Trump Wants $25 Million To Settle His Meritless 60 Minutes Lawsuit
In a legal filing this week, Trump argued that routine edits to a CBS News interview he did not participate in caused him "confusion and mental anguish."

President Donald Trump is currently suing one of the largest media companies in the country because one of its subsidiaries lightly edited an interview with his political opponent. This week, he apparently declined a settlement offer, even though the lawsuit itself is completely frivolous and arguably an abuse of his power as president.
"Paramount Global in recent days has offered $15 million to settle," The Wall Street Journal reported this week. "Trump's team wants more than $25 million and is also seeking an apology from CBS News."
The whole affair stems from an October 2024 interview that 60 Minutes conducted with then-Vice President Kamala Harris, the Democratic candidate for president. (Trump declined the chance to sit for a 60 Minutes interview of his own.)
In the interview, correspondent Bill Whitaker asked about Israel's war in Gaza. CBS—the broadcast network owned by Paramount—aired separate portions of Harris' answer, one on the 60 Minutes broadcast and a longer snippet on its Sunday morning show Face the Nation.
Trump seized on the different clips and accused CBS of doctoring Harris' answer to make her look better. "Her REAL ANSWER WAS CRAZY, OR DUMB, so they actually REPLACED it with another answer," he wrote on X.
"They took the answer out in its entirety, threw it away, and they put another answer in," he later said at a campaign rally. "And I think it's the biggest scandal in broadcasting history."
Trump sued CBS for $10 billion in "compensatory damages"—amended to $20 billion after he won the election and reassumed the presidency—under a Texas law against deceptive consumer practices. The lawsuit accused CBS of "unlawful acts of election and voter interference."
The lawsuit was flawed from the start: Journalists editing interviewees' answers for time or clarity is both routine and protected by the First Amendment.
And Harris' answer in either clip is not exactly Churchillian: "Harris did not come across as especially forthright, articulate, or intelligent in either version, although the one that 60 Minutes showed was a little more concise," Reason's Jacob Sullum observed. If CBS were trying to do her a favor by swapping out her answer, one imagines they could have done a better job.
Besides, Trump won the election; it's hard to believe he suffered any damages, much less millions of dollars worth. But in a filing this week, Trump's lawyers argued the interview "led to widespread confusion and mental anguish of consumers, including [Trump]."
CBS released the full unedited video and transcript of Whitaker's interview with Harris in February, conclusively demonstrating the scandal was bullshit all along: CBS aired one part of Harris' response on 60 Minutes and another part on Face the Nation. Despite Trump's insistence, nobody "replaced" any part of her answer with another, separate answer.
But instead of defending its journalists by pressing on and letting a judge laugh the lawsuit out of court, Paramount has been negotiating a settlement. CBS News staffers opposed a settlement, fearing the precedent of a journalistic outlet caving to pressure from the powerful interests it covers. Since negotiations began last month, the producer of 60 Minutes and the executive in charge of CBS News each resigned.
But Paramount is in the process of being acquired by Skydance Media, and the transaction requires approval from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Around the same time as Trump's lawsuit, the Center for American Rights, a conservative nonprofit, also filed an FCC complaint for "news distortion" over the interview. And FCC Chair Brendan Carr, whom Trump elevated to the job and who has demonstrated unabashed loyalty to the president, has indicated that approval depends upon the resolution of the complaint, which he is in no hurry to get through.
"It would be entirely inappropriate to consider the complaint against the '60 Minutes' segment as part of a transaction review," FCC Commissioner Anna Gomez told the Los Angeles Times.
Indeed, the lawsuit—especially when paired with the FCC merger approval—smacks of corruption, with Trump trying to cow a disfavored media outlet into silence. Trump's effort is so blatant that Paramount executives reportedly worried they could be prosecuted for bribery of a public official if they settled the lawsuit.
Of course, this puts Paramount, CBS, and 60 Minutes in a perilous position: If Paramount—which has been struggling for years—hopes to save itself through a merger with Skydance, it must win over the FCC, whose current head apparently delights in being referred to as "Trump's media pit bull." Doing so will apparently require bending the knee and paying a fee for hurting Trump's feelings, even though by all accounts, 60 Minutes violated neither the law nor journalistic ethics.
And if Paramount does cave and pay $25 million or more—worse still, if it apologizes for the sin of doing basic journalism—it will set a dangerous precedent that powerful people can openly and unabashedly bully the journalists who cover them into silence.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
In a legal filing this week, Trump argued that routine edits to a CBS News interview he did not participate in caused him "confusion and mental anguish."
Look at President Feelings over here.
Remember how you still defend 1.5B against Alex Jones and the Fox News 750M. Good times. Good times.
Sarc is above petty things like principles.
But not above principals.
"Sarc is above petty things like principles"
Sarc has loads more principles than normal people. Double even.
He has so many that he can hold an entirely different set for Democrats than Republicans.
how about the 80 million for a rape hustler psycho.. and 400million for a no loss no fault land deal with banks?
Sarc approves of those outcomes. Principals over principles.
The 941 West Pointers upon whom Trump inflicted confusion and mental anguish last week deserve at least a million each.
You have truly gotten dumber these last few months lol.
CBS offered $15 million to settle. Not meritless .
I'm sure they will get approval in writing for their merger, so Trumpy gets his 15
He rejected 15. Which is good. This should go to trial. And I’m betting discovery will lead to a treasure trove of potential evidence for a criminal trial.
Discovery will be delicious. Hopefully the paymasters are identified.
"And I think it's the biggest scandal in broadcasting history."
Not bigger than Nipplegate, surely?
The real scandal is PBS failure to loop the "because you're on television, dummy!" riff from Network 24-7 to remind us we were duly warned a long tome ago.
According to Sullum, settlements mean guilt. See his fox news defamation stories.
Did he really write that?
https://reason.com/2023/04/18/in-a-788-million-defamation-settlement-fox-news-admits-that-it-spread-false-claims-about-election-fraud/
Sullum never fails to fuck himself over later.
Shari Redstone is a sellout for even being willing to negotiate. Trump has no case. And she didn't used to be like this.
No case? Why did they offer $15 million?
Meh, lots of suits get settled just to make them go away.
Riiiiight. For $15 million.
Because they are attempting to bribe the president so that their merger goes through. I didn't even know that anyone disputed that. (There is no attorney on earth who, if you gave him or her a truth serum, would say that this a legitimate case--including Trump's attorneys on this case.)
They don’t want lawyers digging into their shit.
^THIS^
Exactly. Look how discovery worked out for CNN in that defamation case with that veteran who was smuggling people out of Afghanistan. They looked like total assholes. I’ll bet internal communications at CBS are even worse.
CBS does NOT want this to proceed.
But bribing public officials is a crime...didn't think that response through did you sparky.
You’re so desperate and retarded. Trump has a good case and he is winning. So now you’re having a sad.
Because they are out of money, and the merger will put more cash in her account Waymore than the 15 million it's all about the money don't worry after the midterms all these fucking Trumpy's are going to be lawyering up.
You’re so butthurt.
You’re a pathetic faggot. So angry, shrill and desperate.
Seethe harder.
There's an awful lot I see on the news that causes me confusion and mental anguish. Where's my $25 million?
Well, if you can arrange for a jury of your actual peers (AKA 12 dudes from the Reason comments section) you're pretty likely to get it.
"lightly edited"
First sentence. Stopped reading right there. It was clearly edited to not make her look like an absolute idiot.
"Look like"???
"Reveal her as"... would have been the editorial advice I would have given
That's more editorial advice than Reason gets.
Fuck CBS. Bankrupt them. They committed fraud in their campaign contributions for Kamala Harris. Lefty shits like them like to trot out "Trump's a felon" while pulling this shit.
TACO Boy.
You lost big. Seethe harder bitch.
...in their campaign contributions for Kamala... this is the real point.
Extremely alpha to suffer $20 billion in mental anguish from seeing your opponent answer a question semi-okay.
"Routine Edits" - GTFO. Go gaslight somewhere else, like MSNBC
Trouble is, that wasn’t her answer.
60 Minutes recut her entire interview fraudulently to protect their candidate they were actively trying to install into office. In reality, that drunk, regarded word salad babbling bitch gave no ‘semi ok’ answers.
But continue to scream and bitch. Your impotent whining is hilarious.
Bet you supported the 1.5B against Alex Jones. Or the fox judgement against an already failing business?
The facts show it isn't meritless. Why would I bother reading an article when right out of the gate the author shows he will dishonestly frame it and has zero interest in entertaining arguments outside of his selected narrative. Fucking hell. If these writers weren't so talentless then they would be better placed on NYT or WaPo.
A lot of agreement. I'll work in reverse order.
The majority of Reason's staff can only be published at a niche magazine under the claim of speaking for libertarianism. Which, of course, they don't. And as you say, if they had to compete with the 98% of writers who share their left-of-center politics, they would have zero shot at publication. Little pond, big untalented fish.
As to the merits of the case, the left and their "libertarian" friends have always been of the belief that settlements = guilt. So I'll go ahead and apply their rules equally. The real reason these "news" companies are settling is that they don't want to release their internal communications under deposition, because they show exactly what you think they show. Back-and-forth conversations with members of the DNC about how to best assist their efforts.
The fox news / dominion voting systems settlement was particularly strange. Dominion paid its shareholders (private equity) a special dividend with the proceeds of the settlement. The company was in no way harmed by all the conspiracy theories. Fox's legal counsel got absolutely worked. It would be interesting to know what they were so scared of.
Their financial data has been released post trial. They were hemorrhaging money. All the clients they claim the lost were lost before the fox comments. Even Venezuela booted them a year prior for their shit broken systems.
take the 15 + the apology. the apology is worth the extra 10
Discovery ain't just a bad Star Trek show.
First Trek show I gave up on. I considered going back to finish it, but then they had Stacy Abrams play the president of earth. No goddamned way I was going to watch that fat lying Marxist cunt pollute Star Trek.
A 12(b)(6) might run $5k if you are spending too much time on the issue(s). Rule 11 exists for a reason. Paramount's money-where-mouth-is offer would seem to "trump" the author's handwringing.
I love it when these pigs squeal because they’re finally being held accountable.
CBS didnt appear to think it was meritless... I believe they figured it was worth around... what ... 12 million dollars?
15!
And Harris' answer in either clip is not exactly Churchillian: "Harris did not come across as especially forthright, articulate, or intelligent in either version, although the one that 60 Minutes showed was a little more concise," Reason's Jacob Sullum observed.
Reason writers citing their own staff! *drink*
Paramount has been negotiating a settlement.
Ask yourself why, Joe. There's a bit more of a legal answer to it than, "lol Trump doesn't have a case, derp!"
Despite Trump's insistence, nobody "replaced" any part of her answer with another, separate answer.
You clown hack. If you really think that's the issue here, then you're a walking talking living example of why America has now fully embraced the maxim: "You don't hate journalists enough. You think you do, but you don't."
What they did was the equivalent of "reporting" something they knew was intentionally deceptive and misleading, and then coming back with a "correction" later that they knew nobody would read.
It would have been like the NY Times putting a huge font headline, "KAMALA IS THE SINGLE GREATEST MIND AND ORATOR OF OUR TIME" above the fold, and then a few days later putting a "* Correction to our previous October story... she's actually clearly a gibbering retard" buried somewhere between last night's cricket scores and the property listings.
Which, btw, is a thing they do.
“Trump argued that routine edits to a CBS News interview” (emphasis mine)
Did we watch the same interview?
If they could have edited this out of existence they would have. Look at Biden's townhall. What other tragically comedic material did they not release?
So, Ukraine is a country in Europe. It exists next to another country called Russia. Russia is a bigger country. Russia is a powerful country. Russia decided to invade a smaller country called Ukraine. So, basically, that's wrong, and it goes against everything that we stand for.
Replacing one answer to a question with an answer to another question is beyond the pale of editing.