After months of legal negotiations and wrangling, the question was less about whether Paramount would settle with Donald Trump, and more about how much the president’s lawyers would agree to. As NBC News reported, that question now has an answer.
Paramount has agreed to pay $16 million to settle a lawsuit brought by President Donald Trump that had alleged an interview that aired on CBS’s “60 Minutes” last year with Kamala Harris, his Democratic opponent for the presidency, was deceptively edited. The agreement in principle, proposed by a mediator, includes plaintiffs’ fees and costs and — except for fees and costs — will be allocated to Trump’s future presidential library, Paramount Global said in a statement late Tuesday.
The company did not apologize as part of the deal or admit any fault. Nevertheless, the plaintiff wasted little time in gloating: In a written statement from a presidential spokesperson, Team Trump boasted that the settlement “holds the Fake News media accountable for their wrongdoing and deceit.”
Except that’s not what happened.
By now, the basic elements of this story are probably familiar, but to briefly recap, shortly before the 2024 presidential election, it’s customary for the major party nominees to sit down for “60 Minutes” interviews. Last fall, Harris agreed, while Trump initially accepted the invitation before backing out soon after.
Harris’ interview wasn’t especially memorable — it was, however, nominated for an Emmy Award — though Trump has whined incessantly about it for several months, claiming that the program deceptively edited the segment. The Republican’s claims have already been thoroughly discredited, but his hysterics have only gotten worse: The president recently accused “60 Minutes” of, among other things, “unlawful and illegal behavior.”
Trump added that CBS should lose its broadcast license and “pay a big price,” while calling on the Federal Communications Commission to “impose the maximum fines and punishment.”
But it was Trump’s civil suit against CBS that was of particular interest, in which he asked for $20 billion in damages (that’s not a typo), based on his conspiratorial beliefs about the news magazine’s election coverage.
Given the bizarre nature of Trump’s assertions, and the fact that there really wasn’t anything meaningfully wrong with the broadcast, it was unclear why anyone would take the civil suit seriously, or why the case would need to be settled at all.
Indeed, after Paramount Global entered settlement negotiations, critics expressed fears that the company was prepared to turn over millions of dollars, not because “60 Minutes” did anything untoward, but because Paramount wants the Trump administration to approve an unrelated merger deal.
Paramount on Tuesday cited a previous statement regarding the Skydance merger. “This lawsuit is completely separate from and unrelated to the Skydance transaction and the FCC approval process,” it said.
Those assurances are unlikely to quiet concerns that the corporation is writing a $16 million check to Trump’s future presidential library because Paramount hopes to influence the Trump administration’s decision-making process.
In fact, The Wall Street Journal reported last week, “Over the past few months, Paramount leaders have been wrestling with how to pay to settle the lawsuit without exposing directors and officers to liability in potential future shareholder litigation or to criminal charges for bribing a public official.”
This dynamic was not lost on Capitol Hill observers. “Paramount appears to be trying to settle a lawsuit that it has assessed as ‘completely without merit,’” Democratic Sens. Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders and Ron Wyden said in a recent letter to Chairwoman Shari Redstone. “Under the federal bribery statute, it is illegal to corruptly give anything of value to public officials to influence an official act. If Paramount officials make these concessions in a quid pro quo arrangement to influence President Trump or other Administration officials, they may be breaking the law.” Now that the settlement is official, and Paramount is paying Team Trump to settle a case that appears baseless, it’s likely these questions are poised to grow considerably louder. Wyden on Wednesday accused Paramount of paying Trump “a bribe for merger approval.” He continued: “When Democrats retake power, I’ll be first in line calling for federal charges. In the meantime, state prosecutors should make the corporate execs who sold out our democracy answer in court, today.” Warren had a similar reaction. “This looks like bribery in plain sight,” the Massachusetts Democrat said in a statement posted to Bluesky. “Paramount folded at the same time it needs Trump’s approval for a billion-dollar merger. I’m calling for an investigation into whether any anti-bribery laws were broken, and I’m working on a new bill to rein in this kind of corruption.” This ongoing debacle has already cost the network — over the last couple of months, the head of CBS News and the executive producer of “60 Minutes” have both stepped down — and those costs are now more than $16 million higher. As for the specific figure, The New York Times reported, “The size of the settlement, $16 million, is the same sum that ABC News agreed to pay in December to settle a defamation case filed by Mr. Trump against the network and one of its anchors, George Stephanopoulos.” This is a developing story. Check back for updates.
Steve Benen is a producer for "The Rachel Maddow Show," the editor of MaddowBlog and an MS NOW political contributor. He's also the bestselling author of "Ministry of Truth: Democracy, Reality, and the Republicans' War on the Recent Past."
Latest Post
Recommended
