The BBC’s legal team argued Mr Trump’s representatives could exploit the cost information if it were revealed, helping shape their courtroom strategy in Florida and strengthening their negotiating position.

“It is likely to provide information that is useful to President Trump’s legal team, to the detriment of the BBC,” lawyers said.

As such, the BBC concluded keeping the spending under wraps served the public interest more than transparency would.

That stance led the corporations’ representatives to deny a Freedom of Information request to reveal the figure, which had been lodged by The Sun newspaper.

However, former BBC executive producer Martin Rosenbaum told GB News the clandestine approach could only hold for so long and that it was right to share the cost of the case with the public.

“I’d expect the BBC to reveal the details of the legal costs of the case after it is completed, whenever that is,” he said.

|

GETTY

“It’s right that this information should then be disclosed in the public interest.

“I wouldn’t expect them to release such figures while the case is ongoing, for the reasons reported.”

Charlie Moloney, a veteran journalist and co-editor of McNae’s Essential Law for Journalists, concurred in his own analysis of the BBC’s rejection of the FOI request.

“One day, when the dust settles, the BBC will have to reveal how much this case cost, and that may not be a happy day for whoever has by then become director-general,” he told The People’s Channel.

|

GETTY

“Legal costs are a key consideration in any litigation. But in this case, the amount of money being spent by the BBC is perhaps more important than the theoretical legal merits of President Trump’s claim and the BBC’s potential defence.

“President Trump seemed to believe the BBC, fearful of being seen to waste licence payer money on legal costs, would blink first and settle this case. The BBC has instead resolved to defend its journalism.

“The corporation could come under political pressure at home to settle if the cost of this litigation was made clear through FOIs. That would prejudice the BBC’s ability to run its chosen defence.”

Mr Moloney explained the corporation was therefore likely utilising an exemption in Section 31(1)(c) in the Freedom of Information Act 2000, which protects against the necessary release of information that could prejudice the administration of justice.

|

GETTY

“For that reason, I think this is likely a lawful refusal of an FOI request at this stage,” he said.

Mr Trump is pursuing the BBC over allegations a speech he gave was unfavourably edited for a Panorama documentary, appearing to suggest he had supported the January 6 Capitol riots in 2021.

The Republican’s lawyers previously called the edit “false and defamatory” and claimed the corporation doctored his speech to sway voters in accordance with a “leftist political agenda”.

The revelations over the Panorama edit sparked a crisis at the BBC, leading to the resignations of director-general Tim Davie and chief executive of news Deborah Turness.

|

GETTY

The BBC has submitted an application seeking to have Mr Trump’s lawsuit dismissed before it reaches court.

The motion to dismiss from the BBC, which was filed on Monday, cites a “lack of personal jurisdiction” and a “failure to state a claim”.

In a 34-page document published today, the BBC said: “In all, plaintiff (Mr Trump) falls well short of the high bar of actual malice. He fails to plausibly allege facts showing that defendants (BBC) knowingly intended to create a false impression.”

It also argues the Panorama episode was not produced, created or broadcast in Florida, which Mr Trump’s team disputes based on the programme’s apparent availability on the BritBox streaming service.

If this bid fails, the case will proceed to a full trial in a Miami courthouse in February 2027.

A BBC spokesman said: “We are not going to comment on ongoing proceedings. Our response to the FOI request sets out reasons and outlines the review and appeal rights if a requester is not satisfied with the response”.