Newsom sues Fox News, alleging defamation over coverage of Trump call
SACRAMENTO — Gov. Gavin Newsom sued Fox News on Friday, alleging the network lied about his communications with President Donald Trump over the deployment of National Guard troops in Los Angeles.
Newsom says Fox's reporting amounts to defamation. His lawsuit serves as both a formal legal complaint and an opportunity for the governor to troll two longtime foes: Trump and Fox News.
Trump's decision to deploy the National Guard to Los Angeles to quell protests over his immigration raids caused a major escalation in the long-simmering tensions between Newsom and Trump, who hail from opposing political parties and frequently tangle over their policy differences.
Newsom and Trump spoke by phone late on June 6 in California and early June 7 on the East Coast. Newsom says the two men barely talked about the protests in Los Angeles on the call, which focused on Trump's threats to withhold federal funding from the state. Newsom was blindsided, he says, when Trump announced he was sending the troops into Los Angeles.
On June 10, Trump told reporters at the White House he had spoken to Newsom 'a day ago' to tell him he needed to get the situation in Los Angeles under control, though a call log he provided to Fox News reporter John Roberts showed the conversation took place on June 7 at 1:23 a.m. Eastern.
Newsom said Trump's comments were false because the only phone call took place several days prior.
'There was no call. Not even a voicemail. Americans should be alarmed that a President deploying Marines onto our streets doesn't even know who he's talking to,' Newsom wrote in a social media post.
Roberts said on air that Trump had said the call took place 'yesterday or the other day' and posted on social media that Trump had provided a screenshot of the call log with an accompanying statement.
'This shows what a liar he is,' Trump said in the statement. 'Said I never called. Here is the evidence.'
In the lawsuit, Newsom alleges Roberts did not accurately characterize Trump's statements. But he alleges that the bigger offender was Fox commentator Jesse Watters, who said Newsom lied that Trump never called him without providing the context that Trump said the call occurred 'a day ago.'
The lawsuit, filed in state court in Delaware, seeks $787 million in damages. That's how much Fox agreed to pay Dominion Voting Systems in 2023 to settle a defamation case over the network's inaccurate coverage of the 2020 election.
'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 wrote in a statement. 'I believe the American people should be able to trust the information they receive from a major news outlet. Until Fox is willing to be truthful, I will keep fighting against their propaganda machine.'
'Gov. Newsom's transparent publicity stunt is frivolous and designed to chill free speech critical of him,' the statement reads. 'We will defend this case vigorously and look forward to it being dismissed.'
Newsom's lawyers also include digs at the president's mental acuity in the lawsuit.
'It is impossible to know for certain whether President Trump's distortion was intentionally deceptive or merely a result of his poor cognitive state, but Fox's decision to cover up for the President's false statement cannot be so easily dismissed,' they wrote.
They provided their evidence for their characterization of the president's mental state in a footnote: 'As a rather ironic example of perhaps President Trump's cognitive decline, he recently spoke of former President Biden as not being 'the sharpest bulb.''
Separately, Newsom is also suing the Trump administration to regain control over the California National Guard troops the president deployed in Los Angeles. That lawsuit is ongoing, and so far judges have allowed Trump to retain authority over the troops as it proceeds.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
San Francisco Chronicle
an hour ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
At least 34 people killed in Israeli strikes in Gaza as ceasefire prospects inch closer
DEIR AL-BALAH, Gaza Strip (AP) — At least 34 people were killed across Gaza by Israeli strikes, health staff say, as Palestinians face a growing humanitarian crisis in Gaza and ceasefire prospects inch closer. The strikes began late Friday and continued into Saturday morning, among others killing 12 people at the Palestine Stadium in Gaza City, which was sheltering displaced people, and eight more living in apartments, according to staff at Shifa hospital where the bodies were brought. Six others were killed in southern Gaza when a strike hit their tent in Muwasi, according to the hospital. The strikes come as U.S. President Donald Trump says there could be a ceasefire agreement within the next week. Taking questions from reporters in the Oval Office Friday, the president said, 'we're working on Gaza and trying to get it taken care of.' An official with knowledge of the situation told The Associated Press that Israel's Minister for Strategic Affairs, Ron Dermer, will arrive in Washington next week for talks on Gaza's ceasefire, Iran and other subjects. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak to the media. Talks have been on again off again since Israel broke the latest ceasefire in March, continuing its military campaign in Gaza and furthering the Strip's dire humanitarian crisis. Some 50 hostages remain in Gaza, fewer than half of them believed to still be alive. They were part of some 250 hostages taken when Hamas attacked Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, sparking the 21-month-long war. The war has killed over 56,000 Palestinians, according to Gaza's Health Ministry, which does not distinguish between civilians and combatants. It says more than half of the dead were women and children. There is hope among hostage families that Trump's involvement in securing the recent ceasefire between Israel and Iran might exert more pressure for a deal in Gaza. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is riding a wave of public support for the Iran war and its achievements, and he could feel he has more space to move toward ending the war in Gaza, something his far-right governing partners oppose. Hamas has repeatedly said it is prepared to free all the hostages in exchange for an end to the war in Gaza. Netanyahu says he will only end the war once Hamas is disarmed and exiled, something the group has rejected. Meanwhile hungry Palestinians are enduring a catastrophic situation in Gaza. After blocking all food for 2 1/2 months, Israel has allowed only a trickle of supplies into the territory since mid-May. Efforts by the United Nations to distribute the food have been plagued by armed gangs looting trucks and by crowds of desperate people offloading supplies from convoys. Palestinians have also been shot and wounded while on their way to get food at newly formed aid sites, run by the American and Israeli backed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, according to Gaza's health officials and witnesses. Palestinian witnesses say Israeli troops have opened fire at crowds on the roads heading toward the sites. Israel's military said it was investigating incidents in which civilians had been harmed while approaching the sites.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Why your Social Security check could shrink by nearly 20% — and more if jobs are scarce
Social Security is hugely important to a large share of Americans. Almost 69 million Americans will receive monthly Social Security benefits in 2025, totaling about $1.6 trillion in benefits paid during the year. But Social Security will need some kind of reform within the next decade in order for America's retirees to keep counting on it. Given its funding structure, if Social Security continues to roll forward in its current trajectory, the program will be able to cover just 81% of promised benefits starting in 2034, according to the latest estimates of the Social Security Trust Fund report. My brother stole $100K from my mom to buy bitcoin. Do I convince her to sue him? Most American weddings are a lot more extravagant than the nuptials of Amazon's Jeff Bezos I'm a stay-at-home. Do I take a part-time job to spend more time with my kids — or get a job for six figures? JPMorgan has a new way of forecasting the stock market — and there's a surprising finding 'He doesn't seem to care': My secretive father, 81, added my name to a bank account. What about my mom? Congress will need to take action. But both Republicans and Democrats have long been reluctant to reduce Social Security benefits and averse to raising payroll taxes to close the funding gap. Yet the economic reality can't be ignored. The way in which Social Security is funded exposes the program to challenges. Unlike other forms of saving for retirement, where workers put away savings into an account that is dedicated to them, this pay-as-you-go system acts more like a checking account: Current workers are paying into the system and the current beneficiaries are receiving those funds out of the program. This structure did not present a challenge while the baby-boom generation was entering the workforce in the early 1960s, with the share of workers paying into the system rising much faster than the share of the population able to claim benefits. Since the early 2000s the tables have turned: The share of the U.S. population that is 18-64 has been declining while the share that is 65 and older grew at the fastest rate in over a century, going from 13.0% of the total population in 2010 to 16.8% in 2020. As a result of these opposing trends, while there were about 18 people aged 65 and older for every 100 working-age Americans in 1980, this dependency ratio grew to 30 retirement-age Americans per 100 workers in 2025 (see the chart above). The ratio of retirees to workers is likely to continue increasing beyond the retirement of the baby boomers because of the lower fertility rates that the U.S. has experienced over the past 15 years or so. For several years, the trustees of the Social Security Trust Fund have been projecting that the program has promised more benefits than it is able to pay out. According to the latest trustees report, released on June 18, the combined Old-Age, Survivors and Disability Insurance Trust Fund is expected to be depleted in 2034. At that time, benefits will be paid only from the income that is coming in, as there won't be anything in the reserves to supplement that income. Legally, the trust fund cannot borrow money. At that point, the trust funds would only be sufficient to pay about 81 cents on every dollar scheduled to be paid. Unless policymakers make deliberate efforts to clarify how to handle shortfalls, it is likely that the program will face similar uncertainties in the future. Right now, we face uncertainty in how the gap between the funds coming in and the benefits promised will be closed. It is not clear if beneficiaries will face those benefit cuts, if taxpayers will be liable for those tax increases, or something else. Both the benefits paid and the contributions into Social Security are prescribed by law. This means it's likely that demographic or economic assumptions will change again at some point in the future, resulting in an imbalance between the benefits that are scheduled to be paid and the revenue that is expected to come in. For example, when there's an economic downturn, fewer people are working and contributing into the trust fund. There are other ways in which the retirement security system is lacking that could be addressed. While the existence of Social Security and Medicare have contributed to a dramatic reduction in elderly poverty, some groups face persistent challenges. Although survivor benefits provide helpful protection to surviving spouses, there is some evidence that the existing level of survivor insurance may not be adequate to cover the costs that a surviving spouse incurs. In 2019, among those 60 and over, 16% of new widows lived in poverty, compared to 10% overall. There remain significant expenditure risks that the elderly face that are not fully addressed by Social Security and Medicare. While Social Security does not provide any kind of medical payments, Medicare provides a source of health insurance for most people over the age of 65. However, Medicare doesn't cover everything, and there are significant copayments and deductibles that a person may be responsible for. Read: Trump pledged not to cut Medicare — but his budget bill does just that For example, annual out-of-pocket spending on healthcare was on average $6,663 for all beneficiaries enrolled in traditional Medicare in 2019, according to a study by AARP. This average out-of-pocket spending for healthcare was equivalent to about 38% of the average annual Social Security retirement benefit ($17,460) in 2019. Moreover, there is a significant coverage gap regarding long-term care services for chronic conditions. This type of care is costly and largely paid for either out of pocket, through state Medicaid programs for those who qualify, or provided by unpaid caregivers, often spouses and adult children, who indirectly bear the costs through reduced labor force participation and adverse impacts on their own health. A person turning 65 between 2021 and 2025 is estimated to incur, on average, $120,900 in paid long-term care costs, of which 37% is estimated to be paid out of pocket, and the remainder covered by a combination of Medicaid (and other sources of public insurance) and private insurance (see here). Read: $1 trillion in cuts to Medicaid would have a devastating impact on people receiving long-term care. Here's why. Also read: Medicare may actually be in more trouble than Social Security What will Social Security reform ultimately look like? The answer is unclear at this stage. Would it be an across-the-board cut or a cut that applies more to certain people than others? Will the burden fall on all U.S. taxpayers or only on current workers? Delaying real discussion about the solutions makes the problems harder to solve. The timeline that the U.S. has to fix it is shorter and the change that is needed is more drastic than it would be otherwise. While addressing the imminent financial challenges of the program will be unavoidable, Americans shouldn't just be thinking about the issue of solvency. What is the role of government and markets in providing this protection? How can Americans ensure that their major entitlement programs are solvent and sustainable for the long term? Social Security reform offers an opportunity to take comprehensive look at how policy can best help people manage the risks they face in retirement. Gopi Shah Goda is director of the Retirement Security Project, the Alice M. Rivlin chair in economic policy and senior fellow in economic studies at the Brookings Institution. This commentary was originally published by Econofact — 'Facing the Social Security Shortfall.' Also read: As Social Security starts operating under controversial new rules, here's how they could affect you and your benefits More: Social Security will stop sending paper checks soon. How to make sure you still get your benefits on time. S&P 500 scores record high for first time in 4 months. What could push stocks higher from here? There's an important market indicator that suggests investors remain wary. It's good news for stocks. My job is offering me a payout. Should I take a $61,000 lump sum or $355 a month for life? What drove stock market's record-breaking week? Don't overlook growing rate-cut expectations. Coinbase's stock is up over 40% this month as Wall Street projects amazing profit growth Sign in to access your portfolio
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Bank of America says tariffs might spark a ‘reshoring' boom—but experts say it might be a double-edged sword for the economy
Evidence of a U.S. manufacturing slowdown is mounting, according to the Bank of America Institute. Tariffs could help reduce that slowdown and bring more advanced production back stateside, but improving productivity might happen without increasing employment. President Donald Trump has been adamant his tariffs will bring factory jobs back to American shores. Higher import taxes will likely push manufacturers to move operations back to the U.S., according to Bank of America economists, but so-called reshoring might incentivize firms to put more robots than humans on the assembly line. A lack of skilled labor and high costs remain big impediments as companies come home, BofA warns. Automation might be the key to unlocking reshoring, potentially boosting the sluggish productivity of American manufacturers without meaningfully increasing employment. Evidence of a slowdown in the sector is mounting, according to a recent report from the Bank of America Institute. New orders for manufactured durable goods fell in April, while the famous manufacturing Purchasing Managers' Index has signaled a contraction since March. Focusing on small businesses, BofA's internal client data shows deposit growth from manufacturers has also declined. 'It's possible, right, that these [tariffs] could support momentum going forward and potentially reverse some of that slowdown, especially for certain subsectors within the industry,' the report's author, BofA economist Taylor Bowley, told Fortune. 'But tariff costs and labor issues do exist.' Reshoring has been all the rage in corporate America after Trump's first trade war with China—and the COVID-19 pandemic—highlighted risks to global supply chains. The Biden-era CHIPS and Inflation Reduction Acts, meanwhile, heavily subsidized companies willing to make semiconductors and clean energy technology in the U.S. While U.S. manufacturing accounts for just 8% of total employment, reshoring has created 2 million jobs in the past 15 years, according to a May note from BofA economists. Half of those new positions have been created in the past five years, they noted, though the trend has slowed since peaking in 2022. In a survey of 56 analysts across the bank, covering roughly 1,200 firms worth over $38 trillion in market cap, roughly 60% said production will continue to move back to the U.S.—at least modestly—if tariffs remain high. Those following industrials and manufacturing expect the greatest shift to the U.S. There are still obstacles to coming back stateside, though. In the BofA survey, 54% of the analysts said issues finding skilled workers would be a significant impediment for companies. Higher labor costs are one of the primary reasons manufacturers shifted away from the U.S. in the first place, Bowley said. While a 2024 survey from the Cato Institute found 80% of Americans think the country would benefit from increasing manufacturing employment, just a quarter believe they would be better off individually working in a factory. If firms struggle to fill positions, Bowley said, they are forced to figure out how to improve productivity without hiring people. 'And that's where this conversation around automation and productivity comes in,' she said. Two-thirds of respondents to the BofA survey said any production shift to the U.S. would require significantly more automation than an offshore factory. That makes more advanced industries the best candidates for moving back to the U.S., BofA economists said, like auto assembly and high-end furniture. 'Millions and millions of human beings screwing in little, little screws to make iPhones,' as Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick suggested? Not so much. Meanwhile, Lutnick's ability to continue making trade deals might matter most to small businesses. They account for 98% of American manufacturing, according to the U.S. Small Business Administration, and many rely on cheap imports. 'A lot of them depend on a specific part—for example, to complete their manufacturing process—that simply isn't made domestically,' Bowley said. Therefore, for smaller manufacturers, tariff uncertainty makes planning capital expenditures especially difficult, even if their products become more competitive domestically. With profit margins and productivity lagging other industries in the U.S., passing price hikes on to consumers is the obvious response. However, if firms need to absorb some of the cost to keep customers, Bowley said, reducing inventories, operations, or headcount are other potential options. 'Reshoring in that aspect for smaller firms is kind of a double-edged sword,' she said. Nonetheless, sales are expected to grow in the coming months, Bowley said. But businesses might start feeling the squeeze, she added, when inventories start running low in the second half of the year. This story was originally featured on Error while retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data
