Fox News is currently entangled in a major lawsuit, and this legal battle has exposed a series of surprising revelations about the network’s internal operations. Among the most eye-catching disclosures is the staggering amount of money paid to longtime anchor Maria Bartiromo. According to documents revealed during the proceedings, Bartiromo has earned more than $70 million from Fox News since 2014—an amount so large that even seasoned media observers were taken aback. The information surfaced during Smartmatic’s $2.7 billion defamation lawsuit against Fox News, and the financial details came directly from deposition transcripts obtained by TheWrap.
During her deposition, Bartiromo was questioned about her earnings since joining the network. The attorney conducting the examination asked if it was accurate that between her start at Fox and her upcoming contract in 2025, she would have been compensated more than $70 million. Bartiromo simply answered, “Yes,” confirming the enormous figure without hesitation. Her acknowledgment set off an immediate ripple across the media landscape, as industry analysts, critics, and even loyal Fox viewers attempted to process the sheer scale of her salary.
To put the number into perspective, many compared Bartiromo’s compensation to that of other major Fox personalities. Sean Hannity, one of the network’s most recognizable faces, reportedly makes around $25 million per year, while Jesse Watters earns approximately $5 million annually, and Greg Gutfeld makes around $9 million. Taken together, these comparisons showed just how massive Bartiromo’s cumulative earnings have been. They also underscored her long-standing importance within the network, where she has been a fixture for more than a decade.
Bartiromo joined Fox in 2014 after spending two decades at CNBC, where she established herself as a prominent financial reporter. Her move to Fox Business and Fox News marked a significant shift in her career and further elevated her profile. Over the years, she became known for her coverage of financial markets and her interviews with major political figures. One of her most notorious interviews was with former President Donald Trump shortly after the 2020 presidential election. During that conversation, Trump claimed without evidence that the election had been “rigged” and that widespread fraud had occurred. He alleged that voting machines—specifically those associated with Smartmatic—had malfunctioned or been manipulated.
The claims were never proven, yet the interview played a central role in the controversy that led to Smartmatic’s lawsuit. Filed in 2021, the lawsuit accused Fox News of spreading false claims that harmed the company’s reputation. Critics at the time heavily criticized Bartiromo for failing to challenge or push back on Trump’s statements during the interview. Her approach was viewed by some as overly accommodating, especially given the gravity of the allegations being presented to the public.
As the lawsuit moved forward, Fox News issued a statement defending itself and attempting to counter Smartmatic’s claims. The network argued that Smartmatic’s business had already been struggling before Trump’s statements were broadcast and claimed that the company had exaggerated its damages for publicity. Fox also pointed out ongoing legal issues involving Smartmatic in other countries, including bribery charges in the Philippines, and suggested that it was prepared to continue defending its journalistic practices and free speech rights. The lawsuit also named additional defendants, including former Fox host Jeanine Pirro, former anchor Lou Dobbs, and former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani, all of whom had made or circulated claims about voting irregularities.
However, even amid this complex web of legal arguments and political rhetoric, the revelation about Bartiromo’s salary overshadowed nearly everything else in the public conversation. What captivated people was not just the $70 million figure itself, but the deeper implication behind it. The number reflected not only Bartiromo’s long tenure at the network but also her perceived value to Fox—particularly during some of the most turbulent and politically sensitive periods in recent American media history.
The lawsuit documents unexpectedly opened a window into Fox’s internal hierarchy and compensation decisions. Many viewers and critics had long speculated about the financial rewards given to top anchors, but Bartiromo’s disclosed earnings provided an unusual level of transparency. People were struck by how Fox allocated its resources and how significantly it had invested in Bartiromo over the years. The figure also prompted conversations about the broader economics of cable news: the power of star anchors, the financial stakes of network loyalty, and the risks networks take in standing behind their most controversial personalities.
For some observers, the revelation raised questions about whether Bartiromo’s high compensation was tied to her willingness to embrace certain narratives or conduct certain interviews. Others saw it as simply the cost of securing a well-known, long-tenured anchor in a competitive media market. Still, the disclosure undeniably shifted the public focus. Instead of discussing programming, ratings, or editorial decisions, the conversation became centered on the extraordinary financial benefits enjoyed by one individual—benefits now brought into the spotlight through a lawsuit that had nothing to do with salaries in the first place.
The timing of the disclosure also intensified the reaction. With Fox News already under scrutiny for its handling of election coverage and its role in amplifying unverified claims, the salary revelation felt to many like yet another layer of the network’s opaque operations being peeled back. It offered a rare glimpse into what had previously been kept tightly concealed from the public, and once exposed, the number spread through social media and news outlets in an instant.
Amid the ongoing legal chaos, what made the $70 million figure even more astonishing was a smaller detail in the deposition documents that sparked renewed interest. The transcripts revealed not only the total compensation Bartiromo received but also suggested that her earnings had been consistent and steadily growing throughout her time at Fox. The pattern indicated that her value to the network had increased even as controversies mounted—an insight that struck many as both surprising and telling. It suggested that Fox saw Bartiromo not as a liability but as one of its most valuable assets, even during periods when she faced intense criticism.
As the lawsuit moves forward, the revelations surrounding Bartiromo’s salary have become a story of their own. The situation continues to expose unusual details about Fox News’ financial priorities, legal strategies, and loyalty mechanisms. For the public, the staggering salary number serves as a reminder of the vast sums flowing through the upper tiers of cable news—and how those sums often remain hidden until a legal dispute forces them into the open.
With attention now firmly fixed on both the lawsuit and Bartiromo’s compensation, it remains to be seen how much more of the network’s internal workings will come to light. But one thing is certain: the sudden exposure of her massive paycheck has already reshaped public perception, sparking debate not only about Bartiromo herself but also about the larger power structures backing the most prominent voices in American media.
