Paramount Global, the parent company of CBS News, said it has agreed to pay $16 million to President Trump’s foundation for his future presidential library to settle a lawsuit he filed over the editing of a 60 Minutes interview with former Vice President Kamala Harris during last fall’s elections.

The settlement includes Paramount paying Trump’s legal fees, CBS News and other outlets reported. The settlement did not include an apology.

As part of the settlement, Paramount also agreed that 60 Minutes will release transcripts of interviews with presidential candidates in the future, although they may be redacted due to legal or national security concerns, CBS reported.

Legal observers spanning the ideological spectrum say Trump’s lawsuit spuriously alleges election interference over the kind of discretionary editorial choices that routinely confront broadcast journalists.

As a result, the settlement represents a bitter blow to CBS News and its crown jewel 60 Minutes — not for what it broadcast or reported, but for a deal struck by corporate executives many layers above them.

Trump’s lawsuit centers on a 60 Minutes interview conducted last fall with then-Vice President Kamala Harris, shown above. It used different portions of Harris’ answer to the same question for two different shows.

CBS News via the Federal Communications Commission/FCC YouTube account

hide caption

toggle caption

CBS News via the Federal Communications Commission/FCC YouTube account

60 Minutes Executive Producer Bill Owens had told colleagues he would refuse to apologize. The chief executive of CBS News and its local stations, Wendy McMahon, had opposed settling.

Each ultimately resigned this spring, saying their departures would smooth a path for the program and the news division to continue independent-minded reporting. 60 Minutes is the longest running prime-time series in American television.

CBS’s legal team repeatedly made robust legal defenses even as attorneys for Paramount Global sought to strike a deal with the president’s private lawyers.

Yet Paramount’s controlling owner, Shari Redstone, has billions of dollars at stake as she seeks to close a sale of the company to Skydance Media. The deal is under formal review by the Federal Communications Commission, now led by Trump’s pick as chairman, Brendan Carr.

“This is protection money”

Last fall, CBS News used one version of Harris’s answer to a question on Gaza from 60 Minutes correspondent Bill Whitaker for Face The Nation, and another for the lengthier treatment on 60 Minutes itself.

In the case, filed before a Trump-appointed federal judge in Eastern Texas, Trump’s legal team argued that CBS engaged in “unlawful acts of election and voter interference through malicious, deceptive and substantial news distortion.”

“Am I supposed to take that seriously?” asks University of Richmond law professor Carl Tobias, who specializes in First Amendment issues. “I do not understand how suits that are arguably frivolous or meritless — that have very little substance and wouldn’t amount to large judgment if you went to trial — are then settled for millions of dollars.”

“It’s laughable and it’s an affront to the First Amendment,” Northwestern University law professor Heidi Kitrosser says of Trump’s case. “His concern first and foremost is to intimidate the press.”

CBS and Paramount are far from alone in seeking to make peace with Trump. ABC News’s parent company, the Walt Disney Co., paid $15 million to a future foundation and museum for Trump to settle a lawsuit over incorrect remarks by anchor George Stephanopoulos, who said Trump had been found liable for rape in a civil suit. He hadn’t; A New York City jury rejected that count but found Trump liable for sexual assault.

Elsewhere, Meta paid $25 million to resolve a suit from Trump over his removal from Facebook after the January 2021 siege of the U.S. Capitol.

Disney’s attorneys feared they could lose if the case went to trial, though media lawyers said it was likely to prevail on the merits. Meta had an even stronger case, outside lawyers say.

Elon Musk’s social media platform X paid $10 million to settle still another Trump lawsuit. All these corporations have major business interests that can be regulated by government officials. In Musk’s case, his SpaceX also has contracts with the federal government worth billions of dollars.

The FCC is reviewing the acquisition of Paramount by Skydance because it entails the transfer of Paramount’s licenses to use the public airwaves for its 27 local television stations.

“I think that they believe they’re buying peace,” Kitrosser says, pointing to the confluence of the legal settlement of Trump’s private litigation and the federal review by his regulators. “That’s part of what’s going on: this is protection money.”

An involved FCC chief

Skydance Media CEO David Ellison is the son of Oracle co-founder Larry Ellison, whose billions are underwriting the deal for Paramount. Trump has hosted the tech titan at the White House and considers him a friend.

In mid-June, after seeing David Ellison at an ultimate fighting match in Newark, N.J., Trump praised the Skydance chief and said he hoped the deal would be approved. “Ellison’s great. He’ll do a great job with it.”

Oracle co-founder, CTO and Executive Chairman Larry Ellison and President Trump share a laugh as Ellison uses a stool to stand on as he speaks during a news conference about artificial intelligence investments in the White House on January 21, 2025.

Andrew Harnik/Getty Images/Getty Images North America

hide caption

toggle caption

Andrew Harnik/Getty Images/Getty Images North America

The litigation filed by Trump tangled up any such approval by the FCC, however.

Indeed, FCC Chairperson Carr gave ballast to Trump’s suit by requesting CBS share raw footage and full transcripts of the 60 Minutes interview with Harris, which was one of Trump’s demands. Carr did so after reviving a complaint against CBS that had been filed by a conservative public interest group. Carr’s Democratic predecessor had dismissed the complaint in her final days in office.

CBS had previously refused to release the raw materials, citing the importance of maintaining journalistic independence from governmental interference.

Shortly after Carr’s request, CBS announced it was legally required to comply, though the network has challenged the agency’s requests and demands in the past. (One such appeal, over a complaint filed by the late former President Jimmy Carter, reached the U.S. Supreme Court in 1981.)

After receiving the unedited material, the FCC publicly posted links to it and CBS swiftly followed suit. The network also published a statement that said the material showed there had been no bias in how they presented the Harris interview. Carr said he would keep a review open for six weeks to allow the public to weigh in.

Carr told Fox News that day that an investigation was warranted under “news distortion” concerns because CBS broadcast different answers on two different programs to the same question. “The [FCC] policy says you can’t, you know, swap answers out to make it look like somebody said something entirely different,” Carr said. “Clearly, the words of the answers were very different.”

The transcripts appear to show that CBS editors pulled from slightly different points in the same response, with Harris speaking vaguely as she attempted to sidestep controversy over the incendiary issue of the Israel-Hamas.

After the transcript’s release, Trump denounced CBS. “CBS should lose its license, and the cheaters at 60 Minutes should all be thrown out, and this disreputable ‘NEWS’ show should be immediately terminated,” Trump posted online. (CBS as a network doesn’t hold a license; the local stations on which it is broadcast do.)

“That’s not a veiled threat — it’s an open threat,” Tobias says of Trump’s remarks. “Look at what’s already poured in — millions into his coffers [from media companies].”

Tobias puts the settlement in the context of the FCC’s new agenda under Carr, with agency reviews of programming on ABC, CBS and NBC. Carr has also ordered a formal investigation into whether corporate underwriting spots aired by NPR and PBS have evolved into full-fledged commercials and says he believes Congress should eliminate funding for the public broadcasters. (The two networks say they take pains to abide by federal law and the FCC’s own guidance.)

Some of the network’s stars had openly lobbied Paramount not to settle. Others were anticipating it with a sense of mourning. Tobias suggested they didn’t stand a chance.

Carr “is leveraging Trump’s power and the whole force of the government to come down on major aspects of the press,” Tobias said. “Who’s going to stand up to Trump? Nobody. Certainly not the Congress — not the Senate or the House. So you’ve got the press.

“But now the press, you’re seeing them operating on their own interests. And they’re settling these cases that are not very strong on the merits.”

Protesters railed on Tuesday against an Orange County congresswoman who could be a critical vote on President Trump’s proposal to cut more than $1 trillion in federal dollars that helped pay for healthcare for those in need and extend tax cuts for millions of Americans.

Trump’s proposed “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” narrowly passed the U.S. Senate hours before hundreds of people gathered in a cul-de-sac outside of the Anaheim field office of Republican Rep. Young Kim to protest those cuts. The legislation still needs to be voted on by the U.S. House of Representatives, which could happen before the end of the week.

“I don’t know why they call it beautiful, because there’s nothing about it that’s beautiful. It’s harmful, it’s reckless, and it’s cruel, and it’s going to hurt people,” said Melody Mendenhall, a nurse at UCLA who is active with the California Nurses Assn., which was among the groups that organized the protest. “Rep. Young Kim, hear our cry, hear our voices. We need our Medicaid. We cannot afford this type of reckless cuts and behavior.”

A security guard blocked the parking lot to Kim’s office and at least a half-dozen Anaheim police officers watched the protest unfold.

Several people who appeared to be Kim staffers watched the demonstration from outside the building before they dashed inside when protesters marched to the building, unsuccessfully sought to enter it and then began chanting “Shame! Shame!”

In a statement, Kim said that her door was always open to Californians in her district.

“I understand some of my constituents are concerned and know how important Medicaid services are for many in my community, which is why I voted to protect and strengthen Medicaid services for our most vulnerable citizens who truly need it,” Kim said. “I have met with many of these local healthcare advocates in recent months.”

Trump’s proposal would dramatically overhaul the nation’s tax code by making cuts approved during the president’s first term permanent, a major benefit to the corporations and the nation’s wealthy, while slashing funding for historic federal safety-net programs including Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, which helps provide food to low-income Americans.

Roughly 15 million Californians, more than a third of the state, are on Medi-Cal, the state’s version of Medicaid, with some of the highest percentages in rural counties that supported Trump in the November election. More than half of California children receive healthcare coverage through Medi-Cal.

A version of the Republican bill was passed by the U.S. House of Representatives with Kim’s support. The U.S. Senate narrowly approved an amended version of the bill on Tuesday. The defection of three GOP senators meant Vice President JD Vance had to cast the tie-breaking vote for it to pass in that chamber.

The House and Senate will now work to reconcile their two different versions of the bill. This week was a district work week for members of Congress, but House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-Louisiana) ordered members back to Washington, D.C., for votes on the bill that could occur Wednesday or Thursday.

Republicans hope to get the legislation to President Trump’s desk for his signature by Friday, Independence Day, though there is some concern among its members about whether they will have enough votes to pass the bill because of potential defections and the united Democratic opposition.

An analysis released by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office on Sunday estimated that the Senate version of the proposal would increase the national deficit by nearly $3.3 trillion from 2025 to 2034 and would result in 11.8 million Americans losing health insurance in less than a decade.

Trump praised the passage of the bill on social media and urged House Republicans to support the Senate plan.

The proposal has caused a rift within the GOP, with and some House members have expressed reservations about the measure because of the amount it would add to the nation’s deficit and its impact on their constituents.

“I’ve been clear from the start that I will not support a final reconciliation bill that makes harmful cuts to Medicaid, puts critical funding at risk, or threatens the stability of healthcare providers” in his congressional district, Rep. David Valadao (R-Hanford) wrote on the social media site X on Sunday.

He represents more than half a million Central Valley residents who rely on Medicaid — the most of any congressional district in California, according to the UC Berkeley Labor Center. A spokesperson for Valadao on Tuesday didn’t respond to a question about how the congressman planned to vote.

Kim’s Orange County district is more affluent than Valadao’s, but roughly one in five of her constituents relies on Medicaid.

The congresswoman was en route to Washington at the time of the protest, according to a spokesperson.

Outside her Anaheim field office, protester after protester described how the bill would impact vulnerable Californians, such as disabled children, the elderly, veterans and those who would lose access to reproductive healthcare.

“The stakes have never been higher. We are living in a time when our rights are under attack,” said Emily Escobar, a public advocacy manager for Planned Parenthood of Orange and San Bernardino Counties.

She said that federal funds do not pay for abortions, but help pay for other vital healthcare, such as cancer screenings, preventative care, testing and treatment for sexually transmitted infections and access to contraception. More than one-third of Planned Parenthood’s patients nationwide reside in California.

These cuts will result in clinics being shut down, effectively reducing access to abortion, Escobar said.

“Let me make this clear, this bill is a backdoor abortion ban,” she said.

Shari Home, 73, said she and her husband were weighing how to divide their Social Security income on food, medication and medical supplies after her husband, who suffers several chronic health conditions, fell last year.

“The hospitalizations were so expensive, so we applied for and got Medi-Cal in January and food assistance, and it’s been such a lifesaver,” said the Laguna Woods resident. “Without Medi-Cal, I don’t know what we would do. Our lives would not be good. We would not have the medications that he needs.”

Michelle Del Rosario, 57, wore a button picturing her son William, 25, on her blouse. The Orange resident, one of Kim’s constituents who has previously voted for her, is the primary caregiver for her son, who has autism, epilepsy and does not speak.

Her son relies on his Medi-Cal coverage for his $5,000-a-month seizure medicine, as well as the home health support he receives, she said.

“He lives at home. He has desires, at some point, to live independently, to work, but he needs” these support services for that to happen, Del Rosario said.