Gavin Newsom vs. Fox News: A $787 Million Defamation Lawsuit, A Dark Phone Call, and A Genius Lie—Is the Truth Being Twisted Beyond Recognition?

California Democrats wage internal war over Gavin Newsom's late push to  build more housing - POLITICO

In an explosive twist that has rocked the media world and political circles, Gavin Newsom has launched a defamation lawsuit against Fox News, demanding an astounding $787 million after a critical exchange surrounding a phone call with Donald Trump. What seemed like a straightforward political clash has now evolved into a high-stakes legal drama that pits two of America’s most powerful players against each other, with the truth hanging in the balance.

At the heart of this legal battle is a phone call, which Newsom claims never took place as described by Trump. The controversy escalated after Fox News edited a crucial segment, removing critical words that would have changed the entire narrative. But is Newsom right to claim that Fox misled the public, or is this just another political game designed to silence an opposing voice?

Here’s a deep dive into the details of the lawsuit, the shocking phone call, and what it could mean for both Newsom and Fox News. Let’s break it down.

White House calls on Fox News to apologize after top host's 'sickening'  Islamophobic rant | CNN Business

The Set-Up: The Shocking Phone Call That Started It All

The drama began when Gavin Newsom publicly challenged Donald Trump’s claims about a phone conversation they had on June 7th, 2025. Trump, during an appearance in the Oval Office, told reporters he had spoken to Newsom the day before, claiming that they discussed the state of California and the national guard’s involvement in protests. Trump also took the opportunity to mock Newsom, saying the governor was doing a “bad job”, and “if it wasn’t for me, Los Angeles would be burning.”

But Newsom flat-out denied having this conversation. According to Newsom, Trump was lying—the call never took place as described. The problem? Trump produced a call log to back up his claims, showing that there was indeed a call on June 7th. However, the log didn’t show that the conversation took place the day before—it only confirmed the call was on June 7th, not the date that Trump claimed.

Gavin Newsom Files $787 Million Defamation Lawsuit Against Fox News | E!  News

 

The Key Evidence: The Edited Fox News Segment

What pushed this case to a boiling point was the involvement of Fox News. In a segment aired by Fox News, Jesse Watters, a prominent Fox personality, repeated Trump’s claims and linked them to the phone call log. However, Fox News edited out crucial words—specifically, “a day ago”—from the transcript of the conversation. This minor omission drastically changed the context of the phone call, making it appear that Newsom had denied a conversation that had actually taken place.

The edited segment was a masterstroke of manipulation, according to Newsom and his legal team. They argue that Fox’s editorial decision was an intentional act of defamation designed to mislead viewers and paint Newsom as a liar. But why would Fox News risk such a blatant editorial slip? Was it a simple mistake, or a deliberate attempt to undermine Newsom’s credibility?

Jesse Watters is Fox News' new 7 p.m. Eastern host

The Genius Lie: Trump’s “Manipulation” and Newsom’s Counterattack

Newsom is no stranger to political backlash and controversy, but this lawsuit has brought him into direct conflict with one of the most powerful media forces in America. His claim that Trump’s actions amounted to a “genius lie” has fueled this legal battle, raising serious questions about the nature of truth in today’s media landscape.

Is Trump’s behavior part of a larger, strategic pattern, or is Newsom simply playing the victim in a high-stakes game of political chess? Newsom’s legal team has argued that Trump’s words were carefully crafted to discredit him, and the edited Fox segment was just the latest piece of the puzzle in a well-coordinated smear campaign.

The real question remains: How far is Fox News willing to go to maintain the integrity of its partisan programming, especially when a small error in editing can lead to massive legal consequences? This lawsuit is as much about corporate accountability as it is about political power.

Why Gavin Newsom can't stop at simply trolling Fox

The High-Stakes Showdown: Will the Lawsuit Change Everything?

As the lawsuit makes its way through the legal system, one thing is clear: the stakes are incredibly high. Not only is $787 million on the line, but the reputation of both Fox News and Gavin Newsom hangs in the balance. What’s at risk here is the future of political discourse in America, as media outlets increasingly face accusations of bias, misrepresentation, and manipulation.

In the world of high-profile legal battles, this lawsuit could mark a turning point. Will Newsom succeed in holding Fox News accountable for their editorial choices, or will the media giant once again manage to brush off the consequences with a well-timed settlement or legal maneuver?

The bigger story here isn’t just about the facts of the phone call—it’s about how we process information in a time when media manipulation is a given and politicians use every opportunity to spin the truth. Can we trust what we’re being told? And how far will the powerful forces in media and politics go to control the narrative?

Newsom Sues Fox News for at Least $787 Million Over Trump Phone Call  Coverage - The New York Times

The Legal Backlash: Can Newsom’s Lawsuit Survive?

This isn’t the first time Donald Trump and Fox News have been involved in high-profile lawsuits. Trump has a history of legal battles with the media, from defamation claims to disputes over the accuracy of reporting. However, this time, Newsom’s legal team is armed with a powerful argument: Fox News intentionally edited the broadcast to make it appear that Newsom had lied about his conversation with Trump.

But there’s a wrinkle. Legal experts suggest that the anti-SLAPP statute—designed to prevent frivolous lawsuits against public figures—could pose a significant challenge for Newsom. Under the anti-SLAPP rules, Newsom will need to prove that Fox News acted with malicious intent, a standard that’s notoriously difficult to meet.

If the case survives, it could send a shockwave through the media industry, forcing news organizations to reconsider their editorial processes and their handling of controversial political figures.

Gavin Newsom demanded $787M from Fox News in his defamation lawsuit. The  number isn't a coincidence.

The Bigger Picture: Media Manipulation and the Future of Truth

In the end, this case goes far beyond just one political figure’s personal vendetta against Fox News. It’s a symbol of the ongoing battle for control over the truth in modern politics and media. The internet is buzzing with discussions about who controls the narrative and how media outlets shape the stories that define public perception.

What makes this case so important isn’t just the political fallout for Newsom or the financial damage to Fox News—it’s about accountability in the media. Who is responsible for ensuring that the truth is told? And how much can we trust the media when their reporting is often seen as a tool for political warfare?

Jesse Watters To Fill Tucker Carlson's Old Slot at Fox News - The New York  Times

The Verdict: Will This Case Set a New Precedent?

As we await the final decision in the lawsuit, one thing is clear: the outcome will be watched closely by media giants and politicians alike. If Gavin Newsom wins, it could reshape the way media outlets operate, leading to a more accountable, transparent system. But if Fox News prevails, it could reinforce the belief that the media is above reproach—allowing them to continue shaping public opinion without consequence.

In the meantime, Newsom’s high-profile showdown with Trump and Fox News is only the beginning. As this legal battle rages on, the country is left asking: What is the true price of media manipulation, and who will ultimately pay the cost?

Stay tuned—the fallout from this high-stakes legal battle is only just beginning.