Clearly one downside of fighting is that it will be costly. Chris Ruddy, a friend and ally of Trump and chief executive of the US news network Newsmax, told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme that going to court would cost $50-100m, whereas he claimed the BBC could settle for $10m.
Any suggestion of using funds from licence fee payers to pay off Trump as part of a settlement would be a difficult look for the corporation. Equally, spending millions to fight the case in court would open the BBC up to claims it had squandered precious funds.
The BBC has insurance – but we do not know what that covers. Is it the legal costs or only the settlement, and is that up to a maximum amount?
Another negative is how much it will divert the institution when top executives need to be fully focused on the negotiations with the government over the next BBC Charter, the framework for the BBC’s very existence, which is up at the end of 2027.
At a time of leadership vacancies, with the director general and the CEO of news having resigned, instead of fighting for the future of the BBC and its funding model and role here in the UK, it is having to navigate what is arguably the most serious legal moment in its history. It can try to do both – but can it do them both well?
The point about “lawfare”, as it is often termed, is that it is less about the outcome and more about the toll it takes to fight.