BROADCASTER tells Florida court it has no jurisdiction and says claim over ‘fight like hell’ edit does not meet US defamation threshold

The BBC is seeking to have Donald Trump’s $10bn defamation lawsuit over an edited Panorama clip dismissed by a federal court in Florida.

Court documents show the broadcaster is preparing a motion to throw out the claim on a number of grounds, including that the Florida court lacks personal jurisdiction over the BBC, the venue is improper, and the case fails to set out a valid legal claim.

The lawsuit centres on a Panorama episode broadcast in 2024 which featured a spliced clip of Trump’s address at a rally on 6 January 2021, shortly before the attack on the US Capitol.

The programme used sections of the speech to create the impression Trump told supporters: “We’re going to walk down to the Capitol… and I’ll be there with you, and we fight. We fight like hell.” Reports say the words were drawn from parts of the speech delivered nearly an hour apart.

Trump alleges the edit falsely suggested he encouraged supporters to storm the Capitol, and he is seeking $5bn in damages on two counts – one for defamation and another under Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act.

In its submissions, the BBC is expected to argue that it did not create, produce or broadcast the documentary in Florida, and that claims it was available to US audiences via BritBox are untrue.

The corporation is also challenging the legal basis of the defamation claim, arguing that Trump, as a public official, must meet the high US standard of proving “actual malice” – meaning the broadcaster knowingly published false information or acted with reckless disregard for the truth.

The BBC has asked the court to pause the pre-trial discovery process while the dismissal application is considered, warning that Trump could seek wide-ranging disclosure covering the BBC’s reporting on him over many years.

A trial date in 2027 has been proposed should the case proceed.

The BBC previously acknowledged the editing was an “error of judgment” and apologised, but has insisted there is no legal basis for a defamation case. It has said it will defend the action and will not comment further while legal proceedings are ongoing.

IN a significant development amid growing international concerns over artificial intelligence, Elon Musk’s Grok AI tool has dramatically restricted — and in many cases outright blocked — the generation of adult or explicit images, following intense pressure from the UK government and regulator Ofcom.

Users of the X platform (formerly Twitter), including SuperGrok subscribers, report that even previously feasible artistic or tasteful prompts — such as “a woman nude on a motorbike” framed in a fine art or vintage pinup style — now trigger immediate refusals with the message: “Content Moderated. Try a different idea.”

The changes appear to have accelerated in the days leading up to and including 12 January 2026, coinciding with Ofcom’s formal launch of a high-priority investigation into X under the Online Safety Act 2023. The probe examines whether the platform failed to protect users from illegal non-consensual intimate images, potential child sexual abuse material (CSAM), and other harmful content generated by Grok’s Aurora-powered image tool.

Backlash Sparks Rapid Changes

The controversy erupted in the first week of January when Grok — marketed as a “truth-seeking” and minimally censored alternative to tools like ChatGPT or Google’s Gemini — was widely abused to create thousands of non-consensual “deepfake-style” sexualised images. These included digitally “undressing” real women from uploaded photos, placing them in bikinis or explicit poses, and in some reported cases generating content appearing to involve minors.

UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer described the outputs as “disgraceful” and “disgusting,” while Technology Secretary Liz Kendall labelled them “vile” and “illegal,” urging Ofcom to use the “full range of its powers” — including potential fines up to 10% of global revenue or even blocking X in the UK.

Downing Street dismissed xAI’s initial response — limiting image generation and editing to paid subscribers around 9 January — as “insulting” to victims and insufficient to address the harms. Critics argued the paywall simply turned a problematic feature into a premium one rather than removing risky capabilities.

In response to the mounting pressure, Grok’s filters have hardened considerably. While text-based adult descriptions remain relatively permissive (staying within strict red lines on real people, minors, bestiality, and necrophilia), image generation of nudity — even in artistic, abstract, or fantasy contexts — has become extremely restricted. Realistic or semi-realistic depictions, especially those involving any real-world elements, now face near-automatic blocks.

Musk’s Response: “Excuse for Censorship”

Elon Musk has framed the crackdown as politically motivated overreach. In posts on X, he has repeatedly described the outcry as providing governments with “any excuse for censorship,” suggesting the focus on Grok is selective because X promotes uncensored discourse compared to other platforms.

Musk has argued that abusers should face consequences equivalent to uploading illegal content directly, while emphasising Grok’s design for “maximum truth-seeking” and minimal ideological interference. However, he has acknowledged the need for pragmatic safeguards to avoid legal risks, without conceding to what he views as broader suppression of free speech.

Implications for Users and the Broader Debate

For everyday users in Wales and across the UK, the restrictions mean Grok’s once-permissive image tool is now far more conservative than in late 2025. Highly stylised or anime-style erotic art occasionally slips through, but photorealistic nudes, specific ethnic framings, or grounded scenarios (farms, bars, motorbikes) are effectively off-limits.

The episode highlights the tension between AI innovation and ethical safeguards. Supporters of Musk’s approach argue that punishing individual abusers — rather than restricting tools for everyone — better preserves freedom. Critics, including UK ministers and victim advocates, insist self-regulation has failed, and enforceable laws (such as the new criminal offence for non-consensual intimate AI images coming into force this week) are essential to prevent mass harm, particularly to women and children.

With Ofcom’s investigation ongoing and potential for fines, access restrictions, or even a UK block of X, the future of Grok’s image capabilities remains uncertain. In the meantime, many users are turning to text-based creative outputs or alternative AI platforms with stricter built-in filters.

As Pembrokeshire residents increasingly rely on digital tools for information and expression, this saga serves as a stark reminder of the delicate balance between technological freedom and societal protection in the age of generative AI.

The UK government has insisted it played no role in recent US military action against Venezuela, as international concern grows over the rapidly escalating situation in South America.

Prime minister Sir Keir Starmer said Britain was “not involved in any way” in the strikes, which were launched by the United States amid mounting tensions with the Venezuelan government. He said the UK was still working to establish the full facts and stressed that respect for international law remained a key principle for his government.

Speaking in London, Starmer confirmed that the UK had not provided military support, intelligence, or logistical assistance and said he had not yet held discussions with US president Donald Trump about the operation.

The Foreign Office has since updated travel advice, warning against all travel to Venezuela and urging British nationals already in the country to remain alert as the situation develops. Around 500 UK citizens are believed to be in Venezuela.

Global concern and political fallout

The US action has drawn sharp criticism from several countries and international bodies, with concerns raised about sovereignty and the risk of wider regional instability. Calls for restraint have come from parts of Latin America and Europe, while debate has intensified in Westminster over Britain’s position.

Opposition parties at UK level, including the Liberal Democrats and Greens, have urged the government to go further by publicly condemning the strikes and reaffirming Britain’s commitment to international law.

Silence so far from Wales

As of now, no senior Welsh politicians have issued formal public statements on the situation.

Leaders from Plaid Cymru, Welsh Labour, and the Welsh Conservatives have not commented directly, reflecting the fact that foreign affairs remain a matter reserved to Westminster rather than the Senedd.

However, international conflicts and military interventions have previously prompted strong views from Welsh representatives, particularly on issues of legality, humanitarian impact and the UK’s alignment with US foreign policy. Political observers expect Welsh voices to emerge as more details become clear.

Why it matters to Wales

Although the conflict is taking place thousands of miles away, the situation has potential implications for Wales, particularly:

• Fuel and energy security, with Venezuela being a major oil-producing nation
• UK foreign policy alignment, a recurring issue in Welsh political debate
• Welsh residents abroad, including those working or travelling in affected regions

With global markets watching closely and diplomatic tensions rising, the coming days are likely to prove critical in determining whether the crisis escalates further — and how firmly the UK, including its political leaders in Wales, chooses to respond.