paramount Global has reached a significant $16 million settlement to end a high-profile lawsuit filed by former President Donald Trump. This legal battle stemmed from alleged deceptive editing of a “60 Minutes” interview featuring then-Vice President Kamala Harris during the lead-up to the 2024 election. The agreement, finalized through mediation, allows Paramount to avoid a potentially long and costly court fight. This move is widely seen as connected to the company’s urgent need to secure regulatory approval for a major corporate sale.
The $16 million payment will not directly benefit Mr. Trump. Instead, the funds are specifically earmarked for his future presidential library and to cover the substantial legal fees incurred by the plaintiffs. Paramount Global explicitly stated that the settlement includes no apology or expression of regret regarding CBS News’ reporting or editing practices. Furthermore, the agreement encompasses a release of all claims related to CBS reporting up to the date the settlement was finalized.
Roots of the “60 Minutes” Legal Challenge
The core of the legal dispute originated from a “60 Minutes” interview with Kamala Harris in October 2024. According to the lawsuit filed by Trump and his legal team, CBS News intentionally edited Harris’s answer to a question from correspondent Bill Whitaker about the Biden administration’s relationship with the Israeli Prime Minister.
Trump’s complaint alleged that Harris provided a “word salad” response in a preview clip aired earlier on “Face the Nation.” However, the version broadcast later on “60 Minutes” was reportedly edited to be more concise and coherent. Trump’s suit claimed this presented a different, more favorable impression of her remarks. These edits were characterized by the plaintiffs as “malicious, deceptive, and substantial news distortion.” They argued this amounted to “unlawful acts of election and voter interference.” Trump’s initial damages sought were $10 billion, later escalating to $20 billion.
CBS News consistently defended its editorial decisions. The network maintained that editing interviews is a routine journalistic practice. They asserted Harris was accurately quoted in both instances, even if different parts of her lengthy answer were used. CBS argued its editing fell squarely within the broad latitude afforded to news producers by the First Amendment. CBS also attempted to move the case from the federal court in Amarillo, Texas, presided over by a judge appointed by Trump, to New York where the network is headquartered. Texas Congressman Ronny Jackson, a state resident and Trump’s former doctor, was later added as a plaintiff, though the settlement confirms he will not receive funds.
Paramount’s Strategic Business Move to Settle
Paramount’s decision to settle, despite CBS News’ firm defense and the perceived legal weakness of the lawsuit on First Amendment grounds by many experts, was largely driven by complex corporate objectives. The media giant is currently pursuing an $8 billion merger with David Ellison’s Skydance Media. This significant deal required approval from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).
Reports indicate Paramount’s controlling shareholder, Shari Redstone, whose family firm faces substantial debt, strongly pushed for a settlement. Proceeds from the potential Skydance sale are vital for addressing these financial obligations. Executives at Skydance also reportedly urged Paramount to resolve the legal entanglement, viewing it as a significant hurdle to the merger’s successful completion. Settling was ultimately seen as a practical way to remove this “headache” and clear the path for the critical transaction, rather than engaging in a potentially prolonged and costly legal defense that could jeopardize the deal timeline. Paramount, however, publicly maintained that the settlement was entirely separate from the merger process and FCC review.
Internal Fallout and Journalistic Concerns
The lawsuit and the intense pressure to settle created significant internal turmoil within CBS News operations. Longtime “60 Minutes” executive producer Bill Owens resigned in April 2025. His departure was reportedly due to increased corporate oversight related to the settlement discussions. Owens felt this oversight compromised the journalistic independence crucial for producing the show. Veteran correspondent Scott Pelley publicly addressed this issue on air, noting the increased corporate scrutiny affecting the news division.
Wendy McMahon, the president of CBS News and Stations, also stepped down in May 2025. Her departure was reportedly influenced by disagreements with the company’s strategic direction, including aspects related to the settlement approach. Many journalists within CBS News reportedly opposed the idea of settling a case they considered baseless. They stood firm in their belief that no journalistic wrongdoing had occurred and resisted issuing any apology, a demand reportedly made by Trump’s legal team early on.
Key Terms of the Paramount-Trump Settlement Agreement
The settlement agreement, finalized on July 1, 2025, includes several important components:
Monetary Payment: Paramount Global is obligated to pay $16 million.
Fund Allocation: The $16 million is designated to cover the legal fees and costs incurred by the plaintiffs. Any funds remaining after these expenses are paid will be allocated to Donald Trump’s future presidential library. No money will be paid directly or indirectly to President Trump or co-plaintiff Ronny Jackson.
No Admission of Wrongdoing: Paramount and CBS News did not issue an apology or express regret for the reporting or editing of the “60 Minutes” interview in question.
Release of Claims: The settlement includes a full release of all claims related to CBS reporting up to the settlement date. This covers the specific Texas lawsuit and a previously threatened defamation action.
- Transcript Release Agreement: Paramount agreed that, going forward, “60 Minutes” will release full transcripts of interviews conducted with eligible U.S. presidential candidates after those interviews have aired. These transcripts will be subject to necessary redactions for legal or national security concerns. This commitment has been referred to by some involved as the “Trump Rule.”
- www.latimes.com
- www.wral.com
- www.forbes.com
- www.local10.com
- www.mediaite.com
According to many observers, this agreement represents a corporate decision aimed primarily at resolving a business impediment. It is seen less as a legal outcome based on the journalistic merits of the case.
The FCC’s Intervention and “News Distortion” Inquiry Role
Adding another layer of pressure to Paramount, Trump-appointed FCC Chairman Brendan Carr became involved in the dispute. Early in 2025, Carr revived a complaint from a conservative group. He then initiated an FCC inquiry into whether the “60 Minutes” edits constituted “news distortion.” This move was widely seen by many experts as unusual. The FCC typically avoids intervening in news content decisions. This stance is based on First Amendment protections against censorship and infringing on editorial independence.
Carr demanded CBS provide the raw footage and full transcripts of the Harris interview. CBS eventually complied with this demand. The FCC subsequently posted the materials online. While the unedited footage reportedly showed that Harris was indeed accurately quoted, it also revealed that her initially rambling response was trimmed to its most cogent sentence for the “60 Minutes” broadcast. The FCC’s inquiry effectively held up the vital approval needed for the transfer of CBS station licenses. This transfer was a required part of the Skydance merger, providing significant leverage to those seeking action from Paramount.
Criticism, Precedent, and Broader Implications
The settlement drew sharp criticism from various groups, including First Amendment advocates and legal experts. They argued that the lawsuit was “frivolous” and lacked legal merit. Many described the settlement itself as a “shake-down” or “extortion.” Organizations like the Freedom of the Press Foundation decried Paramount’s decision. They viewed it as unnecessarily ceding journalistic ground. They also warned it could set a troubling precedent for media companies facing pressure from political figures.
Some U.S. senators raised concerns that a large payment to Trump could be construed in a way that suggests an attempt to influence the FCC approval process for the Skydance merger. This raised potential allegations of bribery.
This Paramount settlement is not an isolated event. It follows a pattern of media companies opting to settle lawsuits with Donald Trump for substantial sums. This occurs even when the legal basis for the suit is viewed as weak. Walt Disney Co. previously paid $16 million ($1 million for legal fees, $15 million to Trump’s library) to settle a lawsuit over comments made by ABC News anchor George Stephanopoulos. Other companies like Meta and X have also reportedly settled with Trump. Experts suggest these settlements represent companies prioritizing business interests and regulatory relationships. They aim to avoid costly legal battles, particularly when dealing with politically connected figures who hold sway over regulatory bodies like the FCC.
Frequently Asked Questions
Why did Paramount settle Trump’s “60 Minutes” lawsuit for $16M?
Paramount Global settled the lawsuit primarily to remove a significant business obstacle. The company was pursuing a proposed $8 billion merger with Skydance Media, which required approval from the Trump-appointed FCC Chairman. The Chairman had opened an inquiry into the “60 Minutes” editing. Settling was seen as a strategic way to facilitate the business deal and avoid a potentially expensive and protracted legal fight. This decision was influenced by financial pressures on controlling shareholder Shari Redstone and pressure from Skydance executives seeking to finalize the merger.
Who receives the $16 million settlement from Paramount?
The $16 million settlement amount is specifically designated to cover the plaintiffs’ legal fees and costs incurred during the lawsuit. Any remaining funds after these expenses are paid will be allocated to Donald Trump’s future presidential library. Neither Donald Trump nor co-plaintiff Ronny Jackson will receive any direct personal payment from the settlement money.
What new rule did CBS News agree to after the Trump settlement?
As a key condition of the settlement agreement, CBS News, operating under parent company Paramount Global, committed that its flagship program “60 Minutes” will release full transcripts of interviews conducted with eligible U.S. presidential candidates. These transcripts will be made public after the interviews have aired. However, they may be subject to necessary redactions for legal or national security concerns. This new practice has been informally termed the “Trump Rule.”
In conclusion, the $16 million settlement between Paramount Global and Donald Trump brings an end to a high-profile legal dispute rooted in a challenged news interview edit. While it avoids a courtroom confrontation over journalistic practices, the agreement clearly highlights the intersection of media companies’ business goals, political pressures, and journalistic independence in the current climate. The commitment to releasing presidential candidate interview transcripts marks a notable, albeit potentially controversial, change in CBS News’ future practices, serving as a direct outcome of this settlement.
