Writers Guild calls on NY AG to investigate Colbert cancellation, Trump ‘bribe'
The guild, whose members include writers for the Colbert program, asked whether the cancelation was meant to help Paramount, the owners of CBS, with President Trump.
They noted that Paramount recently reached a settlement with Trump on a lawsuit filed against CBS News. The $16 million settlement came as Paramount works to complete a mega-merger with fellow Hollywood giant Skydance, a deal worth an estimated $28 billion that will need approval from Trump administration regulators to clear.
'Given Paramount's recent capitulation to President Trump in the CBS News lawsuit, the Writers Guild of America has significant concerns that The Late Show 's cancelation is a bribe, sacrificing free speech to curry favor with the Trump Administration as the company looks for merger approval,' they wrote in a statement.
Colbert announced Thursday that 'The Late Show' will air its last season and end in May 2026. Paramount, CBS's parent company, said the show will end due to 'financial reasons' in a statement.
Late night ratings and revenue are down as people cut cords with cable and media continues to diversity. Still, the sequence of events before the announcement has brought up questions around whether the motivations were political and not financial.
On July 15, Colbert criticized, on air, Paramount Global's settlement with Trump over Kamala Harris' interview on '60 Minutes', calling it a 'big fat bribe.' Two days after, Colbert announced 'The Late Show' would be canceled.
There have been tensions at CBS surrounding Trump's '60 Minutes' lawsuit.
The president of CBS News, Wendy McMahon, stepped down and Trump threatened to take away CBS's broadcast license.
'Cancelations are part of the business, but a corporation terminating a show in bad faith due to explicit or implicit political pressure is dangerous and unacceptable in a democratic society,' wrote the Writers Guild.
'Paramount's decision comes against a backdrop of relentless attacks on a free press by President Trump, through lawsuits against CBS and ABC, threatened litigation of media organizations with critical coverage, and the unconscionable defunding of PBS and NPR,' they continued.
Trump celebrated the cancelation of the liberal star on Truth Social. 'I absolutely love that Colbert' got fired. His talent was even less than his ratings,' he posted.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and others also raised questions about the timing.
'CBS canceled Colbert's show just THREE DAYS after Colbert called out CBS parent company Paramount for its $16M settlement with Trump – a deal that looks like bribery. America deserves to know if his show was canceled for political reasons,' Warren posted on X.
New York Attorney General Letitia James has been vocal in criticizing the administration and has been involved in multiple lawsuits over after-school programs and immigration, among others.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
9 minutes ago
- The Hill
Epstein's ghost is haunting Trump, and America's enemies could summon more
It's the irony of all ironies: How could President Trump put his credibility on the line with his hard core MAGA supporters over Jeffrey Epstein? Trump has survived a felony conviction and was twice impeached and acquitted. He was found liable by a judge of sexual assault, owes potentially millions of dollars in libel suits for his actions and avoided possible prosecution and considerable jail time for gross mishandling of highly classified material. None of these mishaps prevented Trump from being reelected as America's 47th president. Yet, despite this graphic history, Trump is now threatened by the ghost of a convicted sexual predator. How can this be? As Epstein's attorney Alan Dershowitz wrote in the Wall Street Journal on July 16, Trump was free and clear of any and all entanglements with his client. And it was reported that Trump had once barred Epstein from Mar-a-Lago. Extreme elements of his MAGA constituency have turned against Trump. For what seem to be irrational reasons, they have accused the president of a cover-up and lying about not providing full transparency on the Epstein saga and releasing the so-called 'client's list' that Dershowitz asserted was nonexistent. Conspiracy theories sprouted like mushrooms: for example, that Trump was obviously hiding his relationship with Epstein or protecting others in his administration and circle of friends from the Epstein stain. Shrill calls reverberated through Washington's political gasosphere for Attorney General Pam Bondi to resign over this failure to release the Epstein files. Having bragged that he could shoot someone dead on Park Avenue and be absolved, it is incredible that Trump could be attacked by his MAGA allies on such an extraordinarily trivial matter, given the magnitude of obstacles he has previously faced and overcome. Worse, so far, the explanations of why part of his base is incensed make little sense. That Trump has somehow now become part of the 'deep state' that he vowed to eliminate is nonsensical. Promising to release all 'any and all pertinent Grand Jury testimony' on Epstein (and, for that matter, JFK's assassination) and not following through has been part of Trump's lifelong pattern of deception and disinformation, if not outright lying. It is quite possible — again, quoting Dershowitz — that there simply was no there there regarding the Epstein files, and that Trump simply exaggerated or distorted that possibility to play to his base. Then he got caught. And now Trump is lashing out against this base. Whether this is a minor tempest and will dissipate soon or has tsunami-like consequences remains to be seen. Why has this brouhaha over Epstein been so explosive? Is this the state of American politics today when a leader's credibility among his followers fractures over literally nothing, as occasionally happens in marriages? Has Trump violated some mythical bond or unspoken oath with this base? Or is the MAGA movement's instability or irrationality causing such a backlash? The timing is not helpful to Trump. In the midst of what could be a major global tariff war, the conflict in Gaza still blazing and Vladimir Putin given 50 days to put up or shut up on a cease-fire and peace negotiation in Ukraine, how do these outside players react? Do all or many shake their heads believing that this is simply the vulgarity of U.S. politics and ignore this display? Or do others, probably in Beijing and Moscow, see this as a fatal weakness in American culture and society to be exploited? Despite Trump's refusal to believe Russia interfered on his behalf in the 2016 election, make no mistake: Chinese and Russian, as well as other intelligence services, are exploring how these flaws and cracks in American politics can be exploited. For example, assuming that ex-KGB officer Putin wanted to alter the 2016 election, imagine how he could have exploited the so-called Steele dossier that alleged Trump's sexual misconduct in Moscow. The internet would have been filled with torrid stories and deep fake shots of Trump in compromising positions. With AI and other technical means, identifying seemingly minor issues that could have otherwise profound political consequences would not be difficult for an adversary or for anyone wishing to meddle in politics. This happened during Brexit. With social media as a force multiplier, it is easy to see how political fractures could be generated. As a thought experiment, suppose the resurrection of Epstein's ghost originated in a certain building in the Kremlin or inside Beijing's Forbidden City. That, I am sure, did not happen. But it could. Harlan Ullman, Ph.D., is UPI's Arnaud deBorchgrave Distinguished Columnist, a senior advisor at Washington, D.C.'s Atlantic Council, the chairman of two private companies and the principal author of the doctrine of shock and awe. He and David Richards are authors of a forthcoming book on preventing strategic catastrophe.
The Hill
9 minutes ago
- The Hill
Judge weighs reality of Trump ‘ideological' deportation policy as activists crackdown trial ends
A federal judge on Monday questioned the true nature of the Trump administration's crackdown on pro-Palestinian campus activists during closing arguments of a bench trial over the controversial arrests. U.S. District Judge William Young, an appointee of former President Reagan, must determine whether the so-called 'ideological deportation policy' exists, such that the administration singled out campus activists critical of Israel's war in Gaza unlawfully. The plaintiffs, who make up several university associations, argued that the administration's policy is to revoke the visas and green cards of noncitizens based on their pro-Palestinian advocacy in aim of chilling speech. 'It is stifling dissent, your honor,' said Alexandra Conlon, a lawyer for the plaintiffs. 'That's the goal.' But the Justice Department called the suggestion 'silly,' contending that the trial evidence demonstrated no such policy exists. 'This policy is a product of the imagination and creative conjuring of the plaintiffs,' said DOJ lawyer William Kanellis. The arguments cap a roughly two-week trial over the crackdown, namely the arrests of and efforts to deport foreign-born students and faculty members linked to campus demonstrations. It was the first major trial of President Trump's second administration. Across several days, green card-holding professors at U.S. universities took the stand to testify that the high-profile arrests of outspoken students, like former Columbia University pro-Palestinian activist Mahmoud Khalil and Tufts student Rümeysa Öztürk, made them fearful and stifled their speech. On Monday, Conlon argued that was the administration's goal. She referenced statements made by Trump and other officials lauding the arrests and said they were 'designed to terrorize' those who share the views of those who were arrested. She also pointed to testimony from a senior Homeland Security Investigations (HSI), official that 'most' names his team was directed to investigate in March came from Canary Mission, a pro-Israel online blacklist that is anonymously run. The site has been accused of doxxing people protesting Israel's war with Palestinian militant group Hamas but describes its mission as documenting individuals and organizations 'that promote hatred of the USA, Israel and Jews on North American college campuses and beyond.' Conlon called the group 'extremist.' 'The fact that's the pool of people the government started with shows you what the point of this policy was,' she said. Young questioned whether the trial evidence showed Canary Mission is 'extremist' and said it seems 'perfectly appropriate' for the government to take leads from any source, noting that leads frequently come from a 'wrongdoer' or 'rival gang.' But Conlon said those leads relate to alleged lawbreaking, where here, the leads amount only to criticism of Israel or the U.S. 'That's how you end up with someone like Ms. Ozturk being described as pro-Hamas,' she added, a reference to the student's arrest being publicly linked only to an op-ed urging her university's divestment from Israel. Secretary of State Marco Rubio deemed several of the campus demonstrators threats to the nation's foreign policy, invoking a statute that makes deportable any noncitizen whose 'presence and activities in the United States' is thought to have 'potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences.' In a memo explaining the apparent threat posed by Khalil, Rubio cited the student's beliefs as justification for his deportation. Young later expressed having 'trouble' with the apparent policy. Without making any formal findings, he said it seems to him that the new administration is implementing new foreign policy within the existing legal framework – efforts that fall squarely within executive powers. The Justice Department argued that's exactly right. Ethan Kanter, another DOJ lawyer, said that noncitizens do not have equivalent rights under the First Amendment. The nature of those rights are 'context dependent' and tied to 'competing government interests in play.' 'That is what these cases demonstrate,' Kanter said, though noting that the judge does not have to rule on that matter to decide the case in the government's favor. Young zeroed in on Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)'s use of masks as a cause of concern, saying he's not aware of any other law enforcement agencies in the U.S. that allow the practice. He signaled disbelief in the government's contention that the agents were protecting their identities, instead suggesting that the 'common sense' interpretation might be that their objective is to 'spread fear.' 'Perhaps they're afraid what they're being called upon to do is of concern,' the judge said. Kanter rejected that notion, asserting that those decisions came down to the 'judgment, experience and operational needs' of individual agents. Kanellis, the other DOJ lawyer, compared the plaintiffs' case to the fictional Don Quixote's fight with windmills. In the story, Quixote sees windmills and believes they are giants. He's flung off his horse while riding to 'fight' them and does not believe his squire who notes they are windmills, not giants, insisting they were changed. 'Plaintiffs in this case imagine lawful standards amount to some grand government conspiracy,' Kanellis said, adding the challengers have been 'knocked off their horse.' But Young said another historical reference better befits the case. He described King Henry II of England asking his court to rid him of a 'troublesome priest.' Two knights went out to 'hack down' the bishop. The president, Young said, has likewise raised various concerns about campus protests. 'He doesn't have errant knights, but he's got Stephen Miller,' the judge said, referencing the top White House adviser. Young said he will issue a written ruling deciding the case but gave no indication of when it can be expected.
USA Today
9 minutes ago
- USA Today
Why did the Commanders change their name? President Trump urges Washington to switch back
The Washington Commanders thought they could finally put their name controversy behind them, but the nation's capital has a way of relitigating the past. This offseason, Washington inked a deal to return to their old home on the RFK Stadium site and also reimagined their old Super Bowl era uniforms in what some believe could be a precursor to a jersey rebrand. Plans for the stadium have stalled while Mayor Muriel Bowser battles with the Washington D.C. council to get it approved. The mayor has expressed concern about the deal, while the Commanders may run into a speedbump for future plans. Now the Commanders face another potential obstacle en route to a stadium deal, this time against the Commander in Chief. On July 20, President Donald Trump said in a post on Truth Social that he could block a deal if the team doesn't bring back their old name. "I may put a restriction on them that if they don't change the name back to the original 'Washington Redskins,' and get rid of the ridiculous moniker, 'Washington Commanders,' I won't make a deal for them to build a Stadium in Washington," Trump posted on Truth Social. Here's a look at how we got here, including the origin of the Commanders' name change, whether they can change it back and what the President has said about the issue. Why did the Commanders change their name? Washington's NFL franchise introduced the "Commanders" moniker in advance of the 2022 season after two years as the Washington Football Team. The move was necessitated by the overwhelming pressure that began to mount against the much more controversial namesake. Originally born into the NFL in 1932 as the Boston Braves, the franchise changed its name after one season to the version considered offensive to Native Americans in 1933. It was a name that remained through the team's relocation to Washington in 1937 and withstood the test of time until the it couldn't anymore ahead of the 2020 season. Following George Floyd's death in Minnesota, protests broke out across the country in opposition to police brutality and racism. That also put the spotlight on Washington's team, which began feeling the heat from sponsors like FedEx, Nike and PepsiCo. Adweek reported in 2020 that 87 investment firms worth a collective $620 billion at the time sent a letter to some of the team's biggest sponsors – FedEx, Nike and PepsiCo – asking them to sever ties with the team if they refused the name change. Previous owner Dan Snyder was adamant for years that the name would never be changed. "We will never change the name of the team," Snyder told USA TODAY Sports in 2013. "As a lifelong (name) fan, and I think that the (name) fans understand the great tradition and what it's all about and what it means, so we feel pretty fortunate to be just working on next season." Despite years of lawsuits and pressure from Native American groups, Snyder vowed he would never cave on the issue. "We'll never change the name," Snyder said at the time. "It's that simple. NEVER – you can use caps." However, the sponsors threats were more than enough for Snyder to reconsider his position and the old name was removed ahead of the 2020 season, sparking a search for a new one. "We are announcing we will be retiring the (former) name and logo upon completion of this review," the team said in a statement and that team officials were "working closely to develop a new name and design approach that will enhance the standing of our proud, tradition rich franchise and inspire our sponsors, fans and community for the next 100 years." What Trump has said about Commanders name change Trump has been a fixture throughout the Commanders recent rebrands and controversy. The pivot away from the controversial name came during the first Trump administration and now the stadium deal has taken centerstage during the second. The president has always been opposed to switch, but struck a different chord earlier this month when asked about the team's move back to the RFK site. 'It doesn't have the same ring to me,' he told reporters on July 7. 'But, you know, winning can make everything sound good. So, if they win, all of a sudden, the Commanders sounds good, but I wouldn't have changed it.' While Trump wasn't in favor of the move, it was a decidedly different tone than the one he took at the time in 2020. "They name teams out of STRENGTH, not weakness, but now the Washington Redskins & Cleveland Indians, two fabled sports franchises, look like they are going to be changing their names in order to be politically correct," Trump tweeted in response to the initial change. He renewed that rhetoric on July 20, when he threatened to block the team's new stadium deal in the district, adding they should immediately bring back the old name. "I may put a restriction on them that if they don't change the name back to the original 'Washington Redskins,' and get rid of the ridiculous moniker, 'Washington Commanders,' I won't make a deal for them to build a Stadium in Washington," Trump later posted. "The Team would be much more valuable, and the Deal would be more exciting for everyone," he continued, adding that the Cleveland Guardians should also follow suit. It's unclear what power the president has in this case, considering Congress turned over control of the RFK Stadium land to the city with the passage of the Robert F. Kennedy Memorial Stadium Campus Revitalization Act in January. Will the Commanders change their name? It's unlikely a move back to the old controversial nickname will happen, given recent stance from team brass. If there was any doubt, team owner Josh Harris seemingly put a return to the old name to bed at a press conference in February. "Now, in this building, the name Commanders means something," Harris said. "It's about players who love football, are great at football, hit hard, mentally tough, great teammates. It's really meaningful that that name is growing in meaning." While the owner acknowledged that the team will honor its past, he pointed out that the name is here to stay. "I think it's now being embraced by our team, by our culture, by our coaching staff. And so we're going with that," Harris said. Not only have the Commanders shown no interest in reverting to their name, but NFL rules dictate that it might not be a possibility at this time either. As any name change would also be likely be accompanied with new jerseys, the NFL's uniform rules come into focus. As detailed in 2002 Resolution G-3 under Article 19 of the NFL's constitution, a team cannot change its jerseys more than once every five years. Given that the team just unveiled new jerseys ahead of the 2022 season, they cannot make a switch again until 2027. There is a clause for "extenuating circumstances" built in that would allow for a faster rebrand. It is determined by the commissioner, but relocation and ownership change are considered extenuating. Any name change would likely need the approval of the league, as was the case in 2020 when Washington first changed its team nickname to the Commanders. What Trump has said about the Cleveland Guardians The Commanders aren't the only team that faced controversy surrounding their team name. MLB's Cleveland Guardians also drew the ire of Trump, who suggested they should also bring back their old name. Cleveland didn't make the move until ahead of the 2022 MLB season, three years after they dropped the "Chief Wahoo" mascot and logo. Trump said that it was cancel culture in a 2020 tweet, indicating he was no fan of that decision. The Guardians arrived at the conclusion to change their name after team owner Paul Dolan changed his stance on the matter, citing a changing world in the aftermath of the social unrest in 2020. All the NFL news on and off the field. Sign up for USA TODAY's 4th and Monday newsletter.
