Anyone who thought the BBC’s apology to Donald Trump would stop the threat of a lawsuit was clearly deceived.
Samir Shah, chairman of the BBC, perhaps summed it up best in an interview he gave me the day after the Director General and CEO of News resigned. He called the president “a litigious fellow.”
This is an understatement, as evidenced by the number of legal cases Trump has taken against various US media companies.
Based on his GB News interview, the President is apparently hurt by what he sees as a “serious” edit, and he has now apparently increased the amount for which he says he will sue the corporation.
While boarding Air Force One on Friday, Trump told reporters the figure would be “anywhere between $1 billion (£759m) and $5 billion”.
To put this into context, the BBC’s annual income from license fees was £3.8 billion last year.
“They changed the words that came out of my mouth,” Trump said Friday. He wants to know why Panorama edited two clips of his speech together to give a “completely different meaning”.
He does not accept the BBC’s response that what happened was unintentional.
This is a very serious moment in the history of the BBC. It stands or falls on being seen as impartial – a source of trust in a world where trust in institutions is declining.
Instead, the corporation is being accused of the opposite – and faces an expensive and very public battle with the most powerful man in the world.
So where does it go from here?
From the moment the President first threatened legal action, it was clear that the corporation had no intention of compensating him. He believes it is the case that, no matter what errors occurred, the Panorama program caused no harm to Trump.
He was elected President soon after it came out and anyway, the BBC says the program was not broadcast on any American channels, so how could it hurt them?
I think there was a certain consensus inside and outside the corporation that the notion of using license fee payers’ money to compromise with Trump was a non-starter.
As a former senior BBC executive told me, after the BBC rejected the compensation offer, “they have made the right decision”. But this person also said, if the president decided to sue, the BBC would “have to pull the plug – and get the best lawyers in Florida”.
The reason for compromise may have been to reduce costs in the long run.
It now looks as if the BBC will be involved in a long, expensive court battle at a time when it should be focusing 100% on discussions over the renewal of its charter, which are fast approaching.
Those at the top of the BBC should be fully focused on what, in normal times, is a fundamental moment for the corporation – when it is for whom, its scope, how it will be funded, the details of its existence until a new charter in early 2028 is settled between the government and the BBC.
It is already losing the man who should have led it – Director General Tim Davie.
Now the BBC’s top minds will be turning to plotting their next moves in what could be a very damaging, even existential, battle with Donald Trump. Legal fees alone can be very expensive.
All this could have been avoided if the BBC had spoken openly about the error earlier and fixed it. Instead, he faces a long road.
But there can be other ways also.
Could the BBC ask the UK government to intervene through a back channel? Will a call from Prime Minister Keir Starmer prompt Trump to change his mind? Would Starmer also want to engage with the US President and spend his political capital?
One positive for the BBC this week was that Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy defended the corporation.
He spoke about the widespread trust in BBC News and described the corporation as “a light on the hill for people in dark times”, which brings the country together, whether through celebrity traitors or its VE Day coverage.
On the other hand, Donald Trump has called the BBC “worse than fake news”. He claims that the corporation and its journalists are corrupt.
The fight is well and truly on.