Gavin Newsom sues Fox News for $787m over Trump call comment
Gavin Newsom has filed a $787 million defamation lawsuit against Fox News after the network accused him of lying about a phone call with Donald Trump.
The California governor and the president disagreed over the timing of a phone call relating to the deployment of National Guard troops to the state earlier this month, in an effort to help police violent protests against immigration raids.
According to Mr Newsom's complaint, he spoke to Mr Trump for approximately 16 minutes by phone on June 7, two days before the deployment. However, on June 10 the president told reporters he had spoken to the governor 'a day ago'.
The pair, who frequently butt heads, were locked in a days-long feud over the timing of the call.
Subsequently, Fox aired a clip showing host Jesse Watters asking: 'Why would Newsom lie and claim Trump never called him?'
The report was accompanied by a banner along the bottom of the screen that said 'Gavin lied about Trump's call,' the complaint added.
Fox News was motivated to 'lie and distort on behalf of the president,' Mr Newsom's lawyers claim, adding: 'It is perhaps unsurprising that a near-octogenarian with a history of delusionary public statements and unhinged late-night social media screeds might confuse the dates.'
According to the complaint, Fox's claim that Mr Newsom lied was 'calculated to provoke outrage and cause Gov Newsom significant harm,' by making people less likely to support his causes, donate to his campaigns, or vote for him in elections.
Mr Newsom will drop the lawsuit if Fox issues a retraction and Mr Watters apologises on-air, the New York Times reported.
In a post on X, Mr Newsom shared a news article about the suit, with the caption: 'No more lies. I'm suing Fox News for $787 million.'
'Until Fox is willing to be truthful, I will keep fighting against their propaganda machine,' he told Politico.
In a statement to CNBC, a Fox spokesperson said: '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.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
BBC News
20 minutes ago
- BBC News
Canadian businesses seek certainty in US tariff war
Deal or no deal, what Wes Love wants is Toronto-area business, Taurus Craco, imports machinery from overseas and distributes it across North America, mainly to the United President Donald Trump's shifting tariffs on Canadian products have left him, like many independent business owners, unable to plan for the future."What has been creating indecision in the market is people don't know which way this is going to go," Mr Love told the BBC in June. "And in small businesses, indecision is killer." Taurus Craco was hit hard by the tariffs earlier this year when it was forced to shell out nearly C$35,000 ($25,500, £18,700) because a shipment to the US crossed the border a few minutes after one deadline."It is totally punitive. From a small business perspective, that's more than the cost that we spend on hydro and gas for the entire year," he though Trump paused that tariff a few hours later, Taurus Craco still had to pay. Refusing would mean no longer being allowed to transport its products into the US, Mr Love said."It's like dealing with the mob," he is in a tit-for-tat tariff war with its largest trading partner, faciing a series of levies, in particular on metals and auto. Since taking office in January, Trump has announced a series of import taxes on goods from other countries - arguing they will boost American manufacturing and protect jobs. The ensuing uncertainty has hit Canada's economy and intense talks between the two countries hit a snag on Friday. Prime Minister Mark Carney has called Trump's tariffs "unjust", and said while campaigning for the April election that the "old relationship" with the US is "over". Shortly after winning that election, the prime minister visited Washington DC, taking a more conciliatory message to the White House to launch talks on a new trade and security deal. A 16 July deadline since has been set to hash out that deal, and President Trump said at the recent G7 summit that he was optimistic the two countries could "work something out" on on Friday, Trump said he was cutting trade talks over Canada's digital services tax. "We are hereby terminating ALL discussions on Trade with Canada, effective immediately," he wrote on social has threatened to impose another round of retaliatory tariffs on the US if the talks aren't successful. Mr Love welcomes any prospect of a deal."Give us a set of rules and leave them alone and let us operate within those rules," he said."It's like sport, right? Everybody goes onto the field and you play to a set of rules, but you don't change the rules in the middle of the game." Trade, a sudden exit, Middle East conflict - five takeaways from G7'A stab in the back' - car workers in Canada hit out at US over tariffsThe reality behind Trump's incredible investment claimsWhat tariffs has Trump announced and why? Gaphel Kongtsa, international policy director at the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, said businesses are hopeful an agreement will bring stability. Thus far, they have had to navigate a very fluid landscape, he said, "where seemingly things get increased or decreased or added on without very much clear indication as to why".Canada is hugely reliant on trade with the US, with 75% of its exports heading south, according to Statistics economy has slowed significantly in the first quarter of 2025 as a result of trade war and the ensuing uncertainty - growing only 0.8% between 1 January and 31 March, according to the Canadian Federation of Independent Business (CFIB).It shrank 0.1% over a month in April. A timeline of the tariffs shows what a whirlwind few months it has 1 February, Trump imposed a 25% tariff on most Canadian imports, then suspended them for a month days later. They were re-imposed when that deadline expired, only to be again delayed. Not long after, he granted an exemption on all goods that were compliant with the current North American free trade deal, known as the USMCA. Then in March, the US imposed a global 25% tariff on imported steel and aluminium as well as on imported vehicles. This month, Trump raised the metals tariff to 50%. The manufacturing sector has been in the spotlight when it comes to the tariffs, but the service sector also is affected by the uncertainty, if not by the levies directly. Sam Gupta is the founder and CEO at ElevatIQ, a technology and management consultancy that operates out of Buffalo, New York, and in Gupta said most people don't think about the service sector during a period of uncertainty, calling it the "unloved stepchild" of the economy."The attention goes to all the manufacturing companies and the companies that are directly impacted by the supply chain," he said. Still, services - which encompass everything from finance to tourism - make up a huge proportion of Canada's economy, accounting for the vast majority of its exporters have not been hit as hard as manufacturing, but their outlook and confidence in the market is at the lowest level in years, according to data from the Canadian Chamber of while Ottawa has implemented several measures to provide relief to companies hit by the tariffs - including from funds raised by counter tariffs - the service sector has not received any compensation."We are not even in the conversation," Mr Gupta said. "We don't exist."He said his business is not financially struggling at the moment, but noted that inquiries for his firm's services were "down by 50%". "As far as our understanding goes, not a lot of businesses are thinking about these longterm investments right now. It just, they just are not in the mindset," he said."The biggest fear that we all have right now is, I don't know how long this is going to go. If it is going to be six months, a year, 18 months, we can still survive. But let's say this goes on for like two years, three years then oh, my goodness, it will be, really, really hard."This has been the toughest period for the industry in his 20-year career, as the sector faces a combination of challenges, he said. Mr Gupta recalled how easy it was for him to get a well-paying job early in his career. "Even when I was graduating, we were getting paid like crazy. And we were so arrogant that we would not even pick up calls from recruiters," he said."But now with AI, with tariffs, the economy, everything, everybody that I know is struggling," he said. Statistics Canada reports that 56% of all businesses that export to the US have taken measures to mitigate the impact of than 30% have delayed major investments and expenditures, while 25% sought alternative customers outside the Bank of Canada said on Wednesday that exports to the US dropped by more than 15% in April. Steel and aluminium exports were down by 25% and 11%, and the export of vehicles had fallen by 25%.But despite everything, Mr Love remains said businesses can navigate the challenges as long as the US does not keep changing its trade policy."We're entrepreneurs. We are full of piss and vinegar, as they would say," he said."And so we are doing everything that we possibly can to keep fighting. And I think we will be successful; we just need to know what the ground rules are."
The Guardian
35 minutes ago
- The Guardian
The US supreme court has dramatically expanded the powers of the president
Those of us who cover the US supreme court are faced, every June, with a peculiar challenge: whether to describe what the supreme court is doing, or what is claims that it is doing. What the supreme court says it was doing in Friday's 6-3 decision in Trump v Casa, Inc, the birthright citizenship case, is narrowing the power of federal district judges to issue nationwide injunctions, in deference to presidential authority. The case effectively ends the ability of federal judges on lower courts to issue nationwide stays of executive actions that violate the constitution, federal law, and the rights of citizens. And so what the court has actually done is dramatically expand the rights of the president – this president – to nullify constitutional provisions at will. The ruling curtails nationwide injunctions against Trump's order ending birthright citizenship – meaning that while lawsuits against the order proceed, the court has unleashed a chaotic patchwork of rights enforceability. The Trump administration's ban on birthright citizenship will not be able to go into effect in jurisdictions where there is no ongoing lawsuit, or where judges have not issued regional stays. And so the supreme court creates, for the foreseeable future, a jurisprudence of citizenship in which babies born in some parts of the country will be presumptive citizens, while those born elsewhere will not. More broadly the decision means that going forward, the enforceable rights and entitlements of Americans will now be dependent on the state they reside in and the status of ongoing litigation in that district at any given time. Donald Trump, personally, will now have the presumptive power to persecute you, and nullify your rights in defiance of the constitution, at his discretion. You can't stop him unless and until you can get a lawyer, a hearing, and a narrow order from a sympathetic judge. 'No right is safe in the new legal regime the Court creates,' writes Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in a dissent joined by the court's other two liberals. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, writing separately, adds that the decision is 'profoundly dangerous, since it gives the Executive the go-ahead to sometimes wield the kind of unchecked, arbitrary power the Founders crafted our Constitution to eradicate'. She also calls the ruling an 'existential threat to the rule of law'. The case concerns an executive order by the Trump administration, issued the day that Trump returned to office, purporting to end birthright citizenship – in defiance of the 14th amendment. When immigrant rights groups, representing American newborns and their migrant parents, sued the Trump administration to enforce their clients' constitutional rights, a nationwide injunction was issued which paused the Trump administration's plainly illegal order from going into effect while the lawsuit proceeded. These injunctions are a standard tool in the arsenal of federal judges, and an essential check on executive power: when the president does something wildly illegal, as Trump did, the courts can use injunctions to prevent those illegal actions from causing harm to Americans while litigation is ongoing. Nationwide injunctions have become more common in the Trump era, if only because Trump himself routinely does plainly illegal things that have the potential to hurt people and strip them of their rights nationwide. But they are not used exclusively against Republican presidents, or in order to obstruct rightwing policy efforts. Throughout the Obama and Biden administrations, Republican appointed judges routinely stymied their policy agendas with national injunctions; the Roberts court blessed these efforts. But once Donald Trump returned to power, the court adopted a newer, narrower vision of judges' prerogatives – or at least, of the prerogatives of judges who are not them. They have, with this ruling, given Donald Trump the sweeping and unprecedented authority to claim presumptive legality of even the most fundamental of American rights: the right of American-born persons to call themselves American at all. Part of why the supreme court's behavior creates dilemmas for pundits is that the court is acting in with a shameless and exceptional degree of bad faith, such that describing their own accounts of their actions would mean participating in a condescending deception of the reader. In her opinion for the conservative majority, Justice Amy Coney Barrett says that the court is merely deferring to the rights of the executive, and ensuring that the president has the freedom to do what the voters elected him to do. Putting aside the ouroboros-like nature of the majority's conception of electoral legitimacy –that having received a majority of Americans' votes would somehow entitle Donald Trump to strip them of the rights that made those votes free, meaningful, and informed in the first place – the assertion is also one of bad faith. Because the truth is that this court's understanding of the scope of executive power is not principled; it is not even grounded in the bad history that Barrett trots out to illustrate her point about the sweeping power of other executives in the historical tradition – like the king of England. Rather, the court expands and contracts its vision of what the president is allowed to do based on the political affiliation of the president that is currently in office. When a Democrat is the president, their vision of executive power contracts. When a Republican is in office, it dramatically expands. That is because these people's loyalty is not to the constitution, or to a principled reading of the law. It is to their political priors. Sign up to Headlines US Get the most important US headlines and highlights emailed direct to you every morning after newsletter promotion Another danger of reporting the court's own account of itself to readers is this: that it can distract from the real stakes of the case. In this decision, the court did not, technically, reach the merits of Trump's absurd and insulting claim that the constitution somehow does not create a birthright entitlement to citizenship. But in the meantime, many children – the American-born infants of immigrant parents – will be denied the right that the 14th amendment plainly guarantees them. The rightwing legal movement, and the Trumpist judges who have advanced it, have long believed that really, this is a white man's country – and that the 14th amendment, with its guarantees of equal protection and its vision of a pluralist nation of equals, living together in dignity across difference – was an error. Those babies, fully American despite their differences and their parents' histories, are squirming, cooing testaments to that better, more just future. They, and the hope that they represent, are more American than Trump and his crony judges will ever be. Moira Donegan is a Guardian US columnist
Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
Keir Starmer's authority has vanished. What's the point of this Government? When the time comes the British people will kick him into orbit: Read BORIS JOHNSON's devastating verdict a year on from Labour's loveless landslide
So that's it. Pffft! With a long sibilant farting efflatus as if from a punctured balloon the last of Keir Starmer 's authority has vanished to the four winds. He can't control his backbenchers. He can't deliver on his election promises. His flagship welfare reform Bill – once hailed as the superdreadnought of the Labour fleet – has run up the white flag at the first whiff of gunfire and vanished back to port.
