What smart people in media and politics are saying about Paramount's settlement with Trump
Media giant Paramount said late Tuesday that it had agreed to pay $16 million to settle a lawsuit brought by Trump over a "60 Minutes" segment that aired last fall.
The lawsuit alleged the CBS News show had selectively edited an interview with Trump rival Kamala Harris. The proposed settlement, which did not include an apology from Paramount, will be allocated to Trump's future presidential library, the company said.
Paramount is awaiting government approval of its planned merger with David Ellison's Skydance Media. The company said the settlement was "completely separate from, and unrelated to, the Skydance transaction."
Paramount said companies often settle lawsuits to avoid costly, unpredictable legal battles, potential reputational or financial harm, and business disruptions, and move forward without prolonged uncertainty.
A spokesperson for Trump's legal team called the settlement "another win for the American people."
"CBS and Paramount Global realized the strength of this historic case and had no choice but to settle," the spokesperson said. (You can find the full statements from Paramount and the Trump team at the end of this story.)
Here's what big names in media and politics have been saying in reaction to the Paramount-Trump settlement news:
Tina Brown, former editor-in-chief of Vanity Fair and The New Yorker:
"It's a shakedown, isn't it — it's on Shari Redstone's neck. She can't close the deal without it. It's a tragedy that something as important and serious and meaningful as CBS News is sort of being traded away for this shakedown.
"I'd like to think Katharine Graham wouldn't have done it. We don't know anything about Ellison. He might be a terrific supporter of newsgathering, but one has become pessimistic with these issues."
Sen. Elizabeth Warren:
"With Paramount folding to Donald Trump at the same time the company needs his administration's approval for its billion-dollar merger, this could be bribery in plain sight. Paramount has refused to provide answers to a congressional inquiry, so I'm calling for a full investigation into whether or not any anti-bribery laws were broken.
"This settlement exposes a glaring need for rules to restrict donations to sitting presidents' libraries. I will soon introduce new legislation to rein in corruption through presidential library donations. The Trump administration's level of sheer corruption is appalling and Paramount should be ashamed of putting its profits over independent journalism."
Marty Baron, former Washington Post executive editor:
"Assuming the merger gets approved, the bigger issue will be the posture of new owners toward '60 Minutes' and really all of CBS News. I would hope for respect for the network's heritage, as well as a pledge of journalistic independence and proof that they will honor it. The early indicators aren't all that encouraging."
Tim Richardson, journalism and disinformation program director at PEN America:
"Paramount's decision to settle a meritless lawsuit rather than stand behind its journalists at CBS News is a spineless capitulation.
"This was a moment to defend press freedom and support reporters targeted by a frivolous legal attack. Instead, Paramount chose appeasement to bolster its finances, sending a dangerous message that media outlets can be pressured into submission if corporate parents find their profits at risk from government action in unrelated areas.
"With two major network owners bowing to the president in quick succession, the danger is clear: emboldened politicians and powerful actors will feel more free than ever to weaponize lawsuits and bring regulatory pressure to bear to silence and censor independent journalism."
Raymond James analysts Ric Prentiss and Brent Penter (in a note to clients):
"Now with the lawsuit settled, we believe the FCC is poised to approve the PARA/Skydance deal, and we feel the deal can close within a couple of weeks after FCC approval.
"Our expectation has been a closing (with no material changes to terms) after 1H25 but still in the summer, and we feel that continues to be the case. We think companies, and especially CFOs, like to close deals on the first day of a month (with the first day of a quarter even more preferred, but missed 7/1 in this case). And we expect PARA to be ready to close this chapter of its story soon."
Peter Kafka, Business Insider's chief correspondent:
"This is the deal we thought we'd see back in January: A Trump-friendly media mogul agrees to pay him millions of dollars, so she can sell her company to a Trump-backing tech mogul.
"On the one hand, you can squint and argue that Paramount is a winner here because it didn't have to give up more — like a public apology for something it didn't do. All it had to do is fork over the now-standard payment for media and tech companies that want to operate in Trump 2.0.
"On the other hand: These corporate payoffs to the president of the United States should be shocking. My worry is that we're just a few months into this, and we've already accepted them as normal."
Clayton Weimers, executive director of Reporters without Borders USA:
"This is a shameful decision by Paramount. Shari Redstone and Paramount's board should have stood by CBS journalists and the integrity of press freedom. Instead, they chose to reward Donald Trump for his petty legal assault against both. A line is being drawn between the owners of American news media who are willing to stand up for press freedom and those who capitulate to the demands of the president.
"Today, Paramount's leaders chose to be on the wrong side of that dividing line, but they'd be mistaken to believe appeasing Trump today will stop his attacks in the future. News media owners are much better off standing strong than acquiescing."
Jeff Greenfield, former CBS senior political correspondent, on X:
"Will this encourage politicians and others to file bogus lawsuits [a]s a way of intimidating news organizations and their corporate boards? Will the correspondents and producers of "60 Minutes" see this as a corporate betrayal of the program in service to a multi billion dollar merger? (Answers to both questions: YES.)"
Sen. Bernie Sanders:
"The decision by the Redstone family, the major owners of Paramount, to settle a bogus lawsuit with President Trump over a 60 Minutes report he did not like is an extremely dangerous precedent in terms of both the first amendment and government extortion.
"Paramount's decision will only embolden Trump to continue attacking, suing and intimidating the media which he has labeled 'the enemy of the people.' It is a dark day for independent journalism and freedom of the press - an essential part of our democracy. It is a victory for a president who is attempting to stifle dissent and undermine American democracy.
"It's pretty obvious why Paramount chose to surrender to Trump. The Redstone family is in line to receive $2.4 billion from the sale of Paramount to Skydance, but they can only receive this money if the Trump administration approves this deal. In other words, the Redstone family diminished the freedom of the press today in exchange for a $2.4 billion payday.
"Make no mistake about it. Trump is undermining our democracy and rapidly moving us towards authoritarianism and the billionaires who care more about their stock portfolios than our democracy are helping him do it. That is beyond unacceptable."
Jonathan Miller, chief executive of Integrated Media, which specializes in digital media investments:
"The fact there was no apology was good, and it makes sense in the grand scheme of things in what they have to do. It's pretty hard to escape the idea that it's political. The Ellisons stayed away from any political statement during the whole process — now we'll see what they do. And there's obviously a job open at CBS News they'll have to fill."
Rome Hartman, veteran former '60 Minutes' producer, including on the Kamala Harris segment:
"This settlement is a cowardly capitulation by the corporate leaders of Paramount, and a fundamental betrayal of '60 Minutes' and CBS News. The story that was the subject of this lawsuit was edited by the book and in accordance with CBS News standards. Our corporate bosses know that; they know that this lawsuit is completely baseless. But they settled it in order to preserve Shari Redstone's payday. That is shameful."
John Harwood, veteran White House correspondent:
"It's hard to say which is worse: the craven surrender by a media company that did nothing wrong, the betrayal of one of our finest news outlets, or the lawless extortion by the President of the United States. that it all happened in broad daylight is an appalling measure of the damage Trump has inflicted."
Full Paramount and Trump team statements:
Here's Paramount Global's statement: "Companies often settle litigation to avoid the high and somewhat unpredictable costs of legal defense, the risk of an adverse judgment that could result in significant financial or reputational damage, and the disruption to business operations that prolonged legal battles can cause. Settlement offers a negotiated resolution that allows companies to focus on their core objectives rather than being mired in uncertainty and distraction."
And here's Trump's legal team's: "With this record settlement, President Donald J. Trump delivers another win for the American people as he, once again, holds the Fake News media accountable for their wrongdoing and deceit. CBS and Paramount Global realized the strength of this historic case and had no choice but to settle. President Trump will always ensure that no one gets away with lying to the American People as he continues on his singular mission to Make America Great Again."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
32 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Your kid is getting a ‘Trump account.' Should you put your money in it?
Republicans' 'big, beautiful bill' includes a gift to millions of families: $1,000 in an investment account for every eligible newborn. The new savings vehicles, akin to Individual Retirement Accounts, are designated for children who are U.S. citizens born from 2025 through 2028. In addition to the one-time government contribution, parents and others can chip in as much as $5,000 a year to the accounts, which beneficiaries can access at 18, with some constraints. Subscribe to The Post Most newsletter for the most important and interesting stories from The Washington Post. The seed money is a boon for recipients and will grow tax-deferred. Financial planners say parents and guardians might do better putting their money into existing investment vehicles such as a 529 plan, a savings plan designed to cover college expenses. But 529s are limited to education, while backers say the new accounts can help their recipients beyond college. Republican lawmakers call the accounts 'Trump accounts,' though the Senate's plan to officially name them after the president did not make it to the final version of the legislation, which was signed Friday. They deliver on an idea that both Democrats and Republicans have floated for years: to invest money for all children at birth. Withdrawals from a 529 are not subject to state or federal taxes as long as the funds go toward qualified education expenses - a feature the new investment accounts don't share. And in the new accounts, parents' deposits don't qualify for a tax deduction, notes Greg Leiserson, a senior fellow at the Tax Law Center at New York University. 'You have this very slight or minimal-to-nonexistent tax benefit,' he said. 'What is the point here?' Financial adviser Amy Spalding of Chapel Hill, North Carolina, said she will continue to steer her clients to 529s. 'It's better from a tax standpoint,' Spalding said. 'And there are more investment options. And then there's a higher contribution limit.' (For 2025, a single person can deposit as much as $19,000 a year into a beneficiary's 529, while married couples can contribute as much $38,000.) Jeremiah Barlow, a financial planner in Santa Barbara, California, said the new accounts could benefit a family that has hit the maximum on their child's 529 and wants to save more, or who like the idea of setting up a fund for their child's first home or as an economic safety net. 'It would likely appeal to our families who want more flexibility for more general-purpose savings for their child's future,' Barlow said. 'You shouldn't rush to just use it because it's out there.' Leiserson cautioned that account holders should understand the tax implications, noting that withdrawals will be taxed at typical income rates, not at the capital gains rate of a taxable brokerage account. 'For most people, this is going to be worse than what they could do in a taxable account,' he said. Though parents don't get a tax deduction when they contribute to a new account, employers can claim a tax break for contributions on behalf of their workers' children or their teenage employees. Nonprofits also can contribute to they accounts. The law requires the new investment accounts to track a U.S. stock index, which means account holders have fewer options than they would in a brokerage account or a 529 plan, which generally offer a range of investment options with varying levels of risk, including stocks, bonds and mutual funds. Leiserson noted that all-stock portfolios come with their own risks, because they're tethered to market conditions. 'If you're saying, 'Okay, I'm going to start school in the fall' - if the market falls over the summer, the planning you were doing about how you were going to pay for college is totally messed up, because the money you thought would be there, isn't." The White House said the accounts 'will afford a generation of children the chance to experience the miracle of compounded growth and set them on a course for prosperity from the very beginning.' While some experts appreciate the premise of the accounts, they also see flaws in the design, such as the requirement that parents opt-in to the account on their tax return, which means people who don't know this might miss out. In addition, the law includes a penalty of at least $500 if a parent mistakenly claims an account, which could scare off some parents. During the grinding process of crafting the massive tax and spending legislation, the accounts changed both superficially - they were renamed from MAGA accounts to Trump accounts to a yet-to-be-determined name - and in substance. Legislators dropped plans to give account withdrawals favorable tax treatment similar to a brokerage account. Account withdrawals will be taxed at ordinary income tax rates, not capital gains rates. Congress also discarded rules that would have prescribed how beneficiaries could spend the money - on college at 18, on starting a business at 25, on buying a house at 30. Instead, account holders cannot touch the funds until they turn 18. After that, the rules are the same as those of an individual retirement account - withdrawals are taxed like income, plus an additional 10 percent tax penalty on any withdrawals before age 59½ except for certain qualified uses. Those uses include paying for college, supporting themselves if they become disabled, or recovering from domestic abuse or a natural disaster. Beneficiaries also can withdraw as much as $10,000 to buy their first home, and up to $5,000 when they have a new baby themselves. Even one of the Trump accounts' biggest proponents in Congress, Rep. Blake Moore (R-Utah), said in an interview that for many parents, the new account design offers more benefits for retirement than for college expenses. 'I would argue that the tax implications of a 529 are far more favorable,' he said, but noted that most families don't have the disposable income to invest in a 529, and the new accounts' $1,000 from the government can benefit people at all income levels. If the account saw a 6 percent rate of return for 18 years, it would be worth $2,854; if the stock market does well, it could be worth even more. 'The most beneficial thing in my opinion about these is that … you're investing from birth into an IRA,' Moore said. 'Most people start investing in an IRA at 30 …. We're talking at birth or at 30. The benefits of investing early into that IRA are significant.' Moore has four sons, and while none will qualify for the government's $1,000 seed money contribution for newborns, the law allows him to open a Trump account as a parent. He says he'll be putting money in it: 'I want my kids having a Trump account so they can take it out when they're 50 or 60 years old.' - - - Jacob Bogage contributed to this report. Related Content Arthur Ashe's knack for reinvention led him to history at Wimbledon Newlywed detained by ICE freed after 141 days and two deportation attempts The Met opens a dazzling wing of non-European art Sign in to access your portfolio
Axios
an hour ago
- Axios
Tariffs return to April rates on August 1 without deals, Bessent says
Countries that don't make trade deals with the U.S. by August 1 can expect tariff rates to return to the levels announced in April, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said Sunday. Why it matters: It's effectively a new deadline for the biggest U.S. trading partners to negotiate an alternative to President Trump 's sweeping global tariffs — even as Bessent insists nothing had changed. Catch up quick: On Friday, Trump said about a dozen countries would receive letters Monday unilaterally setting a tariff rate, with more to come in the following days. Trump has said he preferred those letters to negotiations, after a three-month pause on his most sweeping tariffs netted three deals, rather than the 90 his administration promised. That pause expires this coming Wednesday. What they're saying: Bessent, in an interview with CNN's "State of the Union," said the letters would make clear that absent a deal, the rates would return to the levels Trump announced April 2. "It's not a new deadline. We are saying, this is when it's happening, if you want to speed things up, have at it, if you want to go back to the old rate, that's your choice," he said. The intrigue: Even with the new date in play, Bessent said there will be significant activity in the coming hours, as countries scramble to get something done before the original deadline. "We are close to several deals. As always, there's a lot of foot-dragging on the other side," he said. "I would expect to see several big announcements over the next couple of days." What to watch: Trump's letter threat risks re-igniting the tariff chaos that crushed CEO and consumer confidence earlier this year and sent financial markets plunging.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
White House suggests some countries could see tariff deadline shifted
Chair of the White House Council of Economic Advisers Stephen Miran said that some countries that are negotiating with the United States in good faith could see tariffs delayed as President Donald Trump's deadline to strike trade deals closes in. Speaking with ABC News' "This Week" anchor George Stephanopoulos, Miran hedged on what deals are in the works. 'On tariffs, the president's deadline is approaching for the deals. You've only seen three deals so far. What should we expect next?' Stephanopoulos asked. 'I'm still optimistic that we're going to get a number of deals later this week. Part of that is because all the negotiating goes through a series of steps that lead to a culmination timed with the deadline,' Miran said. Pressed on if these other deals fail to come through and if Trump would extend the deadline, Miran indicated that could be possible. 'Well, my expectation would be that countries that are negotiating in good faith and making the concessions that they need to get to a deal, but the deal is just not there yet because it needs more time, my expectation will be that those countries get a roll, you know, sort of get the date rolled,' he said. Asked which countries could see that date shifted, Miran refused to elaborate, but said that he has heard good things about talks with Europe and India. 'I would expect that a number of countries that are in the process of making those concessions, you know, they might see their date rolled. For the countries that aren't making concessions, for the countries that aren't negotiating in good faith, I would expect them to sort of see higher tariffs,' Miran said. 'But again, the president will decide later this week and in the time following whether or not the countries are doing what it takes to get access to the American market like they've grown accustomed to.' Stephanopolous was also joined by former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers, who balked at the potential economic benefits of Trump's tariffs. 'It probably will collect some revenue at the cost of higher inflation for American consumers, less competitiveness for American producers," Summers said. 'So higher prices, less competitiveness, and not really that much revenue relative to what's being given to the very wealthy in this bill.' This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.
