GB News Wins Landmark Legal Battle With UK Media Regulator Ofcom Over Trump Report
GB News has won a landmark legal battle with UK media regulator Ofcom over a report by presenter Jacob Rees-Mogg about Donald Trump.
In a High Court ruling, a judge found that Ofcom was unlawful in determining that GB News breached broadcasting rules in two separate editions of Mogg's State Of The Nation show.
More from Deadline
James Cameron Says New Zealand Citizenship Is "Imminent" Amid Trump's "Sickening" Administration: "It's Inescapable"
FCC Chairman Brendan Carr Suggests That Skydance-Paramount Merger Review Is Far From Finished
Warner Bros. Discovery Drops Diversity & Equity Language Amid DEI Rollbacks - "Our Overarching Work In This Space Will Now Be Referred To As Inclusion"
Ofcom argued that Mogg, a former Conservative minister, veered into newsreader territory when telling viewers in May 2023 that a jury had found Donald Trump guilty of sexually assaulting writer E. Jean Carroll.
The regulator said this, and a separate report on Valdo Calocane killing three people in Nottingham, constituted a breach of rule 5.3 of the UK broadcasting code, which states: 'No politician may be used as a newsreader, interviewer or reporter in any news programmes unless, exceptionally, it is editorially justified.'
In reaching this conclusion, Ofcom ruled last March that State Of The Nation could be characterized as both a 'news programme' and a 'current affairs' show, the latter of which is exempt from rule 5.3.
The court found that the statute underlying British broadcasting rules treats news programmes and current affairs shows as being distinct. Because State Of The Nation was predominantly a current affairs show, the court said rule 5.3 did not apply.
'I am minded to quash the two decisions in this case,' said Mrs Justice Collins Rice. 'Because they applied rule 5.3 to news in any form outside the confines of a news programme, and because they conflated a news programme and a current affairs programme. Rule 5.3 does not apply outside news programmes. This was a current affairs programme and not a news programme.'
GB News CEO Angelos Frangopoulos said: 'This landmark decision by the High Court vindicates GB News' position as the fearless defender of free speech in the United Kingdom. Our court victory is hugely significant for the entire British broadcasting industry. We are proud that we were the only media company prepared to have the courage of our convictions.'
He added: 'I call on the government and Parliament to consider the seriousness of this fundamental failure by Ofcom. GB News is thriving with record audiences because it is focussed on serving all of the nation's communities and delivering on its mission to be The People's Channel.'
An Ofcom spokesperson said: 'We accept the court's guidance on this important aspect of due impartiality in broadcast news and the clarity set out in its judgment.'
Significantly, Ofcom added that will now consult on redrafting rule 5.3 of the broadcasting code 'to restrict politicians from presenting news in any type of programme to ensure this is clear for all broadcasters.'
Rule 5.3 was written nearly two decades ago, at a time when it was not envisaged that a news channel would have lawmakers hosting shows on a nightly basis. Critics of Ofcom's approach have been calling for a review of the rule for more than a year.
Chris Banatvala, Ofcom's former director of standards, told Deadline last year: 'It would be wise, given broadcasters are coming up against the code, for Ofcom to have a rigorous discussion and a possible consultation around this matter and be open about why changes may or may not be needed.'
Best of Deadline
All The Songs In 'Running Point' On Netflix: From Tupac To Steve Lacy
2025 TV Series Renewals: Photo Gallery
How To Watch The 2025 Oscars Online And On TV
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
WIRED
18 minutes ago
- WIRED
The ‘Long-Term Danger' of Trump Sending Troops to the LA Protests
Jun 10, 2025 12:24 PM President Trump's deployment of more than 700 Marines to Los Angeles—following ICE raids and mass protests—has ignited a fierce national debate over state sovereignty and civil-military boundaries. LAPD officers and National Guard soldiers stand on patrol as demonstrators protest outside a jail in downtown Los Angeles following two days of clashes with police during a series of immigration raids on June 8, 2025. Photograph:As hundreds of United States Marines deploy in Los Angeles under presidential orders to protect federal property amid growing protests over immigration enforcement, constitutional scholars and civil rights attorneys warn of long-term implications for American democracy and civil-military relations. President Donald Trump revealed Monday that he had ordered the deployment of more than 700 activity-duty Marines out of Camp Pendleton—an extraordinary use of military force in response to civil unrest. The move, widely condemned by his critics, follows Trump's federalization of the National Guard. Some 3,800 guardsmen have since been deployed in California against the objections of its government, spurring debate among legal observers over the limits of the president's power to send troops into American streets. Trump ordered the deployments in response to thousands of Angelenos who took to the streets on Friday in protests. LA residents responded after Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents carried out sweeping raids of local businesses, arresting, among others, dozens of day laborers who were vying for work outside a local Home Depot. Larger demonstrations soon formed and remained largely peaceful until residents were engaged by police with riot shields and crowd control weapons. Over the weekend, the clashes between police and protesters escalated across many neighborhoods with large immigrant populations. Numerous buildings were vandalized with anti-ICE messages, and several Waymo autonomous vehicles were set ablaze. Videos captured by protest attendees show police firing upon demonstrators with rubber bullets and other crowd control agents, including waves of asphyxiating CS gas. Members of the press shared images online showing injuries they incurred from the police assault. In widely shared footage, a Los Angeles police officer appears to intentionally target an Australian reporter, Lauren Tomasi, shooting her from feet away with a rubber bullet as she delivers a monologue into a camera. On Monday, CNN correspondent Jason Carroll was arrested live on air. California governor Gavin Newsom condemned Trump's troop deployment in posts on social media, calling the president's actions an 'unmistakable step toward authoritarianism.' His attorney general, Rob Bonata, has filed a lawsuit in federal court claiming the order violated the state's sovereignty, infringing on Newsom's authority as the California National Guard's commander in chief. In response to a request for comment, the Department of Defense referred WIRED to a US Northern Command press release detailing the deployment of Marines and National Guardsmen. Federal troops in the United States are ordinarily barred from participating in civilian law enforcement activities. This rule, known as 'posse comitatus,' may be suspended, however, by a sitting president in cases of civil unrest or outright rebellion. This exception—permitted under the Insurrection Act—allows the president to deploy troops when circumstances make it 'impracticable' for state authorities to enforce federal law by 'ordinary' means. While these powers are most often invoked at the request of a state government, the president may also invoke the act when a state chooses to ignore the constitutional rights of its inhabitants—as happened multiple times in the mid-20th century, when southern states refused to desegregate schools after the Supreme Court's landmark Brown v. Board of Education decision. President Trump, however, has so far not invoked the Insurrection Act, relying instead on a theory of 'inherent authority' advanced by the US Justice Department in 1971 during the height of the anti–Vietnam War protests. This interpretation of presidential power finds that troops may be deployed in an effort to 'protect federal property and functions.' Notably—unlike the Insurrection Act—this does not permit troops to engage in activities that are generally the purview of civilian law enforcement agencies. Trump also invoked statutory power granted to him by Congress under Title 10 of the US Code, which enabled him to federalize elements of California's National Guard. These activations typically occur when guardsmen are needed to support overseas military operations, as happened routinely this century during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Domestically, however, guardsmen are not usually federalized without the agreement of a state's governor—unless the Insurrection Act has been invoked. Legal experts interviewed by WIRED offered a range of opinions on the president's authority to deploy active-duty military troops or federalize the National Guard. While most believe it is likely within Trump's power to ignore Newsom's express objections, doing so without an invocation of the Insurrection Act, they say, is a decision fraught with legal complexities that carries serious implications, from altering—perhaps permanently—the fundamental relationship between Americans, states, and the federal government, to disturbing the delicate balance between civilian governance and military power. Liza Goitein, senior director of the Brennan Center's Liberty and National Security Program, underscores the 'unprecedented' nature of Trump's approach. 'He's trying to basically exercise the powers of the Insurrection Act without invoking it,' she says. A key issue for Goitein is that the memorandum signed by Trump last week federalizing the National Guard makes no mention of Los Angeles or California. Rather, it states that the guardsmen are being mobilized to address protests that are both 'occurring' and 'likely to occur.' In essence, the memo 'authorizes the deployment of federal troops anywhere in the country,' Goitein says, 'including places where there are no protests yet. We're talking about preemptive deployment.' Goitein argues that the administration's justifications could undermine both judicial accountability and civil‑military boundaries. Under the Insurrection Act, federal troops can take on the responsibilities of local and state police. But without it, their authority should be quite limited. Neither the guardsmen nor the Marines, for instance, should engage with protesters acting peacefully, according to Goitein. 'He says they're there to protect federal property,' she says. 'But it looks a lot like quelling civil unrest.' Anthony Kuhn, a 28-year US Army veteran and managing partner at Tully Rinckey, believes, meanwhile, that there is really 'no question' that Trump would be justified in declaring a 'violent rebellion' underway in California, empowering him to ignore Newsom's objections. The images and video of protesters hurling rocks and other items at police and lighting cars on fire all serve as evidence toward that conclusion. 'I know people in California, the governor, the mayor, are trying to frame it as a protest. But at this point,' says Kuhn, 'it's a violent rebellion. You can draw your own conclusions from the pictures and videos floating around.' Kuhn argues that the intentions of the protesters, the politics fueling the demonstrations, don't matter. 'They're attacking federal facilities. They're destroying federal property. So in an attempt to restore the peace, the president has the authority under Title 10 to deploy troops. It's pretty straightforward.' In contrast, Rutgers University professor Bruce Afran says deploying military forces against Americans is 'completely unconstitutional' in the absence of a true state of domestic insurrection. 'There was an attack on ICE's offices, the doorways, there was some graffiti, there were images of protesters breaking into a guardhouse, which was empty,' he says. 'But even if it went to the point of setting a car on fire, that's not a domestic insurrection. That's a protest that is engaged in some illegality. And we have civil means to punish it without the armed forces.' Afran argues that meddling with the expectations of civilians, who naturally anticipate interacting with police but not armed soldiers, can fundamentally alter the relationship between citizens and their government, even blurring the line between democracy and authoritarianism. 'The long-term danger is that we come to accept the role of the army in regulating civilian protest instead of allowing local law enforcement to do the job,' he says. 'And once we accept that new paradigm—to use a kind of BS word—the relationship between the citizen and the government is altered forever.' 'Violent rioters in Los Angeles, enabled by Democrat governor Gavin Newsom, have attacked American law enforcement, set cars on fire, and fueled lawless chaos," Abigail Jackson, a White House spokesperson, tells WIRED. "President Trump rightfully stepped in to protect federal law enforcement officers. When Democrat leaders refuse to protect American citizens, President Trump will always step in.' As the orders to mobilize federal troops have come down, some users on social media have urged service members to consider the orders unlawful and refuse to obey—a move that legal experts say would be very difficult to pull off. David Coombs, a lecturer in criminal procedure and military law at the University of Buffalo and a veteran of the US Army's Judge Advocate General's Corps, says it's hypothetically possible that troops could question whether Trump has the authority to mobilize state guardsmen over the objection of a state governor. 'I think ultimately the answer to that will be yes,' he says. 'But it is a gray area. When you look at the chain of command, it envisions the governor controlling all of these individuals.' Separately, says Coombs, when troops are ordered to mobilize, they could—again, hypothetically—refuse to engage in activities that are beyond the scope of the president's orders, such as carrying out immigration raids or making arrests. 'All they can do in this case, under Title 10 status, is protect the safety of federal personnel and property. If you go beyond that, then it violates the Posse Comitatus Act.' Federal troops, for instance, would need civilian police to step in. At the point, authorities want peaceful protesters to disperse. The San Francisco Chronicle reports that, in a letter on Sunday, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem requested that military troops be directed to detain alleged 'lawbreakers' during protests 'or arrest them,' which legal experts almost universally agree would be illegal under ordinary circumstances. The letter was addressed to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and accused the anti-ICE protesters of being 'violent, insurrectionist mobs' aiming to 'protect invaders and military aged males belonging to identified foreign terrorist organizations.' Khun, who warns there's a big difference between philosophizing over what constitutes an unlawful order and disobeying commands, dismisses the idea that troops, in the heat of the moment, will have an option. 'It's not going to be litigated in the middle of an actual deployment,' he says. 'There's no immediate relief, no immediate way to prove that an order is unlawful.' Khun says that were he deployed into a similar situation, 'me and my junior soldiers would not respond to a nonviolent or peaceful protest.' Asked what protesters should expect, should they engage with federal troops trained for combat overseas, Kuhn says the Marines will hold their ground more firmly than police, who are often forced to retreat as mobs approach. In addition to being armed with the same crowd control weapons, Marines are extensively trained in close-quarters combat. 'I would expect a defensive response,' he says, 'but not lethal force.' Additional reporting by Alexa O'Brien.
Yahoo
32 minutes ago
- Yahoo
CNN correspondent and crew detained and escorted from Los Angeles protest zone
LOS ANGELES (AP) — Police detained a CNN correspondent and crew reporting on protests against immigration raids in Los Angeles, calling into question whether law enforcement has been targeting journalists trying to cover the demonstrations after two other journalists were hit by rubber bullets. Video of the CNN crew's encounter broadcast by the network on Monday shows correspondent Jason Carroll and a colleague speaking to a Los Angeles police officer who explains that they must leave. The officer said they were not being arrested, given that they are members of the press, but that officers must remove them from the scene. He warned they would be arrested if they returned. The reporters are seen putting their hands behind their backs before officers escort them away. Carroll explained later that he was asked to put his hands behind his back. He said officers didn't put zip ties on him, but did grab both his hands as they escorted him from the area. Police asked for his name and other basic information. When he asked if he was being arrested, they said he was not, but he was being detained. Members of the press take some risks and this was low on that scale of risks, Carroll said. 'But it is something that I wasn't expecting, simply because we've been out here all day,' he said. The National Press Club called on Los Angeles Police Chief Jim McDonnell and Los Angeles County Sheriff Robert Luna to stop targeting, detaining, or obstructing journalists, and to guarantee that journalists can safely report on the demonstrations. It also called on them to investigate and hold those responsible accountable. 'Police cannot pick and choose when the First Amendment applies. Journalists in Los Angeles were not caught in the crossfire — they were targeted,' National Press Club President Mike Balsamo said in a statement. Balsamo is law enforcement news editor for The Associated Press. On Sunday, Australian journalist Lauren Tomasi was shot in the leg by a rubber bullet while reporting live, with a microphone in her hand, from protests in downtown Los Angeles. The shooting occurred after a tense afternoon in which the 9News correspondent and her crew were caught between riot police and protesters. Video of the event shows an officer behind Tomasi suddenly raising a firearm and firing a nonlethal round at close range. Tomasi cries out in pain and clutches her lower leg as she and her cameraman quickly move away from the police line. Speaking later to 9News, Tomasi confirmed she was safe and unharmed. 'I'm OK, my cameraman Jimmy and I are both safe. This is just one of the unfortunate realities of reporting on these kinds of incidents,' she said. Meanwhile, a British photographer remained hospitalized Monday after undergoing surgery for a similar strike to the thigh Saturday in Paramount, a city south of Los Angeles. The Associated Press
Bloomberg
33 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
Marines Arrive in LA as Police Chief Warns Over Lack of Notice
Marines deployed by President Donald Trump arrived in the Los Angeles area after the city's police chief warned of significant challenges to law enforcement if it was done without co-ordination with his department. Seven hundred troops from the 2nd Battalion, 7th Marines have made it to the greater LA area, a spokesperson for the US Northern Command said, without disclosing their specific location or duties. They will join about 2,100 members of the 79th Infantry Brigade Combat Team who are also on location in the area, including in Paramount and Compton, according to the spokesperson.
