'60 Minutes' producers rail against Trump's 'bulls---' lawsuit, dread prospects of Paramount making settlement
Print Close
By Joseph Wulfsohn
Published May 21, 2025
"Tick, tick, tick" is the sound "60 Minutes" viewers hear every Sunday evening on CBS. It's also the sound that journalists both inside and outside of CBS News continue to hear as the network's parent company Paramount Global mulls settling a multibillion-dollar lawsuit filed by President Donald Trump.
Both Trump and Paramount have entered mediation, which could conclude at any time.
Last October, Trump sued CBS News and Paramount for $10 billion over allegations of election interference involving the "60 Minutes" interview of then-Vice President Kamala Harris that aired weeks before the presidential election (the amount has since jumped to $20 billion).
There have been reports that a settlement between $30-50 million could be reached, something Paramount hopes would clear the pathway towards its planned merger with Skydance Media, which seeks approval from Trump's FCC. Also fueling settlement rumors was Monday's abrupt resignation of CBS News CEO Wendy McMahon.
CBS NEWS STAFFERS RATTLED BY CEO'S ABRUPT EXIT AS TRUMP LAWSUIT LOOMS OVER NETWORK
"The unanimous view at '60 Minutes' is that there should be no settlement, and no money paid, because the lawsuit is complete bulls---," one veteran "60 Minutes" producer told Fox News Digital.
The CBS lawsuit stems from the "60 Minutes" primetime election special that aired last October featuring an interview with then-Vice President Kamala Harris, specifically an exchange Harris had with "60 Minutes" correspondent Bill Whitaker, who asked her why Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu wasn't "listening" to the Biden administration.
Harris was widely mocked for the "word salad" answer that aired in a preview clip of the interview on "Face the Nation." But when the same question aired during the primetime special, Harris had a different, more concise response. Critics at the time accused CBS News of editing Harris' "word salad" answer to shield the then-vice president from further backlash leading up to Election Day.
PARAMOUNT FACING MOUNTING PRESSURE FROM CBS STARS, DEM LAWMAKERS AS COMPANY MULLS SETTLING TRUMP LAWSUIT
The raw transcript and footage released earlier this year by the FCC showed that both sets of Harris' comments came from the same response, but CBS News had aired only the first half of her response in the "Face the Nation" preview clip and aired the second half during the primetime special.
However, Trump has repeatedly asserted that CBS News took comments from a completely separate Harris response and inserted them in the exchange about Netanyahu.
The veteran "60 Minutes" producer said scrutiny is always welcomed towards their work but called Trump's allegations against the program "absolute nonsense" and that there's "zero chance" his lawsuit would prevail in court.
"What he repeats over and over and the basis of his lawsuit is based on a falsehood," they said. "He keeps repeating it. But that doesn't make it true."
"This is not being done in good faith. This is being done because people saw an opportunity to attack '60 Minutes' and to attack CBS News," they added.
CBS CORRESPONDENT SCOTT PELLEY HITS TRUMP FOR SUING JOURNALISTS 'FOR NOTHING' IN FIERY COMMENCEMENT SPEECH
The prospects of an announced settlement in the coming days isn't out of reach. "60 Minutes" aired its final episode of the season this past Sunday and won't be airing new episodes until the fall, preventing someone like Scott Pelley from sounding off to viewers on the network drama like he did last month after the abrupt exit of "60 Minutes" executive producer Bill Owens, who left over increased interference by Paramount's controlling shareholder Shari Redstone, who reportedly favors settling the lawsuit.
"The act of his departure was a huge sacrifice," the veteran producer said of Owens. "I mean, this guy had the best job in television… He chose to leave a great job because he sincerely wanted to save '60 Minutes.'"
According to reports, Redstone wanted to "keep tabs" on upcoming "60 Minutes" segments involving Trump and urged CBS execs to delay any sensitive reporting on Trump until after the Skydance merger deal closed.
A second "60 Minutes" producer told Fox News Digital that Redstone should "go read the history books."
"Understand why a free and fair press is so key to this country and the way we run things and our democracy and our- everything. Go get a history lesson and quit looking at corporate mergers as what's the most important thing in the country," the second producer said. "Sometimes I feel like people are just so caught up in their silos, and she's so, you know, entrenched in this merger and getting the financial boom from a merger with Skydance that people forget why this is important."
"Go talk to some journalists, go think about the times in history where a free press matters and made a difference… Protect '60 Minutes.' That's what she should be doing," they urged Redstone.
Meanwhile, the first producer had a simple message for Redstone: "Don't settle. Don't appease the schoolyard bully."
TRUMP, CBS PARENT COMPANY SET FOR MEDIATION IN $20 BILLION '60 MINUTES' LAWSUIT
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
CBS News staff were rattled by the ousting of McMahon, who cited disagreements with the company in a memo to staff.
"It has been one of the most meaningful chapters in my career. Leading this extraordinary organization has been the honor of a lifetime because I got to work alongside all of you," McMahon wrote. "At the same time, the past few months have been challenging. It's become clear that the company and I do not agree on the path forward. It's time for me to move on and for this organization to move forward with new leadership."
Paramount continues to face mounting pressure from critics in the media and Democratic lawmakers to CBS stars like Pelley and late-night host Stephen Colbert, who called out their parent company on the network's own airwaves.
Representatives for CBS News, Paramount and Redstone did not immediately respond to Fox News Digital's requests for comment. President Trump's attorney also did not respond for comment. Print Close
URL
https://www.foxnews.com/media/60-minutes-producers-rail-against-trumps-bulls-lawsuit-dread-prospects-paramount-making-settlement
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Fast Company
35 minutes ago
- Fast Company
Law firms have a new way to attract clients and talent: Stand up to Trump
Branded is a weekly column devoted to the intersection of marketing, business, design, and culture. Elite law firms like Paul Weiss and Jenner & Block may not advertise in traditional ways, or for a mainstream audience. But they and a handful of other prominent white-shoe firms are in the middle of an unprecedented brand test right now. At issue is how best to respond to pressure from the Trump administration and how that response affects their reputation. That has turned into a branding moment for these firms—whether they like it or not. The full verdict isn't in yet. But those who have chosen to fight executive orders designed to punish firms that President Trump apparently dislikes seem to be faring better, scoring early legal victories and burnishing an image of bravely standing up for principle. Or maybe it's more accurate to say that those who have cut deals with the administration (promising a collective $940 million in pro bono work) are, reputationally and perhaps substantively, faring worse: losing partners, angering some clients, and even being labeled ' The Yellow-Bellied Nine ' by critical peers. The test began back in March, when Trump signed a series of executive orders restricting security clearances for lawyers and employees of various firms that had represented his perceived enemies or political opponents—a move that would severely cut into their business. The prominent firm Perkins Coie, which among other things had represented Hillary Clinton's 2016 campaign, responded by suing the administration. The order was swiftly blocked by a judge who called it ' chilling.' Other targeted firms, including Jenner & Block, WilmerHale, and Susman Godfrey, have won similar blocks. Paul Weiss, one of the most storied and powerful law firms in the world, was among the first to take a different path: In exchange for the administration agreeing to lift an executive order targeting the firm, it agreed to perform $40 million in unpaid legal work for mutually agreed-upon causes and matters. The deal startled (and was immediately criticized by) many legal observers. (In a firm-wide memo, its executive chairman defended the settlement: 'The resolution we reached with the Administration will have no effect on our work and our shared culture and values.') Lately, Paul Weiss has made headlines for losing several high-profile attorneys, including the cochair of its litigation group, who left with three other partners to form their own firm, and a former U.S. attorney who went to Jenner & Block, which has sued the administration. Eight more major firms—including Skadden, Kirkland & Ellis, Simpson Thacher, and Latham & Watkins—cut similar deals. Many others have remained above the fray, declining, for example, to join an amicus brief in support of Perkins Coie or others fighting the administration in court. Law firms are often paid to help mitigate risk, but in this case some may have underestimated the risk of brand damage. In the latest sign of tangible reputational fallout, The Wall Street Journal recently reported that 'at least 11' major companies, including Oracle and Morgan Stanley, are withdrawing business from firms that cut deals to get executive orders lifted or that are otherwise supporting the government in what some view as an effort to warp the legal system. As one client cited by The Journal put it: We prefer to work with law firms willing to fight. More broadly, the divergent response to the executive orders continues to draw scrutiny and controversy within the profession, with the potential to affect both recruiting and retention. Above the Law, a snarky but serious online publication popular with younger lawyers, coined the 'Yellow-Bellied Nine' moniker, and has introduced a ' Spine Index ' that rates major firms' responses to the executive orders (and notes, in addition, those that have scrapped DEI efforts). A survey of its readers found that a vast majority supported firms fighting the orders, and felt that 'law firms who make agreements with the administration are giving in to extortion, which sends a bad message to the entire profession.' Still, while the firms fighting back have been winning new clients and winning in the courts (so far), it's hard to gauge how that will ultimately affect their business: Clients who would rather steer clear of potential trouble with Trump aren't likely to be very public about distancing themselves from the conflict. Meanwhile, as Above the Law has noted, neither the administration nor the firms that agreed to deals involving pro bono promises have offered up much detail or any sense of timing about those commitments. For Trump, that may be a matter of biding time; for the firms, it may be in hopes that the matter will fade from the court of public opinion.
Forbes
44 minutes ago
- Forbes
Trump Organization Bringing Foreign Workers Into U.S. For Mar-a-Lago, Golf Clubs, Winery
On Thursday, President Donald Trump acknowledged concerns from the agriculture and hospitality industries that his strict immigration policies are making it harder to retain long-time workers—even as his own company continues importing foreign workers through legal visa programs to staff its clubs and Virginia vineyard. A landscaper works outside President Donald Trump's Mar-a-Lago on Aug. 9, 2024, the day after FBI ... More agents searched it (Photo by GIORGIO VIERA/AFP via Getty Images) In a Truth Social post Thursday, Trump said his 'very aggressive policy on immigration' is driving away long-time workers, citing complaints from the agricultural and hospitality industries—jobs those businesses are struggling to fill. At the same time, the Trump Organization has consistently made use of temporary visa programs to hire foreign workers for Mar-a-Lago, four golf clubs and his Virginia winery—filing to bring in at least 1,880 seasonal workers since 2008, including 382 during Trump's first term, according to Department of Labor data. The company's use of short-term, temporary visas has increased steadily in recent years, from requesting 121 in 2021 to asking for a high of 178 in 2024. So far for 2025, the Trump Organization has posted to hire 31 foreign temporary workers for its winery, working from February through mid-October. The jobs—primarily servers, clerks, housekeepers, kitchen staff and farm workers—pay between $14.17 and $23.01 an hour. Spokespeople for the White House and the Trump Organization did not immediately respond to inquiries. 'Our great Farmers and people in the Hotel and Leisure business have been stating that our very aggressive policy on immigration is taking very good, long time workers away from them, with those jobs being almost impossible to replace,' Trump posted Thursday on Truth Social. 'In many cases the Criminals allowed into our Country by the VERY Stupid Biden Open Borders Policy are applying for those jobs. This is not good. We must protect our Farmers, but get the CRIMINALS OUT OF THE USA. Changes are coming!' Trump's latest remarks come as his second-term immigration crackdown—including stepped-up deportation flights and workplace raids—has drawn protests in several cities, including major demonstrations in Los Angeles this week. U.S. law allows companies to hire foreign workers through temporary visas when they can't fill jobs with U.S. applicants. The Trump Organization has made use repeatedly of two such programs—H-2A for agricultural workers, like those at his Virginia winery, and H-2B for hospitality jobs at clubs like Mar-a-Lago. To use these programs, businesses must first get approval from the Labor Department, then petition the Department of Homeland Security, before the State Department issues visas abroad. When Trump's clubs in Florida sought permission to hire foreign workers in July 2024, the state's unemployment rate was 3.3%, according to the governor's office. Six: The number of Trump businesses that applied to hire foreign workers since 2008. Trump is the sole owner of all of them through a web of companies and a revocable trust that allows him to profit while in office. The Trump Organization confirmed in an April filing in the United Kingdom that the president retains control over his businesses. It's unclear where the Trump Organization's foreign workers are coming from. The Department of Labor does not disclose the nationalities of the foreign workers, though workers from 90 countries—including El Salvador, Haiti and several African nations—are eligible. In 2018, referring to immigrants from those regions, Trump asked lawmakers, 'Why are we having all these people from s—hole countries come here?,' The Washington Post reported. Trump's Bedminster golf club fired about a dozen undocumented workers in 2019—after years of employing them—just as his administration ramped up immigration raids nationwide, The Washington Post reported at the time. The two properties Trump visits most often these days—Mar-a-Lago and his golf club in Bedminster—are among his businesses that have sought foreign workers. Both properties were at the center of a Justice Department investigation for allegedly improperly storing classified documents. He was indicted in 2023 on 40 felony charges related to his retention of government documents, but the case was dismissed after his reelection in November. Historically, the Labor Department has received applications in July from Trump's Florida properties to hire temporary workers for the winter. Forbes estimates Trump is worth $5.4 billion, with hundreds of millions tied to Mar-a-Lago, his golf clubs and the Virginia winery—businesses that continue to rely on temporary foreign labor. Trump Bans Travel From 12 Countries—Here's What We Know (Forbes) Trump Opens $5 Million Gold Card Visa Waitlist—What To Know (Forbes) Trump Approval Rating Tracker: Below 40% In Latest Poll But Voters Side With Trump Over Musk (Forbes) Trump Organization Teases 'Major Announcement' Coinciding With 10th Anniversary Of Trump's 2016 Campaign Launch (Forbes) Los Angeles Protests Live Updates: National Guard Has Detained Some Protesters (Forbes)
CNN
an hour ago
- CNN
How Trump got the military parade he's always wanted
Flying home from his first visit to Paris as president, an awestruck Donald Trump told aides aboard Air Force One that the military parade he'd just witnessed was one of the most dazzling spectacles he'd ever seen. Get to work, he told them. He wanted one at home. Eight years later, after several failed attempts during his first term, Trump will finally get his wish. The parade set to roll down Constitution Avenue in Washington, DC, on Saturday will amount to the largest display of military might in the nation's capital at least since 1991, when a parade of tanks, troops and missiles marked the end of the first Gulf War. The optics of Saturday's event, celebrating the US Army's 250th anniversary but coinciding with Trump's 79th birthday, have not been universally embraced. During Trump's first term, military officials warned against a show of force they said was more at home in North Korea than the United States. Now, some current and former military officials worry about an unfortunate split-screen, with US troops deployed on domestic soil in Los Angeles while Trump examines military hardware from a reviewing stand in Washington. Both scenes seemed certain to fuel protests, also scheduled for Saturday, accusing Trump of acting like a despot. There is nothing to indicate the president or his current advisers are remotely concerned the parade might send the wrong message. 'No one ever calls Macron a dictator for celebrating Bastille Day,' one official told CNN, referring to the French president who hosted Trump in 2017. For his part, Trump is vowing a patriotic show unlike anything seen before. 'It's going to be an amazing day,' he said this week. 'We have tanks. We have planes. We have all sorts of things, and I think it's going to be great. We're going to celebrate our country for a change.' The event will see a massive amount of military hardware and personnel being paraded through Washington, including 28 Abrams tanks — weighing 70 tons each — rolling down Constitution Avenue, where Trump will preside. Different eras of Army history will be represented with vintage uniforms and equipment, from the Revolutionary War through to modern day. Members of the Army's Golden Knights parachute demonstration team are scheduled to land near Trump's platform and hand him an American flag. Also set to be featured: a World War II-era B-25 bomber, 6,700 soldiers, 50 helicopters, 34 horses, two mules and one dog. Military officials have downplayed the price-tag of the parade, estimated to be around $45 million. Interruptions to Washingtonians began earlier in the week, with road closures and preparations for tight security. Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport is set to pause airline operations for a period on Saturday evening during a flyover and fireworks displays. With nationwide 'No Kings' demonstrations planned for the same day to denounce Trump's second-term tactics, the scene in Washington could become tense. The president this week warned anyone protesting his event to reconsider. 'For those people that want to protest, they're going to be met with very big force,' Trump said, hardly putting to rest accusations he is behaving as an authoritarian. Planning for the Army's semiquincentennial began before Trump was elected last year. Initial plans called for a smaller event: a few hundred troops, a concert by the Army Band, and a seated audience of several dozen and a packaged broadcast special focusing on the military. But Trump's return to power changed things. Long in favor of a major military display in Washington, he'd at last found a suitable reason — and more willing advisers — to arrange the parade of his dreams. The president has participated in some of the planning, and his aides worked to produce an event that matched his vision. Dozens of meetings have been held, many of which have included Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth and Secretary of the Army Daniel Driscoll, who a source said have been involved in the finer details of planning the event. Officials have estimated that the parade will cost tens of millions of dollars of public funding, which does not include the tens of millions of dollars that was privately sourced. Democrats have been relatively uniform in their opposition. 'We all know that this Saturday he's ordering our American heroes, the United States military, and forcing them to put on a vulgar display to celebrate his birthday, just as other failed dictators have done in the past,' Gov. Gavin Newsom of California said in an address this week denouncing Trump's decision to deploy National Guard troops and mobilize active duty Marines in his state. Trump's actions in California — which, like the parade, illustrate the ways he's reshaped the military since taking office — have not been met with much resistance from Republicans. But even some members of Trump's own party have expressed skepticism about the parade, and many have said they don't plan to attend. 'Well, look, it's the president's call. I wouldn't spend the money if it were me,' Louisiana Sen. John Kennedy said when asked about the event. 'The United States of America is the most powerful country in all of human history. We're a lion. And a lion doesn't have to tell you it's a lion. Everybody else in the jungle knows.' Even before that fateful visit to Paris in 2017, Trump had envisioned tanks and troops rolling through Washington. His transition team asked Pentagon officials in late 2016 about using military vehicles during his first inaugural parade, but the idea never came to pass. Trump did not give up on his vision, though, and his visit with Macron in July 2017 only cemented his desire for a grand military parade at home. The French event featured gun trucks, tanks, horses, airplanes and helicopters all advancing down the Champs-Élysées toward Trump and Macron, who reviewed the procession side-by-side from a stand at the Place de la Concorde. At one point, fighter jets flew overhead from the direction of the Arc de Triomphe blazing red, white and blue. 'It was one of the greatest parades I've ever seen,' Trump recalled a few months later when he was meeting Macron at the United Nations. 'We're going to have to try to top it.' And try he did for the next several years, only to face resistance from both his own military brass and local officials in Washington, who worried about the effect 70-ton tanks would have on the city's streets. His first defense secretary, James Mattis, was adamant to his aides that 'precious taxpayer dollars would be better spent elsewhere, and that the optics of such a display of power would boomerang, causing more harm to America's international prestige than any domestic benefit could outweigh,' according to a book later published by his speechwriter, Guy Snodgrass. Mattis — who carefully chose which battles to wage with Trump — said privately he'd 'rather swallow acid' than orchestrate a military parade through Washington, Snodgrass wrote, but told the president he would 'look at some options.' Trump eventually surrendered on his first-term demands after spiraling cost estimates — one figure circulated was $92 million — rendered a military extravaganza infeasible. He sought to pin blame on Washington's local government, but many Pentagon officials at the time breathed sighs of relief when the parade plans were scrapped. The ensuing years saw Trump preside over air shows and static displays of tanks in Washington, but never a parade. He didn't quite abandon hope for a grand military procession, but when he left office in 2021 a political pariah, there seemed little chance it would happen. Trump's remarkable political comeback — which left him emboldened and mostly unencumbered by more cautious aides — offered a second chance. Early in his term, Army officials proposed scaling up their modest anniversary event to the grander celebration now in the works. The parade of his dreams now within reach, Trump was eager to sign off. That it happened to fall on his birthday, multiple officials insisted, was a matter of coincidence. 'It is my birthday, but I'm not celebrating my birthday,' Trump said this week. 'It happens to be the same day, so I take a little heat.'
