Donald Trump, Paramount Global, 60 Minutes, lawsuit, settlement, defamation”>
WASHINGTON, July 02, 2025
Paramount Pays Millions to Trump
Settlement concludes a contentious legal battle.
- Paramount Global will pay $16 million to settle a lawsuit with Donald trump.
- the lawsuit stemmed from a “60 Minutes” report.
- The settlement avoids a potential court battle.
- Concerns were raised about corporate influence over journalistic integrity.
The payment by Paramount Global to Donald Trump resolves a legal challenge to a “60 Minutes” report, with the settlement totaling US $16 million.
Corporate Priorities vs. Journalistic principles
Paramount Global agreed on Tuesday night to pay US $16 million to resolve a demand filed by former President Donald Trump regarding a “60 Minutes” news report from 2024.
Paramount stated the US $16 million “includes the fees and costs of the plaintiffs.” Trump will not be paid directly; the funds will go to his future presidential library, similar to an agreement ABC reached with Trump last December.
“The agreement does not include a declaration of apology or regret,” paramount specified.
The announcement also stated that “’60 Minutes’ will publish interview transcripts with elected U.S. presidential candidates after such interviews have been issued, subject to necessary edits for legal or national security reasons.”
Legal Experts Weigh In
Legal experts initially deemed trump’s demand frivolous, suggesting CBS had strong grounds to win in court.
Though, corporate considerations took precedence. Paramount is pursuing a fusion with Skydance Media, requiring the Trump administration’s approval due to CBS’s local government licenses.
This situation gave Trump leverage over Paramount, potentially pressuring the company to settle.
Paramount stated on Tuesday night that “this lawsuit is completely self-reliant and is not related to the Skydance transaction or the approval process of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). We will adhere to the legal process to defend our case.”
FCC President Brendan Carr also stated that his merger review process is independent. However, before his promotion, Carr suggested complaints about the “60 Minutes” edition could be part of the FCC fusion review.
External analysts and press freedom groups suggest the public should recognize the troubling nature of Trump’s payment from Paramount.
“Everyone knows that the case is not worth US $ 20 million,not even 20 cents,in terms of legal merit,” the Foundation for Press Freedom declared last week. “It is more than frivolous, and that is a lot to say given the countless frivolous demands that Trump has presented.”
The Genesis of the Lawsuit
Trump’s lawsuit, filed before his re-election, targeted a “60 Minutes” interview with then-Vice President Kamala Harris. He claimed, without evidence, that the exchange was deliberately edited to favor the Democratic candidate and harm him.
Conservative media watchdogs noted that CBS aired different audio fragments of Harris’s response to Bill Whitaker’s question about the Biden administration’s relationship with Israel amid the Gaza war. One fragment aired on “Face the Nation,” and another on “60 Minutes,” causing public confusion.
As criticism grew and Trump threatened legal action,CBS stated it edited Harris’s response for time,consistent with television news standards,and declined to release the full transcription.
trump escalated the situation, alleging “electoral interference” and calling it “the greatest scandal in the history of broadcasting.” He accused CBS News of violating a Texas consumer protection law, initially seeking US $10 billion in damages, later raising the demand to US $20 billion.
Legal experts called the demand “frivolous and risky,” while CBS defended “60 Minutes” based on the First Amendment.
Under FCC scrutiny,CBS released the tapes and transcription,which confirmed it was a standard edit,not the malicious act Trump claimed.
However, the lawsuit posed a significant problem for Paramount, particularly for Shari redstone, its controlling shareholder, poised to gain hundreds of millions from the Skydance agreement.
After Trump’s second mandate, Paramount executives sought to resolve the demand through an agreement. Critics inside and outside CBS described the proposed agreement as akin to bribery.
A chain correspondent stated earlier this year, “everyone thinks that this demand is an act of extortion, everyone.”
Democratic legislators voiced concerns that an agreement might violate anti-bailout laws. The media company appears to be avoiding these concerns by paying the same amount as Disney in a similar case last December.
Trump’s Legal Campaigns Against Media Outlets
Trump’s demand against CBS was part of a broader effort to target media he deemed unfavorable. He sued The Des Moines Register and pollster J. Ann Selzer last December over a pre-election survey showing Harris leading in Iowa. Trump claimed the survey violated consumer fraud protections; the Register is contesting the lawsuit.
He also sued ABC News,claiming defamation by presenter George Stephanopoulos. That case was resolved, creating a model for the Paramount agreement.
Internal Turmoil at CBS
CBS’s newsroom was consumed by Trump’s pressure, the prospect of a settlement, and corporate maneuvers related to the merger.
This internal conflict became public in late April when Bill Owens,executive producer of “60 Minutes,” resigned,citing a loss of editorial independence. Days later, “60 Minutes” correspondent Scott Pelley criticized Paramount live, revealing executives “began to supervise our content in new ways” amid the fusion. “No one here is happy,” he said.
A month later, Wendy McMahon, an executive with CBS News, also resigned. In her farewell note, she referred to “difficult” recent months, adding, “It has been clear that the company and I do not agree on the way to follow.”
Simultaneously occurring, “60 Minutes” continued to produce investigations on Trump and other topics, including his efforts to punish law firms he dislikes.
Why did Paramount settle with Trump?
Paramount Global settled with Donald Trump to resolve a lawsuit stemming from a “60 Minutes” report. This decision was influenced by corporate priorities, including an impending merger with Skydance Media needing administrative approval.
Additional Context: A Pattern of Strategic Settlements
The settlement between Paramount and Donald Trump marks a continuation of a pattern.Trump has used legal action against media outlets, leading to settlements that critics say enable him to silence unfavorable coverage, a strategy that raises serious questions about press freedom and corporate ethics.
The decision by Paramount to settle has sparked a debate regarding the influence of corporate interests over journalistic integrity and the potential for these deals to set negative precedents.
Benefits & Practical Tips
Analyzing the Paramount settlement offers valuable lessons for media companies, public relations professionals, and anyone concerned with the intersection of media and politics. Here are actionable insights:
- Understand the Risks: Media companies must assess potential legal vulnerabilities and the true cost of defending their work in court.
- Prioritize Editorial Independence: Upholding journalistic principles is essential, even when facing pressure from powerful figures or entities.
- Anticipate Political Implications: consider the political climate and potential for legal actions to be used for political gain.
- Evaluate Potential Conflicts: Recognize and address any conflicts of interest, such as mergers or acquisitions, that could influence decision-making.
- Develop crisis Communication Strategies: Media organizations should proactively establish plans for responding to legal challenges and public criticism.
Case Studies: Similar Settlements
Trump’s approach mirrors deals from other high-profile figures, as the ABC settlement also bears striking resemblance to Paramount’s agreement, highlighting a model where legal disputes are resolved through monetary payments.
these settlements are not unusual, and these cases highlight a trend where those in positions of power use legal action to influence media coverage and possibly silence critics.
Myths vs. Facts
Several misconceptions surround the Paramount settlement. Here’s a breakdown:
| Myth | Fact |
|---|---|
| The settlement proves Trump’s claims against CBS were valid. | the settlement does not validate Trump’s claims but resolves a legal dispute. |
| Paramount settled due to legal weakness. | The settlement was influenced by corporate priorities, and the potential risks of a merger could affect Paramount’s decision |
| The amount paid indicates a fair assessment of damages. | The settlement figure is a negotiated sum, not a determination of the actual damages incurred. |
FAQs
Here are some frequently asked questions regarding the settlement and its broader implications:
Why did Paramount choose to settle with Trump?
Paramount executives saw that the settlement was influenced by corporate strategy, including a pending merger and the need for regulatory cooperation.
What are the broader implications of this settlement for media integrity?
The settlement raises concerns about external parties potentially influencing news coverage and the importance of editorial independence.
How does this settlement compare to Trump’s other legal actions against media outlets?
This settlement is similar to the pattern of using legal claims as part of Trump’s strategy to criticize and challenge media outlets.
Could settlements like these become more common?
It’s probable, especially in politically charged contexts where media companies face legal challenges from powerful individuals.
What can be done to protect press freedom in this environment?
It is essential to safeguard journalistic principles, hold media businesses responsible, and expose attempts to influence news coverage for all.
{“@context”:”https://schema.org”,”@type”:”FAQPage”,”mainEntity”:[{“@type”:”Question”,”name”:”Why did Paramount choose to settle with Trump?”,”acceptedAnswer”:{“@type”:”Answer”,”text”:”Paramount executives saw that the settlement was influenced by corporate strategy, including a pending merger and the need for regulatory cooperation.”}},{“@type”:”Question”,”name”:”What are the broader implications of this settlement for media integrity?”,”acceptedAnswer”:{“@type”:”Answer”,”text”:”The settlement raises concerns about external parties potentially influencing news coverage and the importance of editorial independence.”}},{“@type”:”Question”,”name”:”how does this settlement compare to Trump’s other legal actions against media outlets?”,”acceptedAnswer”:{“@type”:”Answer”,”text”:”This settlement is similar to the pattern of using legal claims as part of Trump’s strategy to criticize and challenge media outlets.”}},{“@type”:”Question”,”name”:”Could settlements like these become more common?”,”acceptedAnswer”:{“@type”:”Answer”,”text”:”It’s probable, especially in politically charged contexts where media companies face legal challenges from powerful individuals.”}},{“@type”:”Question”,”name”:”What can be done to protect press freedom in this environment?”,”acceptedAnswer”:{“@type”:”answer”,”text”:”It is essential to safeguard journalistic principles, hold media businesses responsible, and expose attempts to influence news coverage for all.”}}]}
Table of Contents
