Newsom Slams Fox News with Massive Lawsuit

Written by Daniel Thompson.

California Governor Gavin Newsom has initiated a high-stakes legal battle against Fox News, alleging defamation over the network’s coverage of a phone call with President Donald Trump. Filed in Delaware, where Fox News is incorporated, the lawsuit demands at least $787 million in damages and a court order to halt the broadcast or publication of segments claiming Newsom misrepresented the conversation. This action reflects Newsom’s increasingly assertive stance against political adversaries, drawing parallels to prior high-profile media lawsuits while raising critical questions about free speech and journalistic integrity.

Origins of the Newsom-Fox News Dispute

The controversy stems from a June 6, 2025, phone call between Newsom and Trump, which occurred amid heightened tensions over the president’s deployment of military troops to Los Angeles during an immigration enforcement operation. Newsom, a Democrat, publicly opposed Trump’s activation of the California National Guard, invoking a federal statute to override state authority. The call, which took place late at night Pacific Time, became a focal point of contention when Trump claimed during a June 10 White House press conference that he had spoken to Newsom “a day ago” to address state governance issues.

Newsom refuted Trump’s timeline, posting on social media that no such recent call occurred, emphasizing the need for transparency as federal forces were deployed in California. Fox News, however, aired segments suggesting Newsom fabricated his account, with host Jesse Watters claiming the governor lied about the call. The network supported its narrative with screenshots of Trump’s phone log, which confirmed the June 6 conversation but did not align with Trump’s “a day ago” statement. Newsom’s lawsuit alleges that Fox News manipulated this evidence to portray him as dishonest, damaging his reputation and political standing.

Details of the Lawsuit and Its Demands

The lawsuit, filed on June 27, 2025, accuses Fox News of defamation through deceptive editing and false statements that misrepresented the timeline dispute. Newsom’s legal team argues that the network’s coverage, including a chyron stating “Gavin Lied About Trump’s Call,” was designed to undermine his credibility and influence voter perceptions ahead of future elections. The $787 million in damages sought mirrors the settlement Fox News paid in 2023 to Dominion Voting Systems for spreading false election-related claims, signaling Newsom’s intent to hold the network accountable for what he deems reckless journalism.

In addition to financial compensation, Newsom demands a formal retraction and an on-air apology from Watters. A letter sent to Fox News outlines that compliance with these conditions could lead to the lawsuit’s dismissal. The suit also alleges unfair business practices, drawing comparisons to legal strategies employed by Trump in his own media lawsuits. This approach underscores Newsom’s willingness to leverage litigation as a tool to counter perceived media bias, a tactic increasingly common in politically charged disputes.

The broader context of this lawsuit reveals a growing trend of public figures using defamation claims to challenge media narratives. Similar cases, such as Trump’s lawsuits against CBS News and The Des Moines Register, highlight the contentious intersection of politics, media, and legal accountability. Newsom’s action appears to be both a response to specific grievances and a strategic move to assert influence in a polarized media landscape.

Fox News’ Response and Free Speech Concerns

Fox News has dismissed the lawsuit as a “transparent publicity stunt” aimed at suppressing critical reporting. In a statement, the network defended its coverage, arguing that Newsom’s legal action seeks to chill free speech and distract from his governance challenges. Fox News expressed confidence in a swift dismissal, framing the suit as an overreach by a public official sensitive to scrutiny. This response aligns with the network’s history of robustly defending itself against defamation claims, as seen in the Dominion case, where it argued for broad First Amendment protections.

Legal experts note that Newsom’s lawsuit faces significant hurdles due to the high bar for proving defamation as a public figure. To succeed, Newsom must demonstrate that Fox News acted with “actual malice,” knowingly broadcasting false information or with reckless disregard for the truth. The network’s use of Trump’s phone log, while potentially misleading in context, may complicate Newsom’s ability to meet this standard. Additionally, the lawsuit’s political undertones—evidenced by Newsom’s fundraising email sent hours after filing—could undermine its perceived legitimacy, framing it as a strategic maneuver rather than a genuine pursuit of justice.

The case also raises broader questions about the role of media in political discourse. Public trust in news outlets has declined in recent years, with surveys indicating that over 60% of Americans believe major media organizations favor one political party. Newsom’s lawsuit may resonate with those skeptical of media impartiality, but it risks further eroding trust if perceived as an attempt to silence dissent. Balancing journalistic freedom with accountability remains a critical challenge in this polarized era.

Our Take

Governor Newsom’s lawsuit against Fox News highlights the escalating tensions between public officials and media outlets in an era of heightened political division. While the suit underscores legitimate concerns about journalistic accuracy, its ambitious demands and political framing suggest a broader agenda to shape public perception. The $787 million claim, mirroring the Dominion settlement, sends a clear message about the consequences of perceived media malfeasance, but it also risks being seen as an overreach that could stifle legitimate criticism. As this case unfolds, it will serve as a litmus test for the boundaries of free speech and the responsibilities of media organizations in reporting on public figures. Courts must carefully navigate these issues to uphold both accountability and constitutional protections, ensuring that neither political agendas nor unchecked media narratives dominate the discourse.