Paramount Pays Trump $16 Million to Settle CBS News Lawsuit Over '60 Minutes' Interview Editing

nytimes.com/2025/07/02/business/media/paramount-trump-60-minutes-lawsuit.html

Revised Article

Paramount has agreed to pay $16 million to settle President Trump's lawsuit over CBS News' editing of a '60 Minutes' interview with Kamala Harris during the 2024 election campaign. The settlement includes Trump's legal fees, with the remainder going to his future presidential library. As part of the agreement, Paramount will release transcripts of '60 Minutes' interviews with presidential candidates after they air, though no apology was included.

Trump had sued for $10 billion, claiming CBS deceptively edited Harris's interview by using different portions of her answer about Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in a preview versus the main broadcast. Legal experts widely viewed the lawsuit as baseless, noting that CBS reported nothing factually inaccurate and that the First Amendment protects editorial decisions about how to present information.

The settlement appears connected to Paramount's pending multibillion-dollar sale to Skydance, which requires Trump administration approval. Shari Redstone, Paramount's controlling shareholder, favored exploring a settlement despite the legal merits, viewing a prolonged legal battle as potentially costly and risky for other government-related business. The sale would end the Redstone family's control of CBS News and transfer it to David Ellison, son of Trump-supporting tech billionaire Larry Ellison.

The case created significant turmoil within CBS News, contributing to the resignations of '60 Minutes' executive producer Bill Owens and CBS News president Wendy McMahon. Both cited concerns about editorial independence, with Owens stating he would not be allowed to make independent journalistic decisions. The settlement has drawn criticism from Democratic senators who warn it could be construed as bribery, and press freedom advocates plan to file shareholder lawsuits challenging the decision.

This settlement follows ABC News' $16 million payment to Trump in December 2024 for a separate defamation case, establishing a concerning pattern of major media companies making substantial payments to avoid prolonged litigation with the president. The agreements raise broader questions about press freedom and whether news organizations might self-censor or alter coverage to avoid costly legal battles, even when they believe they would ultimately prevail in court.

Missing Context & Misinformation 4

  • The settlement follows a pattern of media companies paying Trump substantial sums, with ABC News also paying $16 million in December 2024 to settle a defamation case involving anchor George Stephanopoulos.
  • Trump has filed numerous lawsuits against media organizations throughout his political career, using litigation as a strategy to pressure news outlets and potentially deter critical coverage.
  • The Paramount-Skydance merger requires federal regulatory approval, and the FCC chairman's statement that the lawsuit was unrelated to merger review may not fully address potential informal pressure or influence.
  • Media settlements with political figures raise broader questions about press freedom and whether news organizations might self-censor to avoid costly legal battles, even when they believe they would ultimately prevail in court.

Disinformation & Lies 1

  • No verifiable false statements were identified in the article. The factual claims about the settlement amount, timeline, and key players appear accurate based on available information.

Bias 3

The article contains some bias but it is largely fair and useful. The characterization of the settlement as an 'extraordinary concession' is warranted given the unprecedented nature of a major media company paying a sitting president. The emphasis on CBS journalists' concerns about credibility and the comparison to Walter Cronkite/Edward R. Murrow provides valuable historical context about journalism standards. The article does present Trump's claims alongside legal experts' dismissals, showing both sides. The bias toward portraying this as damaging to press freedom serves the useful purpose of highlighting genuine concerns about media independence under political pressure.