James Gunn Breaks Silence on His $500m Lawsuit Against Donald Trump for Misusing Superman Imagery, Explains Why He Did Not Pursue Legal Action Against Governor Gavin Newsom Despite Comparisons

Superman Director James Gunn Explains Lawsuit Against Donald Trump Over Superman Poster, While Defending Decision Not to Sue California Governor Gavin Newsom

Los Angeles, CA — James Gunn, the acclaimed filmmaker behind the upcoming Superman reboot, has addressed growing controversy over his decision to sue former President Donald Trump for unauthorized use of Superman imagery, while opting not to take legal action against California Governor Gavin Newsom for a similar instance.

The lawsuit, filed earlier this month, accuses Trump’s campaign of copyright infringement after releasing a poster that depicted Trump as Superman, complete with the iconic “S” logo on his chest. The poster, widely shared on social media, portrayed the former president as a heroic savior preparing to “rescue America.” Gunn and Warner Bros. Discovery, which holds the rights to DC’s Superman franchise, claim the use crossed a legal and ethical line.

Critics, however, were quick to point out that Governor Gavin Newsom once shared a campaign flyer featuring a cartoon parody of himself styled as Superman, raising questions about why Newsom faced no similar legal consequences.

Speaking in an interview with Variety, Gunn explained the distinction:

“Context matters. Governor Newsom’s campaign used a clear parody illustration that never pretended to be an official Superman poster. It was satire, non-commercial, and acknowledged as such. Trump’s team, on the other hand, deliberately used a near-exact reproduction of Superman imagery to elevate his political brand, misleading people into associating the character’s values with his campaign. That’s not parody—it’s exploitation.”

Gunn further noted that Newsom’s poster was a one-off satire distributed during a small-scale local campaign event, while Trump’s Superman imagery was mass-marketed, monetized, and tied to official fundraising efforts.

“When a political figure uses Superman to symbolize justice or hope in a cartoonish parody, that’s one thing,” Gunn continued. “But when someone uses Superman’s exact branding to sell themselves as the character, and even raise money off it, that’s where legal boundaries get crossed.”

The Trump campaign has dismissed the lawsuit as “baseless political harassment,” insisting that their use of the Superman poster falls under “fair use” and was meant to be humorous.

Meanwhile, political analysts say Gunn’s explanation underscores a broader conversation about how intellectual property intersects with politics in the age of viral memes and campaign marketing.

For Gunn, however, the issue is less about politics and more about protecting the legacy of one of pop culture’s most enduring icons.

“Superman doesn’t belong to any politician. He belongs to the people. His image shouldn’t be co-opted to serve partisan agendas, especially in a way that misleads or manipulates,” Gunn concluded.

The case is expected to head to court later this year, with legal experts watching closely as it could set a precedent for how Hollywood characters can—or cannot—be used in political messaging.