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
The Independent
14 minutes ago
- The Independent
What's next for birthright citizenship after the Supreme Court's ruling
The legal battle over President Donald Trump 's move to end birthright citizenship is far from over despite the Republican administration's major victory Friday limiting nationwide injunctions. Immigrant advocates are vowing to fight to ensure birthright citizenship remains the law as the Republican president tries to do away with more than a century of precedent. The high court's ruling sends cases challenging the president's birthright citizenship executive order back to the lower courts. But the ultimate fate of the president's policy remains uncertain. Here's what to know about birthright citizenship, the Supreme Court 's ruling and what happens next. Birthright citizenship makes anyone born in the United States an American citizen, including children born to mothers in the country illegally. The practice goes back to soon after the Civil War, when Congress ratified the Constitution's 14th Amendment, in part to ensure that Black people, including former slaves, had citizenship. 'All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States,' the amendment states. Thirty years later, Wong Kim Ark, a man born in the U.S. to Chinese parents, was refused re-entry into the U.S. after traveling overseas. His suit led to the Supreme Court explicitly ruling that the amendment gives citizenship to anyone born in the U.S., no matter their parents' legal status. It has been seen since then as an intrinsic part of U.S. law, with only a handful of exceptions, such as for children born in the U.S. to foreign diplomats. Trump has long said he wants to do away with birthright citizenship Trump's executive order, signed in Januar,y seeks to deny citizenship to children who are born to people who are living in the U.S. illegally or temporarily. It's part of the hardline immigration agenda of the president, who has called birthright citizenship a 'magnet for illegal immigration.' Trump and his supporters focus on one phrase in the amendment — 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof' – saying it means the U.S. can deny citizenship to babies born to women in the country illegally. A series of federal judges have said that's not true, and issued nationwide injunctions stopping his order from taking effect. 'I've been on the bench for over four decades. I can't remember another case where the question presented was as clear as this one is. This is a blatantly unconstitutional order,' U.S. District Judge John Coughenour said at a hearing earlier this year in his Seattle courtroom. In Greenbelt, Maryland, a Washington suburb, U.S. District Judge Deborah Boardman wrote that 'the Supreme Court has resoundingly rejected and no court in the country has ever endorsed' Trump's interpretation of birthright citizenship. Is Trump's order constitutional? The justices didn't say The high court's ruling was a major victory for the Trump administration in that it limited an individual judge's authority in granting nationwide injunctions. The administration hailed the ruling as a monumental check on the powers of individual district court judges, whom Trump supporters have argued want to usurp the president's authority with rulings blocking his priorities around immigration and other matters. But the Supreme Court did not address the merits of Trump's bid to enforce his birthright citizenship executive order. 'The Trump administration made a strategic decision, which I think quite clearly paid off, that they were going to challenge not the judges' decisions on the merits, but on the scope of relief,' said Jessica Levinson, a Loyola Law School professor. Attorney General Pam Bondi told reporters at the White House that the administration is 'very confident' that the high court will ultimately side with the administration on the merits of the case. Questions and uncertainty swirl around next steps The justices kicked the cases challenging the birthright citizenship policy back down to the lower courts, where judges will have to decide how to tailor their orders to comply with the new ruling. The executive order remains blocked for at least 30 days, giving lower courts and the parties time to sort out the next steps. The Supreme Court's ruling leaves open the possibility that groups challenging the policy could still get nationwide relief through class-action lawsuits and seek certification as a nationwide class. Within hours after the ruling, two class-action suits had been filed in Maryland and New Hampshire seeking to block Trump's order. But obtaining nationwide relief through a class action is difficult as courts have put up hurdles to doing so over the years, said Suzette Malveaux, a Washington and Lee University law school professor. 'It's not the case that a class action is a sort of easy, breezy way of getting around this problem of not having nationwide relief,' said Malveaux, who had urged the high court not to eliminate the nationwide injunctions. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who penned the court's dissenting opinion, urged the lower courts to 'act swiftly on such requests for relief and to adjudicate the cases as quickly as they can so as to enable this Court's prompt review" in cases 'challenging policies as blatantly unlawful and harmful as the Citizenship Order.' Opponents of Trump's order warned there would be a patchwork of polices across the states, leading to chaos and confusion without nationwide relief. 'Birthright citizenship has been settled constitutional law for more than a century," said Krish O'Mara Vignarajah, president and CEO of Global Refuge, a nonprofit that supports refugees and migrants. 'By denying lower courts the ability to enforce that right uniformly, the Court has invited chaos, inequality, and fear.' ____ Associated Press reporters Mark Sherman and Lindsay Whitehurst in Washington and Mike Catalini in Trenton, New Jersey, contributed.
The Guardian
25 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Killed ex-Minnesota lawmaker Melissa Hortman lies in state alongside husband and dog
Melissa and Mark Hortman, and their dog Gilbert, lay in state in the Minnesota state capitol rotunda on Friday. Their wooden caskets, and Gilbert's golden urn with pawprints on it, were surrounded by trees and ferns, a nod to the greenery Melissa, an avid gardener and advocate for the environment, held dear in her personal life and in her governance. The Hortmans were killed by a politically motivated assassin who posed as a police officer and came to their home, and the homes of other lawmakers, injuring another and his wife. The killings and subsequent manhunt unsettled the state. On Friday, Minnesotans lined up by the hundreds outside and inside the state capitol to pay their respects. One by one, they moved toward the rotunda. Many wiped away tears. Others did the sign of the cross. Some put their hands on their hearts. The mourners included former president Joe Biden. Some brought their children, waiting in line patiently to say goodbye. Many carried flowers – daffodils, daisies, zinnias, roses. Golden retrievers sat outside the doors of the capitol, waiting people to pet them and to comfort those who came to grieve. A second line waited to drop off flowers and other items of remembrance at a memorial upstairs near the House chambers. There, thousands of flowers decorated a hallway of tables. Interspersed were dog treats, stuffed animals and hundreds of notes from people who told the Hortmans what they meant to Minnesota. One photo left at the memorial shows Hortman behind a lectern with the presidential seal, noting that she was one of a group of state lawmakers invited to Washington by then-president Barack Obama. 'I can't comprehend her being gone, but I'm realizing how much I loved her,' wrote the person who left the photo. 'Remembering your strong leadership for low-income Minnesotans and your dedication to policies so that all people have a home,' one sign said. 'Melissa is our hero,' wrote another. Melissa is the first woman in Minnesota history to lie in state at the Capitol. She joins a long list of Minnesota governing greats – a list her colleagues say she deserves to be on for her accomplishments. Tim Walz, the governor, has called her the 'most consequential House speaker in state history'. One man got to the capitol at 6.30am to wait for the doors to open at noon, he told Minnesota Public Radio. Mike Starr said he once was hosted by the Hortmans at their home and wanted to pay his respects and show thanks for everything Melissa had done for the state. 'She stood up for the people and that she didn't spin the story, she didn't mislead people,' Starr said. 'She let you know who she was. And you know, when she said something, she meant it.' Some came from out of state to say goodbye. Debra Lehrmann, Texas supreme court justice and a friend of the Hortmans, came to the capitol, according to the Star Tribune. 'Melissa is the kind of person you're drawn to,' she told the paper. In the days since her death, her friends and colleagues – and those who didn't personally know her, but felt her impact – have shared what she meant to them. They cited an ability to bring people together and find common ground alongside a whip-smart intellect and a witty sense of humor. Above all, she cared about Minnesota – and Minnesota cared back.
Telegraph
26 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Marjorie Taylor Greene says Zohran Mamdani is ‘smart and unique'
Marjorie Taylor Greene has praised socialist Democrat Zohran Mamdani 's mayoral campaign as 'unique and very smart'. The Maga loyalist said while she disagrees with everything the New York Democrat says, she was impressed by his ability to talk 'directly to the people' during his campaign. Mr Mamdani, 33, clinched the Democratic nomination earlier this week, beating Andrew Cuomo after appealing to New Yorkers with viral videos promising everything from free bus rides to controlling food prices. With staunchly Left-wing, pro-Palestine views, Mr Mamdani has been fiercely criticised by Republicans and some Democrats. But his campaigning talent has received plaudits from an unlikely source: one of Donald Trump's biggest supporters. Ms Taylor Greene suggested the GOP could learn from Mr Mamdani's successful campaign, which will see him contest the November election as a front runner in a city that has not elected a Republican since 2005. 'I've watched quite a few of [Mamdani's] videos and he did something pretty unique and very smart, even though I don't agree with anything he says', the congresswoman told Real America's Voice. Ms Taylor Greene added: 'He really ran a campaign where he talked directly to the people. He was focused on their issues, focused on their problems and talking to the people about his solutions even though his solutions were insane, they're socialist, probably communist, but he was talking directly to the people.' She said: 'When we're not talking to the people and not working on the people's problems we lose the people and the people will turn elsewhere.' Mr Mamdani is a vocal supporter of the Palestinian cause with a string of celebrity endorsements and more than a million followers on Instagram.
