Trump Wants $25 Million To Settle His Meritless 60 Minutes Lawsuit (opinion)
"Paramount Global in recent days has offered $15 million to settle," The Wall Street Journal reported this week. "Trump's team wants more than $25 million and is also seeking an apology from CBS News."
The whole affair stems from an October 2024 interview that 60 Minutes conducted with then-Vice President Kamala Harris, the Democratic candidate for president. (Trump declined the chance to sit for a 60 Minutes interview of his own.)
In the interview, correspondent Bill Whitaker asked about Israel's war in Gaza. CBS—the broadcast network owned by Paramount—aired separate portions of Harris' answer, one on the 60 Minutes broadcast and a longer snippet on its Sunday morning show Face the Nation.
Trump seized on the different clips and accused CBS of doctoring Harris' answer to make her look better. "Her REAL ANSWER WAS CRAZY, OR DUMB, so they actually REPLACED it with another answer," he wrote on X.
"They took the answer out in its entirety, threw it away, and they put another answer in," he later said at a campaign rally. "And I think it's the biggest scandal in broadcasting history."
Trump sued CBS for $10 billion in "compensatory damages"—amended to $20 billion after he won the election and reassumed the presidency—under a Texas law against deceptive consumer practices. The lawsuit accused CBS of "unlawful acts of election and voter interference."
The lawsuit was flawed from the start: Journalists editing interviewees' answers for time or clarity is both routine and protected by the First Amendment.
And Harris' answer in either clip is not exactly Churchillian: "Harris did not come across as especially forthright, articulate, or intelligent in either version, although the one that 60 Minutes showed was a little more concise," Reason's Jacob Sullum observed. If CBS were trying to do her a favor by swapping out her answer, one imagines they could have done a better job.
Besides, Trump won the election; it's hard to believe he suffered any damages, much less millions of dollars worth. But in a filing this week, Trump's lawyers argued the interview "led to widespread confusion and mental anguish of consumers, including [Trump]."
CBS released the full unedited video and transcript of Whitaker's interview with Harris in February, conclusively demonstrating the scandal was bullshit all along: CBS aired one part of Harris' response on 60 Minutes and another part on Face the Nation. Despite Trump's insistence, nobody "replaced" any part of her answer with another, separate answer.
But instead of defending its journalists by pressing on and letting a judge laugh the lawsuit out of court, Paramount has been negotiating a settlement. CBS News staffers opposed a settlement, fearing the precedent of a journalistic outlet caving to pressure from the powerful interests it covers. Since negotiations began last month, the producer of 60 Minutes and the executive in charge of CBS News each resigned.
But Paramount is in the process of being acquired by Skydance Media, and the transaction requires approval from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Around the same time as Trump's lawsuit, the Center for American Rights, a conservative nonprofit, also filed an FCC complaint for "news distortion" over the interview. And FCC Chair Brendan Carr, whom Trump elevated to the job and who has demonstrated unabashed loyalty to the president, has indicated that approval depends upon the resolution of the complaint, which he is in no hurry to get through.
"It would be entirely inappropriate to consider the complaint against the '60 Minutes' segment as part of a transaction review," FCC Commissioner Anna Gomez told the Los Angeles Times.
Indeed, the lawsuit—especially when paired with the FCC merger approval—smacks of corruption, with Trump trying to cow a disfavored media outlet into silence. Trump's effort is so blatant that Paramount executives reportedly worried they could be prosecuted for bribery of a public official if they settled the lawsuit.
Of course, this puts Paramount, CBS, and 60 Minutes in a perilous position: If Paramount—which has been struggling for years—hopes to save itself through a merger with Skydance, it must win over the FCC, whose current head apparently delights in being referred to as "Trump's media pit bull." Doing so will apparently require bending the knee and paying a fee for hurting Trump's feelings, even though by all accounts, 60 Minutes violated neither the law nor journalistic ethics.
And if Paramount does cave and pay $25 million or more—worse still, if it apologizes for the sin of doing basic journalism—it will set a dangerous precedent that powerful people can openly and unabashedly bully the journalists who cover them into silence.
The post Trump Wants $25 Million To Settle His Meritless 60 Minutes Lawsuit appeared first on Reason.com.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
11 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Autoneum Holding First Half 2025 Earnings: EPS: CHF5.16 (vs CHF4.86 in 1H 2024)
Autoneum Holding (VTX:AUTN) First Half 2025 Results Key Financial Results Revenue: CHF1.17b (down 3.4% from 1H 2024). Net income: CHF29.9m (up 6.0% from 1H 2024). Profit margin: 2.6% (up from 2.3% in 1H 2024). The increase in margin was driven by lower expenses. EPS: CHF5.16 (up from CHF4.86 in 1H 2024). Trump has pledged to "unleash" American oil and gas and these 15 US stocks have developments that are poised to benefit. All figures shown in the chart above are for the trailing 12 month (TTM) period Autoneum Holding Earnings Insights Looking ahead, revenue is forecast to grow 4.3% p.a. on average during the next 3 years, compared to a 2.8% growth forecast for the Auto Components industry in Europe. Performance of the market in Switzerland. The company's shares are down 7.2% from a week ago. Risk Analysis It's still necessary to consider the ever-present spectre of investment risk. We've identified 2 warning signs with Autoneum Holding, and understanding them should be part of your investment process. Have feedback on this article? Concerned about the content? Get in touch with us directly. Alternatively, email editorial-team (at) article by Simply Wall St is general in nature. We provide commentary based on historical data and analyst forecasts only using an unbiased methodology and our articles are not intended to be financial advice. It does not constitute a recommendation to buy or sell any stock, and does not take account of your objectives, or your financial situation. We aim to bring you long-term focused analysis driven by fundamental data. Note that our analysis may not factor in the latest price-sensitive company announcements or qualitative material. Simply Wall St has no position in any stocks mentioned. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
33 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Appeals court keeps order blocking Trump administration from indiscriminate immigration sweeps
LOS ANGELES (AP) — A federal appeals court ruled Friday night to uphold a lower court's temporary order blocking the Trump administration from conducting indiscriminate immigration stops and arrests in Southern California. A three-judge panel of the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held a hearing Monday afternoon at which the federal government asked the court to overturn a temporary restraining order issued July 12 by Judge Maame E. Frimpong, arguing it hindered their enforcement of immigration law. Immigrant advocacy groups filed suit last month accusing President Donald Trump's administration of systematically targeting brown-skinned people in Southern California during the administration's crackdown on illegal immigration. The lawsuit included three detained immigrants and two U.S. citizens as plaintiffs. In her order, Frimpong said there was a 'mountain of evidence' that federal immigration enforcement tactics were violating the Constitution. She wrote the government cannot use factors such as apparent race or ethnicity, speaking Spanish or English with an accent, presence at a location such as a tow yard or car wash, or someone's occupation as the only basis for reasonable suspicion to detain someone. The Los Angeles region has been a battleground with the Trump administration over its aggressive immigration strategy that spurred protests and the deployment of the National Guards and Marines for several weeks. Federal agents have rounded up immigrants without legal status to be in the U.S. from Home Depots, car washes, bus stops, and farms, many who have lived in the country for decades. Among the plaintiffs is Los Angeles resident Brian Gavidia, who was shown in a video taken by a friend June 13 being seized by federal agents as he yells, 'I was born here in the states, East LA bro!' They want to 'send us back to a world where a U.S. citizen ... can be grabbed, slammed against a fence and have his phone and ID taken from him just because he was working at a tow yard in a Latino neighborhood,' American Civil Liberties Union attorney Mohammad Tajsar told the court. The federal government argued that it hadn't been given enough time to collect and present evidence in the lawsuit, given that it was filed shortly before the July 4 holiday and a hearing was held the following week. 'It's a very serious thing to say that multiple federal government agencies have a policy of violating the Constitution,' attorney Jacob Roth said. He also argued that the lower court's order was too broad, and that immigrant advocates did not present enough evidence to prove that the government had an official policy of stopping people without reasonable suspicion. He referred to the four factors of race, language, presence at a location, and occupation that were listed in the temporary restraining order, saying the court should not be able to ban the government from using them at all. He also argued that the order was unclear on what exactly is permissible under law. 'Legally, I think it's appropriate to use the factors for reasonable suspicion,' Roth said The judges sharply questioned the government over their arguments. 'No one has suggested that you cannot consider these factors at all,' Judge Jennifer Sung said. However, those factors alone only form a 'broad profile' and don't satisfy the reasonable suspicion standard to stop someone, she said. Sung, a Biden appointee, said that in an area like Los Angeles, where Latinos make up as much as half the population, those factors 'cannot possibly weed out those who have undocumented status and those who have documented legal status.' She also asked: 'What is the harm to being told not to do something that you claim you're already not doing?' Solve the daily Crossword
Business Insider
33 minutes ago
- Business Insider
BP, Shel, CVX: Oil Stocks Drop as OPEC Gets Set to Open Oil Taps and Boost Supply
Oil stocks took a hit today on reports that sector cartel OPEC is set to open the taps over the weekend. Elevate Your Investing Strategy: Take advantage of TipRanks Premium at 50% off! Unlock powerful investing tools, advanced data, and expert analyst insights to help you invest with confidence. U.S. light crude oil prices dropped more than $1 a barrel on reports of a possible increase in production by OPEC and its allies. Less Slick Stocks Brent crude futures were down 88 cents, or 1.23%, at $70.82 a barrel in early trading. U.S. West Texas Intermediate crude was down $1.53, or 2.21%, at $67.73. BP (BP) was down 1% in early trading with Shell (SHEL) off 0.18% and Chevron (CVX) 0.33% lower. OPEC members and allies like Russia are reportedly getting close to an agreement to boost production by 548,000 barrels per day in September. It could even come as early as this Sunday, August 3 rd. More supply onto the market, coupled with continuing concerns over demand in the fragile global economy are likely to lead to lower prices. The factors which have largely driven the volatility in oil prices this year, see below, are also still present. Tariff Turmoil That largely means Trump's tariff policy. He signed an executive order yesterday imposing tariffs ranging from 10% to 41% on U.S. imports from dozens of countries and foreign territories that failed to reach trade deals by his August 1 deadline, including Canada, India and Taiwan. 'We think the resolution of trade deals to the satisfaction of the market – more or less, barring a few exceptions – has been the key driver for oil price bullishness in recent days, and further progress on trade talks with China in future could be a further confidence booster for the oil market,' said Suvro Sarkar at DBS Bank. Prices were also supported this week by Trump's threats to impose 100% secondary tariffs on Russian crude buyers as he seeks to pressure Russia into halting its war in Ukraine. This has stoked concern over potential disruption to oil trade flows and the removal of some oil from the market. 'It is not possible to completely replace Russian oil supplies in any case, which is why effective sanctions would lead to significantly higher oil prices,' said Commerzbank analyst Carsten Fritsch.
