DOVER, Delaware: California Governor Gavin Newsom has taken legal aim at Fox News, accusing the network of deliberately distorting the facts about a phone call he had with President Donald Trump — and seeking a US$787 million payout in response.

In a defamation lawsuit filed this week in Delaware Superior Court, Newsom claimed the network acted with "actual malice" in covering the timing and content of a conversation with Trump during a tense period of federal immigration raids in California. The amount Newsom is demanding in punitive damages mirrors the historic $787.5 million that Fox paid in 2023 to settle a defamation suit from Dominion Voting Systems over its 2020 election coverage.

According to the complaint, Fox News aired a misleading segment suggesting that Newsom lied about when he last spoke to Trump. The governor contends that Fox knew the facts but chose to manipulate them to cast him as dishonest and boost the president's narrative.

"The European Commission is requiring Apple to make a series of additional changes to the App Store. We disagree with this outcome and plan to appeal," Apple said in a statement.

The lawsuit follows comments by Fox host Jesse Watters, who, during a June 10 broadcast, questioned Newsom's integrity. "Why would Newsom lie and claim Trump never called him?" Watters asked on his show, Jesse Watters Primetime. A chyron below the broadcast read: "Gavin Lied About Trump's Call."

The clip referred to a phone call that occurred late on June 6 or early June 7 (Eastern Daylight Time), amid unrest following immigration enforcement actions in Los Angeles. Trump later claimed he had spoken with Newsom "a day ago" — a statement Newsom contradicted, saying no further communication occurred after their initial call.

Newsom's complaint states that Fox "intentionally distorted the facts by making a misleading video clip and multiple false statements" about the timing of the call. He argues this was done to brand him a liar and win political favour with Trump, whose administration had deployed National Guard troops and 700 Marines to California without the governor's consent.

The governor, a Democrat widely considered a potential presidential contender in 2028, is seeking both punitive and compensatory damages. He cites reputational harm, diminished public trust, and a potential impact on future campaign donations and voter support.

Fox News has rejected the claims outright, calling the lawsuit "frivolous" and accusing Newsom of trying to suppress criticism.

"Governor Newsom's transparent publicity stunt is frivolous and designed to chill free speech critical of him," the network said in a statement. "We will defend this case vigorously and look forward to it being dismissed."

Newsom's office has not yet issued further comment. However, according to The New York Times, he would consider dropping the suit if Fox issued a retraction and Watters publicly apologised for the remarks.

The legal bar Newsom must clear is high. Under U.S. defamation law — specifically the New York Times v. Sullivan precedent — public figures must prove that a media outlet acted with actual malice, meaning they either knowingly published false information or showed reckless disregard for the truth.

Newsom isn't the first political figure to take on a news outlet over defamation. Trump himself has launched multiple lawsuits in recent years, including a $15 million settlement reached with ABC in 2023 over an inaccurate claim regarding a civil jury's findings in a sexual misconduct case. He also sued CBS for $20 billion over edits to a 60 Minutes interview with Kamala Harris. A mediator has since proposed a $20 million settlement with CBS parent Paramount Global.

Fox Corp, the parent company of Fox News, is incorporated in Delaware, the same state where the Dominion case and Newsom's new lawsuit have been filed.

Whether the case results in another headline-grabbing settlement or is dismissed, it marks yet another chapter in the ongoing legal clashes between politicians and the media, where billions of dollars, reputations, and the boundaries of press freedom are all on the line.