According to Financial Times News, Dutch historian Rutger Bregman has accused the BBC of censoring his Reith lecture by removing his description of Donald Trump as “the most openly corrupt president in American history.” The decision came after Trump threatened to sue the BBC for up to $5 billion over a Panorama documentary that edited together parts of his January 6, 2021 speech. Bregman claims the BBC recorded the lecture four weeks ago with 500 people present and approved the content through their full editorial process before suddenly removing the sentence. The BBC stated they made the edit “on legal advice” to comply with editorial guidelines, though they kept Bregman’s reference to Trump as a “convicted reality star.” This controversy emerges amid intense scrutiny of the BBC’s impartiality following recent leadership exits.
The irony of self-censorship
Here’s the thing that makes this particularly awkward. Bregman’s lecture was literally titled “Moral Revolution” and explored what he calls an “age of immorality.” He specifically called out the “paralysing cowardice of today’s elites” – and now he’s accusing the BBC of demonstrating exactly that behavior. The timing couldn’t be more perfect, or more damaging for the broadcaster. When an institution built on journalistic integrity starts editing historical commentary because of legal threats, what does that say about their backbone?
This isn’t happening in isolation
Look, this Trump editing situation is just the latest in a series of crises rocking the BBC. Director-general Tim Davie and BBC News chief Deborah Turness recently exited following accusations of bias in coverage of the Israel-Hamas war and transgender rights. There was that leaked internal memo from Michael Prescott that criticized the very Trump documentary that sparked this $5 billion threat. Now BBC chair Samir Shah is talking about creating new oversight roles and reshaping the board. Basically, the BBC’s editorial judgment is under microscope from all sides.
What this means for free speech
So where does this leave us? A prestigious lecture series that once featured intellectual giants like Bertrand Russell and Robert Oppenheimer is now being edited for legal safety. Bregman’s point about “self-censorship driven by fear” hits hard because it’s exactly what powerful figures count on – that the threat of expensive litigation will make media organizations think twice before publishing criticism. The real question is whether this creates a chilling effect that goes far beyond this one sentence. Will other historians and commentators now temper their language when dealing with litigious public figures? That’s the dangerous precedent this could set.
