Governor Newsom Sues Fox News for Defamation Over Call with Trump

Categories: California Breaking NewsCalifornia NewsCalifornia Politics

A glimpse into the courtroom where the defamation case unfolds.

News Summary

California Governor Gavin Newsom has filed a $787 million defamation lawsuit against Fox News, alleging that misleading statements from anchor Jesse Watters about a phone call with Donald Trump have harmed his reputation. The suit claims that Fox News acted with bias against Newsom, reflecting broader issues of media integrity and the consequences of misinformation in politics. Following an alleged misrepresentation of the conversation, Newsom’s legal team argues that the deceptive portrayal violates California’s Unfair Competition Law. The case amplifies ongoing concerns about the trustworthiness of information in contemporary media.

California – Governor Gavin Newsom has initiated a significant legal battle against Fox News, filing a lawsuit seeking damages of no less than $787 million for allegations of defamation related to a phone call with former President Donald Trump. The lawsuit was lodged in Delaware’s Superior Court, the state where Fox News is incorporated.

Central to the lawsuit are statements made by Fox News anchor Jesse Watters, who allegedly interpreted Newsom’s comments about a June conversation with Trump in a misleading manner. Watters reportedly claimed during an episode of his program that Newsom had lied about the existence of the call. Newsom asserts that such statements from Fox News were designed to mislead the public and denigrate him, suggesting that the news organization acted out of bias against his political stance.

The monetary sum sought in the lawsuit mirrors the $787.5 million settlement that Fox News agreed to in April 2023 with Dominion Voting Systems, a case that centered around similar defamation allegations. Newsom’s suit argues that Fox News harbors “significant ill will” towards him, fueled by his progressive policies and opposition to the network’s editorial narrative.

On June 7, the day before Trump instructed the deployment of California National Guard troops to Los Angeles, Newsom and Trump were reported to have a phone conversation that lasted approximately 16 minutes. Following the call, discussions among Fox News personnel suggested that Newsom had claimed there was no recent interaction with Trump. This portrayal has led to the current legal proceedings, as Newsom maintains that this distortion harms his public reputation.

Newsom’s legal team contends that the edited nature of the clips aired by Watters, which omitted key information, contributed to misleading portrayals of the governor and his credibility. In their civil complaint, Newsom’s attorneys have underscored how the incident has damaged his standing with voters. They argue that it simultaneously violates California’s Unfair Competition Law, which prohibits deceptive and unfair business practices.

Prior to filing the lawsuit, Newsom’s representatives reached out to Fox News with a proposal to retract the controversial claims and issue a formal apology from Watters and the network. However, Fox’s response to the lawsuit characterized it as a “transparent publicity stunt,” alleging that it seeks to stifle free speech that is critical of the governor.

Newsom countered Fox’s dismissal by emphasizing the necessity for accurate and trustworthy information from major news outlets, expressing a commitment to combating what he perceives as media propaganda and dysfunction.

This legal confrontation has surfaced amid broader discussions regarding media integrity, free speech, and public trust in information disseminated by news organizations. Newsom’s legal actions point to contentious interactions between political figures and the media landscape, emphasizing how public narrative can be shaped or distorted through selective reporting.

The lawsuit not only seeks financial restitution for damages but also stands as a broader indictment of media practices that he claims undermine the public’s right to accurate information. Newsom’s ongoing fight against what he sees as misinformation reflects a growing concern among many public officials regarding the consequences of misleading media portrayals in contemporary politics.

The unfolding legal case is likely to bring heightened scrutiny to both the practices of Fox News and the mechanisms through which public figures engage with media narratives. It remains to be seen how the legal proceedings will impact the relationship between Newsom, Fox News, and the broader media landscape in California and beyond.