US Senator Elizabeth Warren urges bribery probe over Trump-Paramount settlement
The president had sued the CBS News parent company for $20 billion, claiming the "60 Minutes" program had deceptively edited an interview with his 2024 election rival Kamala Harris in her favor.
The suit is described by Trump's critics as part of a broader assault on press freedom that has seen him bar The Associated Press from the Oval Office and sue other media organizations over their coverage.
Paramount nevertheless entered into mediation in a bid to placate Trump, as it seeks to close its $8 billion merger with the entertainment company Skydance, which needs federal government approval.
"With Paramount folding to Donald Trump at the same time the company needs his administration's approval for its billion-dollar merger, this could be bribery in plain sight," said Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren, a Democrat. "Paramount has refused to provide answers to a congressional inquiry, so I'm calling for a full investigation into whether or not any anti-bribery laws were broken."
Warren was among three senators who wrote to Paramount Global Chair Shari Redstone in May with bribery concerns over the company's efforts to settle the suit, calling for a congressional probe.
Republicans control both chambers of Congress, limiting the power of Democrats to investigate or compel answers from witnesses.
The senators' letter came after CBS News head Wendy McMahon and "60 Minutes" executive producer Bill Owens quit over Paramount's handling of the showdown with Trump.
'Paramount's surrender'
The company initially called the suit "completely without merit" and sought to have it dismissed. It said in a statement to AFP the $16 million would go toward Trump's future presidential library rather than to him personally, and added that the settlement did not include an apology.
In Wednesday's shareholders meeting, Paramount co-CEO George Cheeks said companies often settle litigation to avoid high legal costs and the unpredictability of a trial. Settlement allows a company to focus on its objectives "rather than being mired in uncertainty and distraction," Cheeks said. But it was received by Trump's legal team with excitement. With the settlement, a spokesman said, Trump "delivers another win for the American people."
Warren said the company should be "ashamed of putting its profits over independent journalism" in the face of the Trump administration's "sheer corruption."
Trump accused CBS of airing two different snippets from the same answer that Harris, then vice president, gave about Israel, to help her in her election campaign.
Legal experts have argued that the lawsuit would have been an easy victory in court for CBS, which made public an unedited transcript of the Harris interview. And media watchers have pointed out that Trump routinely takes part in interviews that are edited for all manner of reasons, often in his favor.
'First Amendment undermined'
"This settlement is a cowardly capitulation by the corporate leaders of Paramount, and a fundamental betrayal of '60 Minutes' and CBS News," said Rome Hartman, who helped produce the Harris interview for the show. "The story that was the subject of this lawsuit was edited by the book and in accordance with CBS News standards."
CBS journalists stood united against the deal, seemingly in the works for months. In a letter to Paramount's leadership in early May, the "60 Minutes" correspondents said they were troubled by reports that Paramount might settle the case "in a way that acknowledges some sort of wrongdoing on our part."
The correspondents, in the letter obtained by The Associated Press, said that "if our parent company caves in to his pressure and lies, it will leave a shameful stain and undermine the First Amendment." It was signed by Whitaker, Lesley Stahl, Scott Pelley, Anderson Cooper, Sharyn Alfonsi, Jon Wertheim and Cecilia Vega.
"Paramount's decision to capitulate to Trump threatens journalists' ability to do their job reporting on powerful public figures," the Writers Guild of America East, which represents "60 Minutes" journalists, said in a statement.
ABC News, owned by Disney, agreed to donate a similar amount to the Trump presidential library in its own settlement with the president late last year. Trump had contended that star ABC anchor George Stephanopoulos had defamed him by asserting that Trump had been found liable for rape in a civil lawsuit brought by writer E. Jean Carroll, when he was found liable for sexual abuse.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
France 24
36 minutes ago
- France 24
US Supreme Court to weigh transgender athlete bans
The court said it would hear a case next term challenging state laws in Idaho and West Virginia banning transgender athletes from female competition. More than two dozen US states have passed laws in recent years barring athletes who were assigned male at birth from taking part in girls or women's sports. The conservative-dominated Supreme Court's decision to hear the case comes two weeks after it upheld a Tennessee law banning gender-affirming medical treatment for transgender minors. The Supreme Court has also recently backed a move by President Donald Trump, who campaigned on the issue of transgender athletes, to have transgender troops dismissed from the military. Trump issued an executive order in February aimed at banning transgender athletes from girls and women's sports. "From now on women's sports will be only for women," Trump said. "With this executive order the war on women's sports is over." The executive order allows federal agencies to deny funding to schools that allow transgender athletes to compete on girls or women's teams. In a high-profile case, the University of Pennsylvania agreed this week to ban transgender athletes from its women's sports teams, settling a federal civil rights case stemming from the furor around swimmer Lia Thomas. The Department of Education said that UPenn had entered into a resolution agreement vowing to comply with Title IX, the federal law which prohibits sex-based discrimination in any educational program. It follows an investigation by the department's Office for Civil Rights which found the university had violated Title IX by allowing transgender swimmer Thomas to compete in women's competitions. Thomas became a lightning rod around the debate over transgender athletes in women's sport after competing in female collegiate competitions in 2022. She had earlier swam on UPenn's men's team while undergoing hormone replacement therapy. Critics and some fellow swimmers said she should not have been allowed to compete against women due to an unfair physiological advantage. The Idaho case accepted by the Supreme Court stems from the Republican-led state's "Fairness in Women's Sports Act." It was challenged by an athlete at an Idaho university and lower courts ruled that it violates the equal protection clause of the Constitution. The West Virginia case was challenged by a middle school student who was not allowed to compete for the girls' track team. An appeals court ruled that the ban was a violation of Title IX. The Supreme Court will hear the case during the term beginning in October and issue a ruling next year.
France 24
an hour ago
- France 24
Netanyahu vows to uproot Hamas as ceasefire proposals discussed
01:38 03/07/2025 Tributes pour in for Diogo Jota after Liverpool star killed in car crash 03/07/2025 Trump close to victory on flagship 'Big Beautiful' tax bill 03/07/2025 Israel orders evacuation of West Bank's Tulkarem 03/07/2025 A 'tsunami of need' feared as US House close to final vote on Trump tax bill 03/07/2025 French diplomat visits detainees held in Iran in first 'proof of life' since Israeli strikes 03/07/2025 Sean 'Diddy' Combs denied bail after prostitution conviction 03/07/2025 Ukraine scrambling for clarity as US downplays halt to arms shipments 03/07/2025 Italy to issue half million non-EU work visas over next three years 03/07/2025 Palestinians mourn director of key Gaza hospital killed in Israeli strike
Fashion Network
2 hours ago
- Fashion Network
LVMH and luxury giants undermine EU pushback on US trade threats
Luxury powerhouse LVMH is at the forefront of quiet corporate diplomacy as the European Union scrambles to respond to looming US tariff threats. With a July deadline approaching, the group is among several major firms pushing for a softer stance in high-level trade talks. Behind closed doors, LVMH and other European multinationals have reportedly urged Brussels and national governments to pursue a compromise over confrontation regarding Donald Trump 's proposed 50% tariffs on EU imports. The luxury sector—deeply reliant on the US market—has become a leading voice advocating de-escalation to safeguard transatlantic business. Executives from companies such as LVMH and Mercedes-Benz are reported to have participated in informal talks with US representatives, urging EU officials to soften their countermeasures. According to sources familiar with the discussions, this included recommendations to exclude iconic American goods—such as bourbon—from the EU's proposed retaliation list. For LVMH, the stakes are particularly high. Chairman Bernard Arnault has cautioned that failure to reach a trade deal could have serious consequences for France's wine and spirits industry. Urging restraint, Arnault has advocated for a cooperative path forward and even floated the idea of a US–EU free trade zone. Arnault, who has maintained longstanding ties with Trump, has reportedly visited Washington multiple times since the former president's return to the political spotlight. His son, Alexandre Arnault, also met with officials in May in support of trade de-escalation. 'I hope to succeed, with my modest means and my contacts, in convincing Europe to adopt the most constructive attitude possible,' Arnault told French lawmakers in May. Luxury isn't the only sector weighing in. German automakers—including BMW, Mercedes-Benz and Volkswagen—have also proposed their own solutions directly to US officials. Mercedes, for instance, has shifted production of its GLC SUV to Alabama, while other firms have announced expanded US investments as diplomatic signals. These moves, though strategic, have raised concerns in Brussels. EU officials fear that an over-accommodating response could encourage companies to increasingly shift production and investment across the Atlantic, weakening Europe's industrial core. Industry leaders contend that reciprocal tariffs would do more harm than good. While retaliation may appear symbolic, it risks reducing EU access to essential US-made technologies, components, and research ecosystems—particularly in high-growth areas such as fashion innovation, AI, and biotechnology. Meanwhile, industry groups representing French Cognac and Irish whiskey producers have intensified lobbying efforts, warning that retaliatory tariffs would unjustly penalize products unrelated to the core trade dispute. These sectors rely heavily on the US and Chinese markets for exports and have become particularly vulnerable to policy crossfire. The European Commission has outlined proposed tariffs on $112 billion worth of US goods. However, pressure from member states and industry groups may lead to as much as €70 billion worth of items being removed from the final list—significantly diluting the EU's leverage. As a potential compromise, the EU is reportedly open to a universal 10% tariff on many of its exports, while seeking lower rates for key sectors, such as aerospace, pharmaceuticals, semiconductors, and luxury goods. With stakes rising, the next few weeks will be critical. For LVMH and other fashion leaders, the hope is that quiet diplomacy will succeed where confrontation may fail—and that maintaining access to the US market remains central to the EU's trade strategy.
