Newsom sues Fox News for $787 million over Trump call defamation
Fox News is set to defend itself against California Governor Gavin Newsom's $787 million defamation lawsuit, labeling it a 'frivolous publicity stunt' aimed at stifling critical speech. Newsom alleges that Fox News knowingly spread false claims about a phone call he had with President Donald Trump during an immigration enforcement period.
The network's segment, featuring host Jesse Watters, claimed Newsom lied about the timing of their conversation, prompting the governor to seek damages for alleged damage to his reputation.
The complaint, filed on Friday in Delaware Superior Court, says Fox News acted with 'actual malice' by airing a misleading segment that accused Newsom of lying about the timing of his last conversation with Trump. The amount of damages sought is the same as the $787.5 million Fox paid in 2023 to settle a separate defamation case with Dominion Voting Systems.
Newsom, a Democrat, said he spoke with Trump late on June 6 or early June 7 after federal immigration raids led to protests in Los Angeles. Days later, Trump sent National Guard troops and 700 Marines to California without consulting the governor.
On June 10, Trump told reporters he had spoken to Newsom 'a day ago,' which Newsom denies. He says there was no further contact after the initial call.
Despite this, Fox News aired a segment on 10 June in which host Jesse Watters said, 'Why would Newsom lie and claim Trump never called him?' according to the lawsuit. The show also included a banner on screen saying 'Gavin Lied About Trump's Call.'
According to the complaint, this was part of an effort to damage Newsom's reputation and support Trump. The lawsuit argues that the claims were 'calculated to provoke outrage and cause Governor Newsom significant harm,' by reducing support for his policies and political future.
Newsom is also seeking compensatory damages and has said, according to The New York Times, he would drop the case if Fox issued a retraction and Watters apologised on air.
Fox News did not immediately respond to a request for comment, Reuters reported. Newsom's office also did not comment.
To win the case, Newsom will need to prove Fox acted with 'actual malice' that it either knew the information was false or showed reckless disregard for the truth. This legal standard comes from a 1964 US Supreme Court decision, New York Times vs Sullivan.
President Trump has also brought defamation claims in recent years. He reached a $15 million settlement with ABC last December after a report wrongly said he was found liable for rape in a civil trial.
He also sued CBS for $20 billion over how it edited a '60 Minutes' interview with Vice President Kamala Harris. A mediator has reportedly suggested CBS parent company Paramount pay $20 million to settle.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
United News of India
14 minutes ago
- United News of India
Khamenei 'sidelined completely' in Tehran's ceasefire talks with US
Tehran, June 27 (UNI) Iranian supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei was reportedly completely sidelined during Tehran's talks for ending its war with Israel, with its ceasefire negotiations with the US taking place without any involvement from Khamenei. According to Iran International, the entire decision-making process was handled by Iran's Supreme National Security Council and President Masoud Pezeshkian, who moved swiftly to respond to a ceasefire proposal from US President Donald Trump. While establishing contact with Khamenei was considered, no such opportunity presented itself, and due to the Supreme National Council wanting to quickly negotiate a truce, Khamenei was completely left in the dark about Tehran's ceasefire talks with Tel Aviv and Washington. In recent days, Khamenei's communication capabilities have been also been severely limited due to security concerns, particularly owing to fears of an attack on his location. The Iranian supreme leader is said to be hiding in a secret bunker somewhere in Lavizan, northeast of Tehran with all his close family members. Due to communications disruptions and security concerns, the 86-year-old reportedly transferred all key decision-making powers to the to the supreme council of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) shortly after the start of the attacks by Israel. While Iran has not revealed his location, both Israel and the US have said that they could kill Khamenei if they wanted with Trump even saying that Washington knows where he is. Calling him an 'easy target', Trump had sternly warned that 'American patience is wearing thin', and Iran must quickly reach a deal.
Time of India
14 minutes ago
- Time of India
Birthright citizenship case: US Supreme Court limits nationwide injunctions – what it means for immigrants
The US Supreme Court has curtailed the power of federal judges to issue nationwide injunctions, clearing the way for President Donald Trump's controversial order to end birthright citizenship to take effect in over half the country. The ruling does not address whether the order is constitutional but allows it to be enforced in 28 states that had not challenged it, while keeping it temporarily blocked in 22 Democratic-led states. Immigrant rights groups have warned the decision could result in stateless newborns and a chaotic patchwork of laws across the US. The 6–3 decision came in response to President Donald Trump's controversial executive order ending birthright citizenship for children born to undocumented or temporary visa holders on US soil. The ruling was immediately hailed by Trump as a 'monumental victory for the Constitution,' while immigrant rights groups and Democratic leaders voiced concern that it could lead to a patchwork of legal standards across the country and leave some newborns stateless. 'By denying lower courts the ability to enforce that right uniformly, the Court has invited chaos, inequality, and fear,' said Krish O'Mara Vignarajah, president and CEO of Global Refuge. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Free P2,000 GCash eGift UnionBank Credit Card Apply Now Undo Although the policy remains blocked in 22 Democratic-led states that sued to stop the order, the Supreme Court imposed a 30-day delay before it can take effect in the rest of the country. That window gives immigrant rights groups time to regroup and possibly file new challenges as class-action lawsuits. But with the door now open for selective enforcement, immigration advocates warn that confusion and legal uncertainty could have devastating consequences for vulnerable families. What Is Birthright Citizenship? Birthright citizenship is a constitutional right enshrined in the 14th Amendment, ratified after the Civil War to ensure citizenship for formerly enslaved people. It states, 'All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.' The principle was reinforced in the landmark 1898 Supreme Court case *United States v. Wong Kim Ark*, where the court ruled that a man born in the US to Chinese parents was a citizen, regardless of his parents' immigration status. Since then, birthright citizenship has been a cornerstone of US constitutional law. Exceptions have been extremely limited, such as children born to foreign diplomats. Trump's order seeks to broaden those exceptions dramatically. Trump's executive order and the legal backlash Signed in January, Trump's executive order attempts to end automatic citizenship for babies born to undocumented immigrants or temporary visa holders. He has described the policy as a 'magnet for illegal immigration,' arguing that the phrase 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof' in the 14th Amendment justifies excluding these children from citizenship. Lower federal courts, however, repeatedly blocked the order from taking effect. 'This is a blatantly unconstitutional order,' said US District Judge John Coughenour in Seattle. In Maryland, Judge Deborah Boardman wrote that 'the Supreme Court has resoundingly rejected and no court in the country has ever endorsed' Trump's view of the 14th Amendment. Despite these rulings, the Supreme Court declined to weigh in on the constitutionality of the order itself, focusing instead on the scope of the injunctions issued by the lower courts. The Supreme Court's ruling: what it changes The court's conservative majority, led by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, ruled that federal district judges do not have the authority to block a presidential policy nationwide. 'Federal courts do not exercise general oversight of the Executive Branch,' Barrett wrote. The decision sends the current challenges back to the lower courts, instructing them to narrow their injunctions to only cover plaintiffs with standing in the 22 states that sued. In the remaining 28 states — including Arkansas, Mississippi, and Texas — Trump's order could go into effect after the 30-day delay. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, writing for the dissent, called the decision 'nothing less than an open invitation for the government to bypass the constitution.' What comes next for immigrants? Immigrant rights groups are already adjusting their legal strategies, preparing class-action lawsuits in states like Maryland and New Hampshire. However, legal experts warn that such efforts face numerous procedural hurdles. 'It's not the case that a class action is a sort of easy, breezy way of getting around this problem,' said Suzette Malveaux, a law professor at Washington and Lee University. The immediate concern is for babies born during the transition period. In the 28 states where the order may soon apply, children born to undocumented or temporary residents may be denied citizenship, risking statelessness and potential deportation. Sotomayor urged the lower courts to 'act swiftly' in adjudicating new challenges to the executive order, while Trump indicated he would move quickly on a broader slate of policies that had previously been blocked by nationwide injunctions. 'This morning, the Supreme Court has delivered a monumental victory for the Constitution, the separation of powers and the rule of law,' Trump declared at the White House, flanked by Attorney General Pam Bondi. 'We can now promptly proceed with numerous policies, including birthright citizenship.'
Economic Times
17 minutes ago
- Economic Times
Why Donald Trump must let Jerome Powell do his job
'One of the dumbest, most destructive people in Government' 'Too Late' Jerome Powell is a Fool, who doesn't have a clue.' 'A golfer who can't putt.' 'Total and Complete Moron.' 'Real dummy… very dumb, hardheaded person.' The Economy Speaks — But Are We Listening? Live Events GDP projections have been cut from 2.1% in Dec 2024 to 1.4% in June 2025. Core PCE (Personal Consumption Expenditure) Inflation is rising: 2.5% in Dec 2024 to 3.0% in June 2025. Unemployment? It's inching up too: From 4.3% in Dec 2024 to 4.5% in June 2025. Powell: The Only Adult in the Room Trump's Interference: A Strategic Mistake? Markets Can Ignore Reality — Powell Can't Let's not repeat that mistake. Final Word: Let the Man Do His Job (You can now subscribe to our (You can now subscribe to our ETMarkets WhatsApp channel No, These aren't random insults from an angry investor on social media. These are actual words from the President of the United States 'Donald J. Trump' not aimed at a political rival, but at his own Federal Reserve Chairman, 'Jerome Powell'.Now imagine this: the most powerful economy in the world, hanging on a tightrope of inflation job losses , and slowing growth and its central banker being publicly undermined by the very person who nominated him. After decades in the market, I've learned one thing with certainty: nothing shakes investor confidence more than uncertainty at the Powell is meticulously navigating an economy dangerously close to stagflation , Trump is busy firing verbal missiles that only escalates confusion. Powell's job is hard enough already. What he needs is support, not markets may be cheering, with the S&P 500 rallying after the Fed's latest decision to hold rates steady. But don't let the green screens fool you. the U.S. economy 's foundations are beginning to aren't just numbers, this is the classic recipe for stagflation, and we've seen it before. In the 1970s and early '80s, the Fed learned a hard truth: you don't fight inflation with politics or tweets — you fight it with policy and Powell is the one standing between global economy and another inflation spiral. The Fed Chair doesn't get to dance with sentiment or popularity polls. He deals in data — and data alone. Unlike markets, Powell cannot afford to celebrate here we are: headlines promise rate cuts, politicians demand stimulus, and the public cheers short-term sugar highs. But Powell must look beyond applause. He must look at the map, not the a bid to regain political ground, Trump has renewed his campaign of Fed criticism. From threatening to replace Powell to promising deep tax cuts and trade tariffs — his actions are not only populist but a threat to economic connect the dots: tariffs lead to price hikes, Higher prices raise inflation, and Inflation forces rate hikes — creating a vicious cycle that no central bank wants to enter, especially not one already juggling slowing growth and rising stock market has a notorious history of celebrating bad news when it's wrapped in a pretty forecast. But central bankers can't afford to keep myopic vision. Powell is fighting to avoid a situation where political pressure forces him to cut rates too soon, only for inflation to spiral out of control retail investors want relief. Yes, Wall Street craves easy money. But at what cost?I've seen this play before. When inflation was called 'transitory' in 2021, we ended up with the highest price surge in four doesn't need another stage performer. It needs a steady hand, adjusting economic levers with precision, not populism. That man, whether popular or not is Jerome Trump, you've built towers. Now let Mr Powell install Fed Chair doesn't need jibes — he needs space. Because this isn't about applause. It's about accountability. It's not about dominance. It's about Powell do his job — not because it's easy, but because it's essential. Not because it's popular, but because it's right. In a world roaring for attention, real leadership still whispers through results.
