California Gov. Gavin Newsom sues Fox News over alleged defamation in story about call with Trump
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — California Gov. Gavin Newsom sued Fox News on Friday over alleged defamation, saying the network knowingly aired false information about a phone call he had with President Donald Trump around the time the National Guard was sent Los Angeles.
The lawsuit alleges Fox News anchor Jesse Watters edited out key information from a clip of Trump talking about calling Newsom, then used the edited video to assert that Newsom had lied about the two talking.
Newsom is asking for $787 million in punitive damages in his lawsuit filed in Delaware court where Fox is incorporated. That's the same amount Fox agreed to pay in 2023 to settle a defamation lawsuit by Dominion Voting Systems. The company said Fox had repeatedly aired false allegations that its equipment had switched votes from Donald Trump to Joe Biden during the 2020 election, and the discovery process of the lawsuit revealed Fox's efforts not to alienate conservatives in the network's audience in the wake of Biden's victory.
'If Fox News wants to lie to the American people on Donald Trump's behalf, it should face consequences -- just like it did in the Dominion case,' Newsom said in a statement. 'I believe the American people should be able to trust the information they receive from a major news outlet.'
He asked a judge to order Fox News to stop broadcasting 'the false, deceptive, and fraudulent video and accompanying statements' that Newsom said falsely say he lied about when he had spoken to Trump regarding the situation in Los Angeles, where protests erupted on June 6 over Trump's immigration crackdown.
Fox News called the lawsuit 'frivolous.'
'Gov. Newsom's transparent publicity stunt is frivolous and designed to chill free speech critical of him. We will defend this case vigorously and look forward to it being dismissed,' the company said in a statement.
The law makes it difficult to prove defamation, but some cases result in settlements and, no matter the disposition, can tie up news outlets in expensive legal fights.
Particularly since taking office a second time, Trump has been aggressive in going after news organizations he feels has wronged him. He's involved in settlement talks over his lawsuit against CBS News about a '60 Minutes' interview last fall with Democratic opponent Kamala Harris. This week, Trump's lawyers threatened a lawsuit against CNN and The New York Times over their reporting of an initial assessment of damage to Iran's nuclear program from a U.S. bombing.
Newsom's lawsuit centers on the details of a phone call with the president.
Both Newsom and the White House have said the two spoke late at night on June 6 in California, which was already June 7 on the East Coast. Though the content of the call is not part of the lawsuit, Newsom has said the two never discussed Trump's plan to deploy the National Guard, which he announced the next day. Trump said the deployment was necessary to protect federal buildings from people protesting increased immigration arrests.
Trump later announced he would also deploy Marines to the area.
On June 10, when 700 Marines arrived in the Los Angeles area, Trump told reporters he had spoken to Newsom 'a day ago' about his decision to send troops. That day, Newsom posted on X that there had been no call.
'There was no call. Not even a voicemail,' Newsom wrote.
On the evening of June 10, the Watters Primetime show played a clip of Trump's statement about his call with Newsom but removed Trump's comment that the call was 'a day ago,' the lawsuit said. Watters also referred to call logs another Fox News reporter had posted online showing the phone call the two had on June 6.
'Why would Newsom lie and claim Trump never called him? Why would he do that?' Watters asked on air, according to the lawsuit. The segment included text across the bottom of the screen that said 'Gavin Lied About Trump's Call.'
Newsom's suit argues that by editing the material, Fox 'maliciously lied as a means to sabotage informed national discussion.'
Precise details about when the call happened are important because the days when Trump deployed the Guard to Los Angeles despite Newsom's opposition 'represented an unprecedented moment,' Newsom's lawyers wrote in a letter to Fox demanding a retraction and on-air apology.
'History was occurring in real time. It is precisely why reporters asked President Trump the very question that prompted this matter: when did he last speak with Governor Newsom,' the letter said.
___
Associated Press journalist David Bauder contributed to this report.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Miami Herald
24 minutes ago
- Miami Herald
From protection to peril: What end of TPS means for Haitians in South Florida, elsewhere
The Trump administration's decision to end Temporary Protected Status for over half-a-million Haitians living in the United States has sent shock waves throughout South Florida, the beating heart of the Haitian community in the United States. Many advocates and experts expected the decision. It comes after Trump moved to end the deportation protections for Venezuela and rolled them back a year-and-a-half for Haiti. Now, hundreds of thousands of people are vulnerable to being forced to return to the Caribbean country, where the government is crumbling and armed gangs are terrorizing the population. A recent report from the United Nations found that Haiti is as dangerous for children as the Gaza Strip. Below, we break down what this move means, who it affects, and what may come next. Q: What is Temporary Protected Status? A: TPS is a humanitarian immigration program that allows citizens from countries facing natural disasters, armed conflict or extraordinary instability to temporarily live and work in the United States. It does not provide a pathway to permanent residency or citizenship, but it shields recipients from deportation as long as their country remains designated under TPS because they are unable to return there safely. Congress created TPS in 1990. The Secretary of Homeland Security has the authority to designate countries and periodically review countries to grant or continue the protections. Q: Why was Haiti granted TPS in the first place? A: President Barack Obama first designated Haiti for TPS in the aftermath of the catastrophic 2010 earthquake near the capital of Port-au-Prince, which killed more than 300,000 people and devastated the country's infrastructure. Over the years, TPS has been repeatedly renewed due to chronic instability, gang violence, economic collapse and the assassination of President Jovenel Moïse in 2021. Q: How many Haitians in the U.S. are affected by the decision? A: Nearly 521,000 Haitian nationals are currently protected under TPS. Many have lived in the U.S. for years, built families, held jobs and contributed to their communities. Many are also part of mixed-status families where the immigration status of the households can range from undocumented to green-card holders and U.S.-born citizens. Q: What exactly did the Trump administration announce? A: On Friday, the Department of Homeland Security said the U.S. will end Haiti's TPS designation, citing 'sufficient improvement' in the conditions that allegedly make it safe for Haitians to return. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem had already rolled back the Biden-era extension of February 2026, moving it up to August 3, 2025. Deportations are expected to begin after Sept. 2. Q: How did the administration justify the decision? A: A DHS spokesperson claimed the move 'restores integrity in our immigration system' by ensuring TPS remains 'temporary.' The department asserted that Haiti's conditions have improved enough to permit safe return. Q: Is Haiti really safe to return to? A: Many experts— and even the U.S. State Department — disagree. The State Department currently warns Americans not to travel to Haiti due to 'kidnapping, crime, civil unrest and limited health care.' This week, the agency urged Americans to depart the Caribbean country 'as soon as possible' or to be prepared to shelter in place for a long time. Armed gangs control up to 90% of Port-au-Prince. Over a million Haitians are displaced, and 5.7 million face acute hunger, according to the United Nations' Humanitarian Affairs Office. There has also been a collapse of social services, and many children are unable to go to school. Haitians who are deported face the risk of having to cross gang-controlled roads to get home — or having nowhere to go to if returned because gangs have taken over people's homes and neighborhoods. Q: What does this mean for Haitian TPS holders now? A: Haitian nationals under the designation must prepare to leave by Sept. 2, 2025, unless a court intervenes or the administration reverses course. DHS has 'encouraged' them to use the CBP One app to 'self-deport' — meaning leave the country voluntarily. Without TPS, Haitians will lose legal protection from deportation and authorization to work in the U.S. if they don't have other immigration process going. Q: Could this decision face legal challenges? A: It is very likely. The Trump administration attempted to end TPS for Haitians and others back in 2017, but the move was successfully challenged in federal court. Immigration advocates and legal organizations are expected to file lawsuits again, arguing that conditions in Haiti remain too dangerous for return. There is also an ongoing lawsuit in New York related to Noem's earlier decision to roll back Haiti's TPS Haiti's by 18 months. READ MORE: Haitians and clergy group sue Trump over decision to end protection from deportation Q: Didn't Biden already extend TPS for Haitians until 2026? A: Yes. In July 2024, before leaving office, President Biden extended TPS for Haitians through February 2026. However, Secretary Noem ordered a review of the extension and rolled back the expiration to Aug. 3, 2025. The legality of that reversal may also be contested in court. Q: How does this fit into Trump's broader immigration agenda? A: Since returning to office, President Trump has focused on aggressively undoing Biden-era immigration policies. He has sought to drastically limit humanitarian programs, including ending CHNV — a two-year parole program for migrants from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela — and reducing TPS designations. The Supreme Court recently allowed the administration to revoke CHNV protections while legal challenges are ongoing. Trump also enacted a travel ban that limits visa issuance and entry for nationals from Venezuela, Haiti and Cuba. Q: What happens to other migrant groups under TPS or parole? A: The Haitian decision follows similar revocations for Afghans and Venezuelans. Around 350,000 Venezuelans may lose protection when their status ends in September. Advocates fear a domino effect targeting all migrants with temporary status under humanitarian grounds. Q: What are advocates and immigration attorneys saying? A: Immigrant rights groups say the decision is inhumane and premature, pointing to the spiraling gang violence, hunger crisis and government collapse in Haiti. Deporting people to a country without a functioning government, basic services or security, they argue, violates international human-rights norms. The Florida Immigrant Coalition said in a statement on Friday that Haiti was not in 'any shape to sustain human dignity and life, and any suggestion to the contrary is nothing but lies.' Q: What should Haitian TPS holders do now? A: Legal experts urge Haitians to consult immigration attorneys immediately. Some may qualify for other forms of relief or adjustment of status, such as a spouse- or family-based green-card petition. Others may be eligible for asylum if they can show evidence they would face persecution or violence upon return. Q: What is the political reaction to the announcement? A: Critics have slammed the decision as part of Trump's hard-line anti-immigration platform, which he promoted during his campaign with inflammatory and false remarks — including a 2024 campaign claim from Trump that Haitians 'eat their neighbors' pets.' Supporters argue that the administration is restoring the original, temporary intent of TPS and reclaiming executive control over immigration enforcement. READ MORE: 'It's a disaster.' In Miami, Trump leans into pet-eating falsehoods about Haitians Q: What's next? A: Lawsuits are expected, and courts may delay or block TPS termination, as happened in 2018. Advocacy groups plan to lobby Congress for a permanent solution, like a pathway to residency for long-term TPS holders. In the meantime, more than half a million Haitian immigrants are once again left in limbo.
The Hill
27 minutes ago
- The Hill
Environmental groups sue to block ‘Alligator Alcatraz'
A coalition of environmental groups on Friday sued over Trump administration plans to build a new detention center in the Everglades that critics have dubbed 'Alligator Alcatraz.' The suit seeks to block the Trump administration from building the new facility on a Florida airfield, the Dade-Collier Training and Transition Airport (TNT) near Big Cypress National Preserve. 'This massive detention center will blight one of the most iconic ecosystems in the world,' Elise Bennett, Florida and Caribbean director at the Center for Biological Diversity, said in a statement. 'This reckless attack on the Everglades — the lifeblood of Florida — risks polluting sensitive waters and turning more endangered Florida panthers into roadkill. It makes no sense to build what's essentially a new development in the Everglades for any reason, but this reason is particularly despicable.' Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier has cited the remote nature of the area — as well as its proximity to dangerous wildlife — as top features for tapping the area for construction. 'This 30-square mile area is completely surrounded by the Everglades. It presents an efficient, low-cost opportunity to build a temporary detention facility because you don't need to invest that much in the perimeter,' he said. 'If people get out, there's not much waiting for them other than alligators and pythons.' Environmental groups have argued the project violates the National Environmental Policy Act as well as procedures for rulemaking. 'The decision to construct a mass migrant detention and deportation center at the TNT Site was made without conducting any environmental reviews as required under NEPA, without public notice or comment, and without compliance with other federal statutes such as the Endangered Species Act, or state or local land-use laws,' they wrote in the suit filed in federal court in Florida. The facility is projected to cost about $450 million a year, which will come from the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) Shelter and Services Program that was used to house asylum-seekers during the Biden administration. The Trump administration is largely envisioning the facility as a series of tents along with the construction of other facilities, hoping to house as many as 5,000 migrants at the facility.
New York Times
32 minutes ago
- New York Times
The Supreme Court Limited the Use of Nationwide Injunctions
The Supreme Court's conservative majority opened the door for President Trump to end birthright citizenship in some parts of the country. The court's 6-to-3 decision — which stopped Trump's order from taking effect for 30 days, and did not rule on the constitutionality of the president's plan — could drastically, if temporarily, reshape how U.S. citizenship is granted. Crucially, the justices limited the ability of federal judges to temporarily pause the president's executive orders. The decision, which you can read highlights from or in full here, appeared to strip lower-court judges of one of their most potent tools: the nationwide injunction, which had been used frequently in recent years to block policies instituted by presidents of both parties. The ruling means that the practice of giving citizenship automatically to the U.S.-born children of undocumented immigrants and some temporary residents and visitors would end in the 28 states that have not challenged the order. It could also spur the revival of some of Trump's contested policies. 'Our country should be very proud of the Supreme Court today,' Trump said. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who issued a blistering dissent along with the court's other two liberal justices, called the majority's decision 'a travesty for the rule of law.' It was the last day of the court's term. Here's what else it ruled on: The justices said schools must allow parents to opt their children out of classes where L.G.B.T.Q. stories are discussed. They upheld part of the Affordable Care Act that requires insurance companies to offer some preventive care at no cost to patients. The court rejected a challenge to a Texas law that seeks to limit minors' access to online pornography through age verification. And the justices punted a closely watched case challenging Louisiana's voting map until next term. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
