Ofcom Exempts GB News From Impartiality Rules Following Unchallenged Trump Interview
The UK media regulator declined to investigate a broadcast where Donald Trump made unchallenged claims about the 2020 election, citing editorial freedom. This decision marks a shift toward selective enforcement that favors politically connected broadcasters over established impartiality standards.
By refusing to investigate GB News, Ofcom has signaled that billionaire-funded broadcasters are exempt from the impartiality rules that govern the rest of the UK media landscape.
On February 9, 2026, Ofcom officially declined to investigate a featured interview with Donald Trump on GB News, despite the broadcast containing multiple unchallenged claims regarding the 2020 U.S. election. Section 5 of the Ofcom Broadcasting Code requires 'due impartiality' on matters of major political controversy, a standard that typically necessitates the presentation of opposing views. By citing 'editorial freedom' and the 'context of the program' as grounds for non-intervention, Chief Executive Melanie Dawes and Chair Lord Grade have effectively neutralized the code for opinion-led news platforms.
This regulatory leniency occurs as GB News continues to operate as a subsidized influence vehicle rather than a self-sustaining business. Recent filings show the channel reported pre-tax losses of £42.4 million, a deficit covered entirely by capital injections from hedge fund billionaire Sir Paul Marshall and the Dubai-based Legatum Group. Marshall, a major donor to right-leaning causes, provides the financial floor that allows the channel to bypass traditional advertising constraints and prioritize ideological messaging over balanced reporting.
The decision reveals a stark double standard in UK broadcasting oversight. While Ofcom previously moved with speed to revoke the licenses of outlets like RT (Russia Today) or penalize smaller community broadcasters for technical impartiality breaches, it has adopted a 'light-touch' approach toward GB News. This suggests a framework of regulatory capture, where a taxpayer-funded watchdog avoids direct confrontation with a platform backed by influential domestic donors and political figures.
Beyond the broadcast itself, an institutional 'revolving door' complicates Ofcom's objectivity. Analysis of staffing trends shows a pattern of former regulator employees transitioning into roles at GB News or its parent companies. This familiarity creates an environment where 'discretionary' leniency becomes the default, allowing the channel to maintain its broadcast license while consistently ignoring the spirit of the impartiality requirements that apply to its competitors.
For ordinary citizens, this ruling effectively ends the guarantee of fact-checked information on regulated airwaves. When a regulator refuses to enforce its own rules against the powerful, the 'license to broadcast' is transformed into a license to mislead. The public is left paying for a watchdog that has chosen to prioritize the editorial preferences of billionaires over the information rights of the audience.
Summary
The UK media regulator declined to investigate a broadcast where Donald Trump made unchallenged claims about the 2020 election, citing editorial freedom. This decision marks a shift toward selective enforcement that favors politically connected broadcasters over established impartiality standards.
⚡ Key Facts
- Ofcom declined to investigate the Feb 9 Trump interview despite clear breaches of Section 5 impartiality rules.
- GB News is currently sustained by a £42.4 million annual subsidy from billionaire Sir Paul Marshall and Legatum Group.
- The ruling creates a precedent where 'opinion' labeling allows broadcasters to bypass traditional fact-checking requirements.
- A double standard exists between the treatment of politically connected domestic outlets and smaller or foreign broadcasters.
- Former Ofcom staff members have increasingly moved into roles within the GB News corporate structure.
Our Independence
This story was written by Gen Us - independent journalists exposing the networks of power that corporate media protects. No hedge fund owns us. No billionaire edits our headlines. We answer only to you, our readers.