lapdog”.
The “Pay-to-Play” Pressure on American Media
The willingness of American companies to settle weak cases is not simply a legal calculation. It stems from significant financial and regulatory pressures that create a “pay-to-play” environment.
· Regulatory Retaliation: The Federal Communications Commission (FCC), now led by Trump appointee Brendan Carr, has opened investigations into media outlets like ABC, NBC, and CBS for their coverage.
· Business Leverage: Major corporate mergers require FCC approval. In a stark example, Paramount Global settled its $16 million lawsuit with Trump as it sought government approval for a merger. It also agreed to roll back diversity (DEI) initiatives. Other companies like Verizon and T-Mobile made similar concessions ahead of FCC decisions.
· Desire for Access: As the NPR analysis of the ABC settlement noted, the network and its parent company Disney have significant business interests that will be “under review from officials in the Trump administration in the years ahead”.
The BBC Lawsuit: A Different Kind of Target
Trump’s lawsuit against the BBC follows a familiar script but targets a fundamentally different opponent. The suit claims a BBC Panorama documentary defamed him by splicing two parts of his January 6, 2021, speech to create the misleading impression he directly incited violence.
While the BBC apologized for the edit and two senior executives resigned, the corporation has firmly stated it will defend the case and rejected Trump’s claim that there is a basis for defamation. This difference in posture is rooted in the BBC’s unique position:
· No U.S. Business or Regulatory Pressure: Unlike ABC/Disney or CBS/Paramount, the BBC is a publicly-funded British broadcaster with no major U.S. business interests, mergers, or broadcast licenses for the FCC to threaten. The documentary did not air on U.S. television.
· No Fear of Access Loss: The BBC does not rely on access to the White House or the president in the same way U.S. outlets do. A former BBC Radio controller noted the corporation “doesn’t have commercial business interests that depend on President Trump’s beneficence in the White House”.
· Reputation for Independence: For the BBC, the fight is about its global reputation. As the same executive argued, settling would be “extremely damaging to the BBC’s reputation”.
A Chilling Effect on Press Freedom and Public Discourse
This legal strategy extends beyond major networks and is already having a wider impact.
· Intimidation of Smaller Outlets: Trump has also sued smaller entities like the Des Moines Register and its pollster over a single pre-election poll, claiming “election interference”. These suits can be existential threats to local news organizations.
· Undermining Legal Protections: The flurry of lawsuits and settlements attacks the foundational New York Times v. Sullivan standard, which protects robust debate about public figures. Some Trump-aligned Supreme Court justices have expressed a desire to overturn this precedent.
· Broader Climate of Fear: The strategy parallels actions against other institutions. Law firms report pulling back from pro bono work on causes unpopular with the administration for fear of retaliation. The ACLU warns these actions represent “a historic assault on independent journalism”.
Conclusion
The contrasting responses to Trump’s lawsuits reveal a core vulnerability in the U.S. media landscape. For American conglomerates, a multi-million dollar settlement can be rationalized as the cost of avoiding regulatory headaches and protecting billion-dollar business interests. For the BBC, with its different funding, mission, and lack of U.S. regulatory exposure, the cost of capitulation—its reputation for independence—is far higher.
This situation creates a perverse incentive structure where the strength of a legal case is less important than the economic vulnerability of the defendant. The danger, as press freedom advocates warn, is a media landscape increasingly fearful of holding power to account, where robust journalism is replaced by self-censorship and legal intimidation becomes a routine tool of political strategy.
Centre for Nigeria Progress 