Democratic Senators Warn Paramount's Shari Redstone That Trump Lawsuit Settlement May Violate Federal Bribery Statute
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) wrote that 'Paramount appears to be trying to settle a lawsuit that it has assessed as 'completely without merit,' and moderating the content of its programs in order to obtain approval of this merger. Under the federal bribery statute, it is illegal to corruptly give anything of value to public officials to influence an official act. If Paramount officials make these concessions in a quid pro quo arrangement to influence President Trump or other Administration officials, they may be breaking the law.'
More from Deadline
Live Video Startup 2WAY Adds Three New Shows Including 'The Group Chat'
'The Daily Show's Jon Stewart Mocks Media Praising Trump For "Not Taking Cancer's Side" In Biden Statement
Kennedy Center To Include Non-Equity Theater Productions Following Donald Trump Complaints
Redstone is non-executive chairwoman of Paramount Global and controlling shareholder.
The senators cite 18 U.S.C. 201, which prohibits giving anything of value to a public official for the purposes of influencing their decisions.
In October, Trump sued CBS over the way that 60 Minutes edited an interview with Kamala Harris. The lawsuit alleges violations of Texas' Deceptive Trade Practices Act, which is typically used by consumers for false advertising claims. A number of legal experts see Trump's lawsuit as meritless, but the litigation comes as CBS-parent Paramount Global seeks Trump administration approval for its merger with Skydance.
Read the senators' letter to Shari Redstone.
The senators also wrote that 'Paramount appears to have begun overseeing CBS's content, presumably in order to screen it for content that could anger the Trump Administration.' That was a reference to the resignation last month of Bill Owens, executive producer of 60 Minutes, over what he said was corporate interference. The lawmakers also noted the pending departure of Wendy McMahon, the CEO of CBS News and Stations, who announced her resignation on Monday, saying that 'it's become clear that the company and I do not agree on the path forward.'
'Paramount's scheme to curry favor with the Trump Administration has compromised journalistic independence and raises serious concerns of corruption and improper conduct,' the senators wrote.
The lawmakers went on to ask Redstone to respond to a series of questions about the potential settlement, including, 'Has 60 Minutes made changes to its content at the request of anyone at Paramount to facilitate approval of the merger?'
A Paramount Global spokesperson did not immediately return a request for comment. The Wall Street Journal first reported on the letter. A spokesperson told the Journal that Redstone has recused herself from the settlement talks.
Best of Deadline
Sean 'Diddy' Combs Sex-Trafficking Trial Updates: Cassie Ventura's Testimony, $10M Hotel Settlement, Drugs, Violence, & The Feds
All The 'Mission: Impossible' Movies In Order - See Tom Cruise's 30-Year Journey As Ethan Hunt
Denzel Washington's Career In Pictures: From 'Carbon Copy' To 'The Equalizer 3'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
33 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Powell says the Fed would have cut rates this year if it weren't for tariffs
The Federal Reserve would likely have lowered interest rates this year if it weren't for President Donald Trump's significant policy changes, Chair Jerome Powell said Tuesday. 'I do think that's right,' he said at a central banking forum in Sintra, Portugal, when asked if the Fed would have cut rates by now. The Fed hasn't lowered interest rates at all this year: Central bankers broadly expect Trump's tariffs to have some effect on the US economy and they've said that they want to see how the dust settles first before resuming rate cuts. But the Fed's wait-and-see approach hasn't sat well with Trump, who has repeatedly lashed out against Powell for not yet lowering rates, describing him as a 'numbskull' and a 'moron.' On Monday, Trump posted on his social media platform a note in his handwriting slamming Powell for keeping interest rates higher than dozens of other nations, writing that he 'cost the USA a fortune' and that he continues 'to do so.' White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said the note was delivered to the Fed that same day. Trump hasn't been the only one calling for rate cuts. Two of Powell's colleagues — Fed Vice Chair for Supervision Michelle Bowman and Fed Governor Christopher Waller — have recently broken rank and said the central bank could consider a rate cut as soon as July. But neither of them has gone as far as to call for the supersized rate cuts Trump has demanded. Both have said rate cuts still depend on how mild any tariff-induced inflation turns out to be. Still, a rate cut in July seems unlikely and would be difficult for the Fed to defend. Investors estimate a 81% chance of the Fed holding rates steady at its July 29-30 meeting, according to futures, compared with a 19% chance of a quarter-point rate cut. Powell in his Sintra panel noted that most Fed officials expect to lower rates at some point later this year, depending on what happens with inflation and the labor market. 'A solid majority of (Fed officials) do expect that it will become appropriate later this year to begin to reduce rates again,' Powell said. When asked if July would be too soon for a rate cut, Powell said 'he can't say' but that he 'wouldn't take any meeting off the table or put it directly on the table.' European Central Bank President Christine Lagarde — who has publicly backed Powell's apolitical, data-driven approach to policymaking — praised the Fed leader on Monday, noting that he 'epitomizes the standard of a courageous central banker.' She was on the panel with Powell Tuesday. So far, Powell has avoided commenting on Trump's attacks, including on Tuesday when he was asked if Trump's harsh public comments make it difficult to conduct monetary policy. Powell said that 'I'm very focused on just doing my job.' Lagarde was asked how she would handle Trump's criticism if she were in Powell's position, to which she responded: 'I think we would (all) do exactly the same thing as our colleague, Jay Powell, does. The same thing.' Conference attendees clapped after Lagarde's comment. 'We're trying to deliver macro stability, financial stability, economic stability for the benefit of all the people,' Powell said. 'If we're going to do that successfully, we need to do it in a completely non-political way, which means we don't take sides. We don't play one side against the other. We stay out of issues that are really not our bailiwick.' Sign in to access your portfolio
Forbes
35 minutes ago
- Forbes
Here's What The Senate Budget And Tax Bill Means For Colleges
The "big, beautiful bill" is now back in the House, which will reconvene to take up the Senate-passed version Wednesday morning. Getty Images The Senate on Tuesday passed its version of President Trump's 'big, beautiful' tax and budget bill by a 51-50 vote, with Vice President JD Vance breaking the tie. The 940-page bill, which now returns to the House for final approval, contains a number of provisions related to higher education that seem likely to weaken nonprofit colleges' finances, while making it more difficult for students to access financial aid and student loans. Although some House Republicans are complaining about Senate changes from the bill they passed back in May, the betting is that under pressure from Trump, they'll accept the Senate's version. 'With the goalpost of July 4th set by the President, it's likely the Senate's version will hold mostly intact,' says Michael Itzkowitz, founder of the higher education consultancy HEA Group and a former official in the Obama education department. 'There's just not too much time for the House to make any large changes at this point.' If House passage of the bill is delayed, it won't be education-related provisions that hold it up, says Jon Fansmith, senior vice president for government relations and national engagement at the American Council on Education. The Senate bill's deeper cuts to Medicaid and bigger increase in deficit spending may worry House Republicans, he says. 'They may not be able to get this over the finish line tomorrow. And then if that doesn't happen, I think everything goes back on the table,' says Fansmith. 'But their goal is to try and move quickly.' The proposals in the bill that impact college budgets fall into three big categories: endowment taxes, changes to Pell grants and regulatory repeals. It also contains a litany of changes to federal student loans, which would phase out popular income-driven repayment plans, limit borrowing by graduate students and parents, and eliminate economic hardship and unemployment deferment options, among other things. Forbes contributor Adam Minsky explains all of these changes in detail here. Read on for a breakdown of what else the bill has in store for higher ed. One of the biggest changes between the Senate bill and the House-passed version is a change to the excise tax proposal on the investment income of college endowments. The initial House-passed bill increased the existing 1.4% tax to as high as 21% for the richest institutions. The Senate bill scales that back, and outlines an excise tax structure that would levy an 8% tax on endowments worth more than $2 million per student, a 4% tax on endowments worth between $750,000 and $2 million per student, and a 1.4% tax on endowments worth between $500,000 and $750,000 per student. Colleges would only be subject to the tax if they enroll at least 3,000 tuition-paying students (up from the current cut-off of 500 students), and if at least half of those students are located in the United States. Unlike the House bill, the Senate version doesn't punish schools for having a high number of foreign students by excluding them from the calculation of endowment per student. The Senate parliamentarian spiked the part of the proposal that would exempt religious institutions from the tax, which, Fansmith says, was part of an effort to exempt the very conservative Hillsdale College from the endowment tax. (Hillsdale would still be exempt from the tax because it enrolls less than 3,000 students). Fansmith's American Council on Education has always opposed an endowment tax. 'It's bad policy, it's a bad idea. It's taking money that was given to institutions for charitable purposes and giving it to the federal government, which basically means it's not being used for the purposes it was given, which is financial aid support, research, things that people really want schools to spend their money on.' The Senate bill would make some changes to students' eligibility for Pell grants, the federal government scholarships offered to low-income students. The bill proposes that foreign income be included in the adjusted gross income calculation that's used to determine students' financial need, and it also proposes that, regardless of any other factors, students who can afford to pay at least double the maximum Pell grant award will no longer be eligible for a Pell grant. Another change: If a student receives enough non-federal grant aid to cover the full cost of college attendance for the term, they would no longer be eligible for a Pell grant even if they met the income requirements. Notably, the final Senate version did not include changes to Pell eligibility requirements that would hurt low-income students and the institutions that enroll them, including a House-proposed change to the definition of a full-time credit load from 12 credits to 15 credits, and excluding less than half-time students from receiving any Pell dollars at all (which would have disqualified 700,000 students from the Pell program, a CBO analysis showed). A proposal to create a workforce Pell grant squeaked into the final bill after the Senate parliamentarian ruled that it violated the rules of budget reconciliation. The final, Senate-approved version of H.R. 1 includes the workforce Pell proposal with one notable change: unaccredited institutions would not be allowed to receive Pell grant money. The workforce Pell grant program would expand Pell grant access to students in short-term, eight to 15-week workforce training programs, even if they don't lead to a formal degree or credential. Eligibility for the workforce Pell would be the same as the regular Pell grant—students must demonstrate 'exceptional financial need,' which, for most recipients, is a household income of $60,000 or less each year. Students with any credentials beyond an undergraduate degree would not be eligible. According to the proposal, students would not be able to receive both a workforce Pell grant and a regular Pell grant, and the workforce Pell would contribute to a student's lifetime Pell grant maximum, which is typically about six years of coursework. The short-term programs students enroll in must be state-approved and meet some federal requirements, including a 70% completion rate and 70% job placement rate. A workforce Pell grant would be a boon to for-profit colleges, which dominate the trade school and workforce training space. (Those which aren't accredited would be excluded, however.) On Regulatory Changes In the section titled 'regulatory relief,' the Senate bill repeals or weakens several regulations for higher education institutions. The 90/10 rule, which requires that for-profit colleges receive at least 10% of their revenue from non-federal sources, would revert to an earlier, more lenient version of the rule. The bill would completely eliminate the gainful employment rule, an Obama-era regulation that puts guardrails on for-profit colleges to ensure their students are prepared for employment and able to pay back their student loans. It would also spike the borrower's defense to repayment regulations, instituted in 2022, which would make it more difficult for students to have their federal student loans canceled if they've been defrauded by their school. 'It's no surprise that many student protections are on the chopping block,' says Itzkowitz. 'First off, they were mainly put in place by Democratic administrations. Second of all, a more conservative Congress generally favors the idea of removing as many regulations as possible.' The bill also delays 2022 regulations related to closed school discharges. Essentially, until 2035, students with federal loans whose colleges close will have a harder time getting those loans canceled. New in the Senate version of the bill are strengthened accountability measures that require colleges to maintain good outcomes for students in order to be eligible for federal funding. According to the bill, 'low-earning outcome programs' are defined as programs whose graduates' median earnings are less than a comparable working adult, and such programs would not be eligible for federal funding. For bachelor's institutions, a comparable working adult is described as someone aged 25 to 34 who is not currently in college and has only a high school diploma. For graduate institutions, a comparable working adult is a 25-to-34 year old who has only a bachelor's degree. 'If a college program produces graduates who earn less than someone who never went to college, it would no longer receive federal funding. That's a win-win for students and taxpayers,' Itzkowitz says. 'However, it noticeably excludes certificate programs from any accountability. This is a huge policy omission, as certificates are often the riskiest credential for students, many of them being working adults, first-generation, or women of color.' More From Forbes Forbes Revised Bill Gutting Student Loan Programs Passes Senate — Here's What It Does By Adam S. Minsky Forbes The 36 Colleges Most At Risk From Pell Grant Cuts By Fiona Riley Forbes Senate Passes Trump's Megabill: Here's What's In And Out By Sara Dorn
The Hill
40 minutes ago
- The Hill
Judge blocks Trump effort to dismantle African development agency
A federal judge on Tuesday blocked President Trump's appointment of a new head of the U.S. African Development Foundation (USADF), indefinitely halting his directives to massively slash the agency's workforce and grant funding. U.S. District Judge Richard Leon found that Trump's installation of Peter Marocco as USADF's acting board chair was likely unconstitutional, ruling he needed to face Senate confirmation for it to be valid. 'While defendants argue that the President has inherent Article II power to appoint acting principal officers, there is little hope for defendants that this argument will win the day,' Leon wrote in his 16-page ruling. 'The Court therefore finds that plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their challenge to the legality of Marocco's appointment,' continued Leon, an appointee of the younger former President Bush. The Trump administration has looked to dismantle the USADF and other aid agencies across the federal government, alleging widespread waste and abuse. Marocco's appointment came after Trump signed a February executive order calling for the elimination of USADF and several other development agencies. Marocco has played a key role in the administration, formerly overseeing the dismantling of the U.S. Agency for International Development. Once Trump purported to appoint Marocco as USADF's acting board chair, Marocco named himself the group's president. He then began sweeping cuts that included nearly everything except keeping two employees and three active grants, court filings show. Last week, Marocco publicly posted a list of grants he said the USADF was terminating but didn't have updated contact information for the recipients. The judge's decision on Tuesday sides with Rural Development Innovations, a Zambia-based consulting firm that is dependent on USADF funding. The company sued alongside two former USADF employees, but the judge said the employees weren't entitled to an injunction because they hadn't shown irreparable harm. They were represented by the Democracy Forward Foundation, a left-leaning legal group that has brought a flurry of litigation against the second Trump administration. 'This is a victory for the rule of law and the communities that rely on USADF's vital work,' Joel McElvain, senior legal advisor at the group, said in a statement. 'No president can erase a federal agency, ignore Congress, and upend lives without legal authority. We will continue fighting against these power grabs to protect USADF's ability to fulfill the mission that Congress gave it to perform.' It is one of two lawsuits challenging the administration's takeover of USADF. Leon previously rejected a similar lawsuit filed by Ward Brehm, who served on USADF's board and claimed to be the group's president, finding he wasn't the right person to sue. The Hill has reached out to the Justice Department for comment.
