Members of President Donald Trump’s family could be deposed and required to turn over communications in his $10 billion lawsuit against the BBC even if he succeeds in limiting scrutiny of his business records, a defamation lawyer and a law professor told Newsweek,

Deanna Shullman, a Florida media and First Amendment lawyer who has defended hundreds of defamation cases, said relatives who possess information relevant to Trump’s alleged damages or the truth of the BBC’s disputed portrayal could be considered "fair game" for discovery.

"They could be deposed, but they could also be asked to produce documents like their correspondence with the president," Shullman told Newsweek. "They may be asked to produce documents related to the truth or falsity of the statement at issue. They may be asked to produce communications with the president, and they may be deposed. I think it is fair game."

The prospect has emerged as U.S. District Judge Roy Altman temporarily paused an order requiring Trump to begin disclosing information about the financial performance of businesses held by his family trust. Altman is considering Trump’s request to file an amended complaint that would narrow his case from alleged business and reputational damage to reputational harm alone. The proposed complaint remains under seal.

Trump sued the BBC over its editing of his January 6, 2021, speech in a 2024 documentary, seeking $5 billion for alleged defamation and another $5 billion under Florida’s law against unfair trade practices. The BBC apologized for the edit but denies that it defamed him.

Howard Wasserman, a law professor at Florida International University whose specialties include civil litigation, federal courts and media law, also said that Trump’s relatives could be potential nonparty witnesses if they possess information relevant to the case.

"There should not be anything sacrosanct about them, to the extent they possess relevant information to the case," Wasserman told Newsweek. "They are potential non-party witnesses with knowledge of the business, just like many people, including members of the parties’ families, are non-party witnesses to cases all the time."

Trump’s attorneys have argued that the BBC’s demands are excessively broad and extend far beyond information needed to test his damages claim. In an August 5 filing, Brito said the subpoena sought the trust’s "entire financial universe" and was "not tailored" to determining whether the documentary caused the alleged harm.

The White House declined to comment. Newsweek has contacted Trump’s attorney Alejandro Brito, via email outside of normal working hours, for comment.

Why Trump’s Finances Entered the Case

The dispute over Trump’s financial records stems from the damages he alleged in his original complaint. Trump claimed the BBC documentary caused "extensive economic harms," injured his "business and personal brand value" and damaged his future financial prospects. He also alleged harm to the value of his properties and businesses and to his reputation as a businessman.

The BBC then argued that it needed financial evidence to determine whether Trump’s businesses had lost value because of the documentary and whether his damages demand could be supported. The broadcaster subpoenaed the Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust, which holds the president’s business assets, for records concerning its holdings and the performance of Trump-linked entities.

On July 27, Magistrate Judge Enjoliqué Lett ruled that Trump had placed his business interests and financial condition at issue by alleging economic injury. She granted the BBC’s request in part, ordering the trust to produce a narrower set of records beginning August 6.

Trump then moved to change his complaint and remove the allegations that the documentary damaged his businesses, arguing that the revision would make the trust’s financial records irrelevant. His attorneys sought an emergency pause before the production deadline.

At a July 21 discovery hearing, Brito argued that the case had evolved since it was filed and that the president was no longer seeking compensation for alleged harm to his businesses or brand. "The damages are limited in a way that is different from when the case was originally filed," Brito told the court. "Even if there has been a harm to the brand, we are not pursuing that as part of our damages.…It’s a far more narrow scope of what this case is about."

Altman granted that temporary reprieve on Wednesday, saying Trump had presented a "compelling" argument that the amendment might remove the need to compel confidential information from a nonparty. The ruling did not overturn Lett’s order or determine that the records are permanently protected; it suspended production while the court considers whether to permit Trump’s amended complaint.

Could Trump Keep His Finances, and Family, Out of the Case?

As the proposed amendment, filed on Tuesday, is not publicly available, its exact language, and how fully it abandons business-related damages, remains unclear.

The success of Trump’s strategy will depend on whether the judge permits the amendment and how completely the new complaint separates his alleged reputational injury from his business interests, Shullman and Wasserman told Newsweek. Both stressed that the outcome was difficult to predict without seeing the proposed amendment.

Shullman said Trump may be able to prevent the financial discovery if he abandons economic damages entirely and limits his case to alleged mental or emotional distress.

"If the amendment disclaims all economic damages and really just focuses on mental health or emotional distress damages, the president may be successful in avoiding that discovery," she said.

However, Shullman said it would be "very tricky" for Trump to exclude his finances if the amended complaint attempts to link his personal reputation to the value of his assets, businesses or brand.

"Where he will run into problems is if he tries to backdoor economic damages as personal harm," she said. In that scenario, the BBC could argue that the financial evidence remains relevant despite the changed wording of the complaint.

Similarly, Wasserman said: "Everything depends on whether the court allows Trump to file the amended complaint, what is in it and the basis for his damages. Although I am not sure what damages Trump could claim if not to his businesses."

Shullman added that even if Trump succeeds in shielding his financial records, this would not necessarily prevent relatives from becoming witnesses, arguing that family members could possess relevant information about the effect of the documentary on Trump, any damages he claims or the truth or falsity of its disputed portrayal.

"I think it is quite possible that the family members will still have very relevant information about President Trump’s damages in this case," she said. "They may also have relevant information about other issues in the case, truth being one of them."

What Is the Trump-BBC Lawsuit About?

Trump sued the BBC in December 2025 over an episode of its Panorama documentary series that aired in the U.K. before the 2024 presidential election. The program combined portions of Trump’s January 6, 2021, speech delivered nearly an hour apart, making them appear to be part of one continuous statement.

Trump alleges the edit falsely suggested that he directly encouraged supporters to attack the U.S. Capitol, damaging his reputation, brand and businesses. His lawsuit seeks $5 billion for alleged defamation and another $5 billion for alleged unfair trade practices.

The BBC apologized for the edit and acknowledged that it created the mistaken impression of a direct call for violent action. However, the broadcaster denies that it defamed Trump and is seeking to have the case dismissed.