Gavin Newsom $787 Million Defamation Lawsuit: Why did California Governor sue Fox News? Details here
California Governor Gavin Newsom has filed a lawsuit against Fox News for defamation. The lawsuit demands $787 million in damages. Newsom alleges that the network, through its coverage, misrepresented facts about a phone conversation with President Donald Trump. The case centers around coverage by Fox anchors Jesse Watters and John Roberts.
Background of the Dispute
The dispute began earlier in June when protests broke out in Los Angeles. The protests were in response to mass deportations in the area. President Trump responded by activating the California National Guard. He also deployed Marines to control the protests.
According to Newsom, he and Trump spoke on the phone on June 6. This call took place before the deployment of military forces. Newsom confirmed this timeline publicly.
by Taboola
by Taboola
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links
Promoted Links
Promoted Links
You May Like
Learn The Most Successful Intraday Strategy in Just 2 Hr.
thefutureuniversity
Learn More
Undo
Also Read:
NYT Mini Crossword Hints Today, June 27 2025: Answers, clues and solving tips for mastering the puzzle
Allegations in the Lawsuit
On June 10, Trump claimed in a statement that he had spoken with Newsom "a day ago." Newsom stated that this claim was false. He said that no such phone call occurred on June 9.
Live Events
Fox News anchors reported on Trump's claim. Jesse Watters' program used a headline that said, 'Gavin lied about Trump's call.' Newsom's lawsuit argues that this statement defamed him. The lawsuit says Fox News chose not to verify facts.
It claims the network misled viewers by supporting Trump's inaccurate statement. It also says that Fox News distorted the truth to remain favorable to the president.
Claims Against Jesse Watters and John Roberts
The lawsuit states that Jesse Watters' program used edited video clips. According to Newsom, the program removed the part where Trump mentioned speaking to him 'a day ago.'
By doing this, the show allegedly changed the timeline. It made it appear that Newsom lied about the call. The lawsuit argues that Watters showed phone records after removing Trump's statement. This was done to support the claim that Newsom was not being truthful.
John Roberts also repeated Trump's statement in his reporting. The lawsuit does not specify how Roberts' actions were misleading but includes him for repeating what Newsom considers a false timeline.
Also Read:
Reacher Season 4 Casting Update: Christopher Rodriguez-Marquette joins cast. See which role will he play
Newsom's Statement on the Lawsuit
In a public statement, Newsom explained the reason for the lawsuit. He said Fox News was spreading misinformation. He said the network was supporting Trump's claims despite having access to facts.
Newsom stated that news outlets have a responsibility to provide accurate information. He added that when a major news company distorts facts, it should face legal consequences. He promised to keep fighting until he sees accountability from Fox News.
Fox News Has Not Responded
As of now, Fox News has not made any official statement about the lawsuit. The network has not responded to Newsom's allegations or commented on the lawsuit's details. The legal case is expected to move forward in California.
FAQs
Why did Governor Newsom sue Fox News?
Governor Newsom sued Fox News for defamation, claiming they misrepresented facts about a phone call with Trump and wrongly labeled him a liar on national television.
What is the main issue in Newsom's lawsuit?
The main issue is a Fox News broadcast that removed part of Trump's statement, making it seem like Newsom lied about the date of their phone conversation.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Canada kicks out Chinese surveillance giant Hikvision over national security threat
The Canadian government has ordered Chinese surveillance technology company Hikvision to shut down its Canadian operations, citing national security concerns. Industry Minister Mélanie Joly announced the decision late Friday(June 27), stating the move follows a formal national security review under the Investment Canada Act. The review involved intelligence and security assessments provided by Canada's national agencies. "The government has determined that Hikvision Canada Inc.'s continued operations in Canada would be injurious to Canada's national security," Joly wrote in a post on X. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Buy the Dip: Top 5 Dividend Stocks with Growth Potential Seeking Alpha Read Now Undo Hikvision, formally known as Hangzhou Hikvision Digital Technology Co., Ltd., is one of the world's largest manufacturers of surveillance cameras and related equipment. The company has operated in Canada through a subsidiary since 2014. The decision comes amid growing international scrutiny of Hikvision. The US, UK, and Australia have previously placed sanctions or restrictions on the company over allegations that its technology was used in the surveillance of Uyghur Muslims in China's Xinjiang region, allegations Beijing has denied. Major retailers such as Best Buy and Home Depot stopped selling Hikvision products as early as 2021. Live Events While Canadian officials did not disclose the specific threat that triggered this review, the Investment Canada Act allows Ottawa to investigate and block foreign investments that pose potential risks to national security. In a statement issued Saturday, Hikvision said it 'strongly disagrees' with the government's decision. 'We believe it lacks a factual basis, procedural fairness, and transparency,' the company said. 'Instead of evaluating our technology on its cybersecurity merits, the decision appears to be driven by the parent company's country of origin, reflecting broader geopolitical tensions and an unjustified bias against Chinese companies.' Hikvision added that it fully cooperated with Canadian authorities and submitted all requested documentation. Along with the shutdown order, Minister Joly said the federal government will ensure that departments, agencies, and Crown corporations do not purchase or use Hikvision equipment moving forward. She also announced a review of government buildings to identify and phase out any legacy Hikvision devices. 'I strongly urge Canadians to take note of this decision and make their own decisions accordingly,' Joly added. The Chinese Embassy in Ottawa has not yet commented on the decision.
Mint
an hour ago
- Mint
Confusion and anxiety grips immigrant communities nationwide after US Supreme Court's ruling on birthright citizenship
Confusion and anxiety gripped immigrant communities nationwide after the Supreme Court's ruling on birthright citizenship, leaving pregnant asylum seekers like Lorena, a 24-year-old Colombian in Houston, fearing her unborn child could become stateless, according to a Reuters report. "I don't understand it well," she admitted, voicing concerns that her September-born baby might lack Colombian citizenship if she can't add the child to her pending asylum case. Her panic reflects a broader uncertainty: The court's 6-3 decision curbed federal judges' power to issue nationwide injunctions against President Trump's executive order denying citizenship to babies born to undocumented or temporary-visa holders, but did not rule on the order's constitutionality. Instead, it triggered a 30-day countdown before the policy could take effect, during which lower courts must reconsider narrower ways to block it. Immigrant advocates reported a surge of calls from distraught parents-to-be, including a visa holder in Ohio terrified his child would be denied rights in a non-plaintiff state. "I don't want her to be adrift with no nationality," Lorena said, highlighting the humanitarian crisis brewing beneath all the legal chaos. The ruling's ambiguity centers on its potential to fracture citizenship rights state-by-state. While Trump's order remains blocked for plaintiffs like members of Maryland's CASA and the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project, it could apply elsewhere after 30 days, creating what experts call an "unworkable patchwork." For instance, a baby born to undocumented parents in Louisiana (a non-plaintiff state) might be denied citizenship, while an identical birth in Massachusetts (a plaintiff state) would secure it. This disparity could force hospitals to act as de facto immigration enforcers, checking parents' statuses during childbirth. "Would individual doctors have to figure out how to determine citizenship?" asked Migration Policy Institute analyst Kathleen Bush-Joseph, as per Reuters. Trump, meanwhile, doubled down at a press conference, falsely claiming "hundreds of thousands" exploit birthright citizenship as a migration magnet. In a rapid response, advocacy groups filed class-action lawsuits to shield families nationwide. Within hours of the ruling, CASA and the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project amended their Maryland lawsuit to seek certification for a nationwide class covering all children born after February 19, 2025, who'd be stripped of citizenship under Trump's order. "We're going to get protection for everyone," vowed lawyer William Powell, arguing class actions could achieve what universal injunctions no longer can. But hurdles persist: Joining these groups requires resources that many lack, and Republican-led states may still enforce the policy during litigation. Betsy, a Virginia teen and CASA member whose undocumented parents migrated from El Salvador, fears targeting 'innocent kids who haven't even been born.' Meanwhile, Democratic attorneys general in 22 states signaled they'll argue in lower courts that only nationwide injunctions prevent bureaucratic chaos, like tracking parents who cross state lines to give birth. As Honduran asylum seeker Nivida fielded panicked calls from pregnant friends in Louisiana, she echoed a community's plea: "Is the baby going to be a citizen?" With the Supreme Court likely to revisit the order's constitutionality this fall, the clock ticks toward a fragmented America.
India Today
an hour ago
- India Today
Eric Trump hints at possible White House run after father's term
US President Donald Trump's son, Eric Trump, has hinted that he or another Trump family member could seek the presidency once his father's second term ends. In a recent interview with the Financial Times, the 41-year-old Trump Organization executive said a political path would be 'an easy one' for him, though he remains undecided about entering public life.'The real question is: 'Do you want to drag other members of your family into it? Would I want my kids to live the same experience over the last decade that I've lived? Eric said, citing the toll of nearly a decade of public scrutiny and legal the answer was yes, I think I could do it. And I think other members of our family could do it too.' Unlike his siblings, Donald Jr and Ivanka Trump, both of whom have taken on prominent political roles. Eric has largely stayed behind the scenes, focusing on the Trump family's business empire. Yet, his recent comments suggest that he has been quietly observing the political landscape and weighing the also voiced frustration with the current political class, claiming he could 'do the job very effectively,' and expressed disdain for many elected he remains cautious about the personal cost: 'Do you want to subject the people you love to the brutality of this system?'With rising Republican figures like Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio gaining momentum, speculation continues about what a post-Trump GOP might look asked if 2024 would be the final election with Trump on the ballot, Eric simply replied: 'Time will tell. But there's more people than just me.'Addressing allegations that the Trump family enriched itself through politics, Eric pushed back, claiming the presidency came at a high cost. 'If there's one family that hasn't profited off politics, it's the Trump family,' he said, arguing the opportunity costs and legal expenses have been 'astronomical.' He estimated the family has spent nearly USD 500 million defending itself against various this, Donald Trump's wealth has surged, at least on paper. His stake in Trump Media & Technology Group is reportedly worth about USD 2 billion, and he earned USD 630 million last year from ventures including crypto, real estate branding, and Trump values the Trump Organization between USD 8 billion and USD 12 billion, but says the price of political life goes beyond business: 'The toll it's taken on our family has been immense.'While Eric stopped short of announcing any political ambitions, his remarks reignited speculation that the Trump dynasty is far from finished with American politics. Whether it's him, Donald Jr, Ivanka, or someone else, the family remains a powerful force in the GOP, and the next chapter may just be beginning.- EndsMust Watch
