Fox News Defamation Lawsuit: Newsom’s $787M Case Clears Dismissal

California Governor Gavin Newsom’s defamation lawsuit against Fox News is a $787 million case filed in Delaware on June 27, 2025, alleging that a Jesse Watters segment deceptively edited a dispute over when Newsom last spoke with President Donald Trump to make the governor appear to have lied. A Delaware Superior Court judge refused to dismiss the case in April 2026, sending it into discovery. Fox is now asking the Delaware Supreme Court to take up an interlocutory appeal.

What the Fight Is Actually About

The dispute is narrower than the headlines suggest. It is not about whether Newsom and Trump spoke. Both sides agree they did, for roughly 16 minutes between the evening of June 6 and the early hours of June 7, 2025, as ICE raids in Los Angeles triggered protests and Trump prepared to deploy the National Guard and Marines.¹²

The disagreement was about which day. On June 10, Trump told reporters he had spoken with Newsom “a day ago,” implying a June 9 call. Newsom shot back on social media that “there was no call. Not even a voicemail,” meaning no call on June 9. Both the White House and Newsom’s office later confirmed the actual conversation had happened on June 6 or 7.³

That evening, Watters aired a segment on Jesse Watters Primetime under an on-screen banner reading “Gavin Lied About Trump’s Call.” Trump had shown Fox anchor John Roberts a screenshot of his phone log confirming the June 6 or 7 call, and Roberts relayed that on air.¹ According to Newsom’s complaint, Watters played Trump’s quote but edited out the words “a day ago.” With the timing gone, Newsom’s denial that a June 9 call had occurred looked like a claim that no call had ever happened. Watters then asked viewers, “Why would Newsom lie and claim Trump never called him? Why would he do that?”⁴

Newsom’s lawyers describe the edit as Fox “covering up for President Trump’s error” about the date to damage the governor politically.⁵ The complaint also points to a second Watters segment on June 20 as additional evidence of malice.³

The Complaint and the $787 Million Figure

Newsom filed in Delaware Superior Court, where Fox Corporation is incorporated. Fox News Network is the named defendant; the individual hosts are not.² The complaint pleads two counts: defamation, and a violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law, which bars deceptive business practices.⁵

The $787 million demand tracks, almost to the dollar, the $787.5 million Fox paid to settle Dominion Voting Systems’ defamation case in 2023.⁶ Newsom seeks that sum in punitive damages plus an injunction against further broadcast of the challenged statements. His team publicly offered to drop the case if Fox issued a formal retraction and on-air apology.⁷

Watters’ Walk-Back

About three weeks after the filing, on July 17, 2025, Watters addressed the suit on air. He said his program had “misunderstood” Newsom’s post. “We thought the dispute was about whether there had been a call at all — not when,” Watters said. “Now Newsom’s telling us what was in his head when he wrote the tweet. He didn’t deceive anybody on purpose, so I’m sorry. He wasn’t lying. He was just confusing and unclear. Next time, Governor, why don’t you just say what you mean?”⁸

Newsom’s team called the remarks insufficient. A spokesperson replied: “Discovery will be fun. See you in court, buddy.”⁹

Fox News’s Motion To Dismiss

Fox filed a 45-page motion to dismiss, calling the suit a “political stunt” and a “headline-grabbing gimmick” and asking that Newsom cover its attorney fees.¹⁰ Two arguments carried the motion:

Substantial truth. Fox argued the “gist” of its reporting was true because Newsom did publicly deny a call that had, in fact, happened.
Protected opinion. Fox argued that Watters’ statements were opinion drawn from disclosed facts and fully protected by the First Amendment.¹¹

Fox also argued that Watters’ July 17 comments already delivered the retraction and apology Newsom had demanded.¹¹

The April 2026 Ruling Letting the Case Proceed

On April 30, 2026, Delaware Superior Court Judge Sean P. Lugg issued a 42-page opinion denying the motion. He held that Newsom’s claims cleared the higher pleading bar that applies to defamation suits by public officials.⁷

On substantial truth, Lugg found it “reasonably conceivable” that Fox’s reporting was materially false. The real dispute was about the day of the call, and by cutting the “a day ago” phrase, the broadcast misrepresented what Newsom was actually denying.³

On opinion, Lugg wrote that pure opinion is not actionable, but opinion that implies a false factual assertion is. Because the statements ran under a “Fox News Alert” chyron reading “Gavin Lied About Trump’s Call,” the judge found it “reasonably conceivable that an average viewer could determine the statement to be one of fact, not opinion.”³

On actual malice, the standard requiring a public figure to show the defendant knew a statement was false or acted with reckless disregard for the truth, Lugg again found the bar met at the pleading stage. He credited Newsom’s allegations that Fox “deliberately presented a false picture” to fit a “preconceived narrative,” and accepted references to a “perverse internal culture” documented in the Dominion litigation as relevant evidence at this early stage.³

Where the Case Stands Now

The case has entered discovery, with document exchanges and depositions to follow. Newsom’s public reaction was brief: “Looking forward to discovery.”⁷

On May 18, 2026, Fox asked the Delaware Supreme Court to accept an interlocutory appeal, arguing that immediate review of the actual malice analysis, forum questions, and the application of California’s retraction statute could end the case before further litigation.¹² No trial date has been set. No settlement talks have been publicly reported.

Why Dominion Keeps Coming Up

Newsom’s complaint invokes the Dominion case directly, arguing that Fox “operates as a propaganda machine” that ignores “basic journalistic ethics.”⁶ Dominion’s April 2023 settlement, for $787.5 million, followed pre-trial discovery showing that Fox executives and hosts, including Sean Hannity, Tucker Carlson, and Laura Ingraham, had privately acknowledged the election fraud claims they aired were false. Rupert Murdoch called those claims “really crazy.”¹³

Watters’ own communications came up in that discovery, including a text about how “incredible our ratings would be if Fox went ALL in on STOP THE STEAL.”¹⁴ Judge Lugg treated that record as relevant to whether Fox acted with malice in the Newsom coverage, even though the material predates the June 2025 broadcasts.

First Amendment Pushback

Fox issued a statement on May 1, 2026, pledging to “vigorously defend against this frivolous lawsuit” and characterizing it as an attack on the First Amendment.⁷ Press-freedom groups have expressed similar concern. Katherine Jacobsen of the Committee to Protect Journalists said the suit acts as a “form of censorship” and sends a “troubling message to news organizations: that they may face legal retaliation for their work,” urging Newsom to drop it. Commentators have noted the parallel to President Trump’s own use of defamation litigation against media outlets, with some saying Newsom is “taking a page from Trump’s own playbook.”²

1
Courthouse News Service. Newsom Sues Fox News for Defamation Over Trump Call Controversy
2
CalMatters. California Newsom Lawsuit Fox News
3
Reason. Gov. Newsom’s Defamation Lawsuit Against Fox News Can Go Forward
4
ABC7 News. California Gov. Gavin Newsom Sues Fox News in Defamation Case
5
Politico. Newsom Sues Fox News Defamation Case
6
NBC News. Gavin Newsom Targets Fox News in Million-Dollar Lawsuit
7
Bloomberg Law. Gavin Newsom’s Fox News Defamation Lawsuit Moves Forward
8
Los Angeles Times. Fox News’ Jesse Watters Admits Mistake in Program Claiming Newsom Lied About Trump Call
9
Variety. Fox News Jesse Watters Apology Newsom Lawsuit
10
Good Morning America. Fox News Moves to Dismiss Gavin Newsom’s Defamation Lawsuit
11
ABC News. Fox News Moves to Dismiss Gavin Newsom’s Defamation Lawsuit
12
The Desk. Newsom v. Fox News Interlocutory Appeal Petition
13
First Amendment Watch. Legal Scholars Weigh In on the Lasting Significance of Dominion v. Fox
14
NPR/CapRadio. Fox News Smartmatic Lawsuit Election Claims Trial