Fox Host Quips He Could Get Arrested For ‘Public Indecency’ After Trump Ruling


In a segment highlighted by subsequent news coverage then spotlighted by former President Donald Trump on his knock-off social media site Truth Social, Fox News host Greg Gutfeld suggested he could get arrested for what he flippantly characterized as “public indecency” after a recent ruling against the ex-president.

Gutfeld was referring to hundreds of millions of dollars in penalties imposed amid a fraud case from New York state Attorney General Letitia James against the Trumps. She’d alleged a years-long pattern of the former president and figures close to him financially benefiting via the misrepresentation of various assets’ value in contexts like loan negotiations.

Gutfeld was seemingly trying to rehash a version of the idea that alleged political persecution against Trump reflects a credible threat of the same happening to Americans more broadly… though the evidence doesn’t support interpreting Trump’s various courtroom hurdles as politically motivated.

“But this is why we all need to move to Florida, Fox, because I never thought that my politics and political choices would affect my privacy, my speech, and my livelihood, but that’s how it is these days,” Gutfeld claimed on the air. “What they did to Trump, they’re going to do to you and me. And how soon before I get arrested for public indecency?”

Trump, meanwhile, is very consistent in claiming political or electoral ambitions are behind what’s become four criminal cases alongside the series of civil cases (including James’) that have produced sizable financial penalties, characterizing the proceedings as election interference. Trump announced his campaign for president only after the investigations underlying all four of his criminal cases were publicly known. And his arguments are failing in court, with a New York judge recently setting aside complaints from the Trump team about supposed impacts from trial prep on Trump’s campaigning. The former president has consistently had access to procedural protections of the sort generally available to individuals subject to the justice system.