The BBC has asked a U.S. court to issue subpoenas compelling testimony from members of Donald Trump's family [1].
The move is part of a legal defense against a $10 billion [1] defamation lawsuit filed by the former president. The lawsuit centers on a BBC documentary regarding the Jan. 6 Capitol attack, and the broadcaster's ability to compel family testimony could determine if the court views the documentary's claims as factual.
The BBC is targeting Ivanka Trump, Jared Kushner, and Donald Trump Jr. [3]. The broadcaster seeks testimony regarding the intent and actions of the former president related to the events of Jan. 6 [1].
Legal attempts to serve these subpoenas previously met resistance. In May 2026 [1], attempts to serve the documents at the Trump family residence in Miami, Florida, were blocked [1]. The matter is now before a federal court in the Southern District of New York [2].
Observers have questioned the tactical value of the broadcaster's approach. Esther Krakue said in an interview with Sky News Australia, "I'm quite astonished that the BBC’s lawyers thought that was a good strategy."
Krakue suggested that the parties might reach a settlement before the trial date, though she expressed doubt that the broadcaster would avoid a public apology. "I’m pretty sure that Donald Trump will make them give an even more grovelling apology," Krakue said.
The BBC maintains that the testimony is necessary to defend against the massive financial claim. The court must now decide if the family members' testimony is relevant enough to override their privacy or the obstacles encountered during the May 2026 service attempt [1].
“The BBC has asked a U.S. court to issue subpoenas compelling testimony from members of Donald Trump's family.”
This legal maneuver indicates the BBC is shifting from a purely procedural defense to an evidentiary one, attempting to use the former president's inner circle to validate the reporting in its documentary. If the court grants the subpoenas, it could force private family communications into the public record, potentially providing new insights into the planning of January 6 while simultaneously escalating the hostility of a high-stakes financial litigation.
