Politics

Fox News Texts Reveal Doubts on Election Fraud Claims: How Internal Skepticism Collided With On-Air Coverage

August 21, 2025, 8:02 PM

An abstract photograph featuring a blur of vertical bands of red, white, and blue light against a gray background.

An abstract photograph that is a highly blurred representation of a background blending the colors and themes of the American flag with the Fox News brand in a Washington, D.C. setting. By Miami Daily Life / MiamiDaily.Life.

Executive Summary

Newly unredacted court filings in Smartmatic’s $2.7 billion defamation lawsuit against Fox News reveal private communications from network personalities and executives expressing skepticism about 2020 election fraud claims, contrasting with their on-air coverage.

The filings show Fox News figures like Jesse Watters considered ratings for “STOP THE STEAL” coverage, while others, including Bret Baier, Sean Hannity, and Laura Ingraham, privately dismissed election fraud claims and individuals like Sidney Powell as untrue or “insane.”

Smartmatic’s lawsuit argues Fox News acted with “actual malice” by prioritizing ratings over verified reporting, a case that follows Fox’s $787.5 million settlement with Dominion and continues to test defamation law.

The Story So Far

Smartmatic’s $2.7 billion defamation lawsuit against Fox News centers on allegations that the network acted with “actual malice” by prioritizing ratings and audience retention over verified reporting of 2020 presidential election fraud claims, despite internal doubts expressed by prominent personalities and executives. This legal action follows Fox’s substantial $787.5 million settlement with Dominion Voting Systems over similar election-related claims, putting renewed focus on the network’s journalistic practices and the boundaries of defamation law in political news coverage.

Why This Matters

The newly unredacted court filings in the Smartmatic lawsuit against Fox News intensify scrutiny on media accountability, revealing a potential disconnect between private skepticism and public broadcast among network personalities and executives. This ongoing litigation, following Fox’s substantial settlement with Dominion, further tests the legal boundaries of defamation and “actual malice” in political news coverage, potentially setting significant precedents for journalistic responsibility and press freedom while posing continued financial risk to Fox News.

Who Thinks What?

Smartmatic alleges that Fox News acted with “actual malice” by prioritizing ratings and audience retention over verified reporting when covering 2020 presidential election fraud claims.

Fox News maintains its coverage of statements from President Trump and his legal team was protected, newsworthy journalism, rather than an endorsement of the claims.

Several Fox News personalities and executives privately expressed skepticism and concerns about the veracity of the 2020 election fraud claims, even as some also discussed ratings implications or assisting Trump.

Newly unredacted court filings in voting technology company Smartmatic’s $2.7 billion defamation lawsuit against Fox News have revealed private communications from prominent network personalities and executives, shedding light on their internal discussions regarding 2020 presidential election fraud claims. The disclosures, made public through recent court filings, highlight a disconnect between private doubts and on-air coverage in the weeks following the election.

Case Background and Stakes

These newly unsealed text messages and emails are central to Smartmatic’s argument that Fox News acted with “actual malice” by prioritizing ratings and audience retention over verified reporting. Conversely, Fox maintains its coverage of statements from a sitting president and his legal team was protected, newsworthy journalism. The ongoing case follows Fox’s $787.5 million settlement with Dominion Voting Systems in 2023 over similar election fraud claims.

Internal Communications Revealed

Among the revelations are messages from Fox News host Jesse Watters. On December 5, 2020, Watters allegedly texted colleague Greg Gutfeld, “Think about how incredible our ratings would be if Fox went ALL in on STOP THE STEAL,” suggesting a consideration of ratings implications. In a November 2020 exchange with producer Megan Albano, Watters described “an audience uprising vs. Fox like I’ve never seen” following the network’s Arizona call for Joe Biden. He also privately referred to Trump lawyer Sidney Powell as having “lost it” and being “radioactive now” due to her “peddling” claims.

Further filings indicate Jeanine Pirro, then host of Justice with Judge Jeanine, allegedly texted in November 2020 about “helping Trump while at Fox News.” Bret Baier, anchor of Special Report, expressed concerns over misinformation, writing to Fox News Media president Jay Wallace that “None of that is true as far as we can tell” regarding on-air fraud allegations, adding, “We need to fact-check this crap.”

Other hosts also expressed skepticism about Powell. According to the filings, Sean Hannity referred to her assertions as “insane,” while Laura Ingraham texted Hannity and Tucker Carlson that Powell was “a complete nut” and that “no one will work with her.” Maria Bartiromo shared claims from President Trump’s legal team about Smartmatic with colleagues, privately acknowledging the information was “not verified.” Rupert Murdoch, chairman of Fox Corporation, texted an executive in November 2020 that it was “really bad” that Rudy Giuliani was allowed on air with unverified Smartmatic claims.

Fox News Defense

In court filings and public statements, Fox News has consistently argued that it was reporting on “newsworthy” statements made by the president and his lawyers, rather than endorsing them.

Outlook

The Smartmatic defamation lawsuit, currently proceeding through New York courts, is poised to further test the boundaries of defamation law in the context of political news coverage and press freedom.