Democrats: Public ‘deserves to know' if Colbert was canceled for political reasons
The move comes shortly after Colbert publicly took CBS's parent company Paramount Global to task for settling a $16 million lawsuit with President Trump.
'CBS canceled Colbert's show just THREE DAYS after Colbert called out CBS parent company Paramount for its $16M settlement with Trump — a deal that looks like bribery,' Warren wrote Thursday on social platform X. 'America deserves to know if his show was canceled for political reasons.'
Schiff, who was a guest on Colbert's show Thursday — when the news broke — echoed his colleague's concerns in his own X post.
'If Paramount and CBS ended the Late Show for political reasons, the public deserves to know. And deserves better,' he wrote.
Warren posted a clip from Colbert's monologue Monday in which he blisteringly mocked Paramount Global over its payout to Trump in a dispute over a '60 Minutes' interview with former Vice President Kamala Harris during the 2024 presidential election. Paramount is seeking approval from Trump's Federal Communications Commission (FCC) for its merger deal with entertainment giant Skydance, Colbert noted.
'I believe this kind of complicated financial settlement with a sitting government official has a technical name in legal circles: it's big fat bribe,' Colbert quipped.
CBS announced the surprising move Thursday evening with a statement calling it 'purely a financial decision.'
'It is not related in any way to the show's performance, content or other matters happening at Paramount,' the network said in a statement. 'Our admiration, affection and respect for the talents of Stephen Colbert and his incredible team made this agonizing decision even more difficult.'
Colbert has helmed 'The Late Show' since 2015, when he took the reins from veteran host David Letterman. The program is the most-watched talk show during the 11:35 p.m. timeslot, averaging nearly 2.5 million viewers during the second quarter of this year.
The comedian also has been one of Trump's fiercest late-night TV critics and frequently features Democratic guests who oppose the president, including Warren and Schiff. The looming merger and Trump-Paramount settlement had raised some speculation about Colbert's future in the shake-up.
'CBS should terminate his contract and pick almost anyone, right off the street, who would do better, and for FAR LESS MONEY,' Trump wrote in a Truth Social post last year.
Colbert said during Thursday's episode that he learned the news a day earlier.
'It's not just the end of our show, but it's the end of 'The Late Show' on CBS. I'm not being replaced,' he said. 'This is all just going away.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
26 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Trump Baby Accounts Could Create Generation of Millionaire Retirees
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. A new federal savings initiative could dramatically reshape the financial future of millions of American children. Signed into law by President Donald Trump as part of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, "Trump accounts" promise to give babies born in the U.S. a $1,000 head start on building long-term wealth. With additional contributions from families and employers, and potentially decades of compounding investment growth, these accounts could have the potential to turn today's youngsters into retirement millionaires. But while the headline numbers are eye-catching, the real impact may lie in how families choose to use the funds—for college, a first home, or retirement—and what kind of financial support system exists around them. Here's how the program works, what it could grow into, and why some experts see it as the start of a generational wealth shift in America. What Are Trump Accounts? Each baby born in the U.S. between 2025 and 2028 who has a Social Security number will receive a one-time $1,000 deposit from the government into their Trump account. There are no income requirements to qualify. Parents, relatives, and employers can contribute up to $5,000 annually to each account. While contributions made before a child turns 18 are not tax-deductible, employer contributions—up to $2,500 per year—are excluded from taxable income. The saved money must be invested in low-cost mutual funds or ETFs that track a U.S. stock index, such as the S&P 500. For now, more stable investment options like bonds or cash are not on the table. The accounts will become available in July 2026, and no money can be withdrawn until the child turns 18 years old. "Currently, the Trump account functions similarly to a traditional retirement account," Scott Hefty, senior wealth manager and founding partner at Serae Wealth, told Newsweek. "It offers tax-advantaged growth and penalty-free withdrawals after age 59 and a half. However, there are several exceptions that allow for earlier use. These exceptions include education expenses, buying a first home, or starting a business." Hefty added that while some may prefer more flexibility, "the rules are in place because the government is offering a benefit in exchange for encouraging certain outcomes…This account reflects a broader shift in how Americans build wealth across generations. We are moving toward a model where families, employers, and the federal government each play a part." The policy follows on from similar initiatives in the U.S. and abroad designed to bolster the lifetime savings of new generations. In Germany, new early-start pensions with a government contribution are being rolled out for kids. Here at home, Connecticut offers an initial government savings deposit of $3,200, albeit only for low-income children. Composite image created by Newsweek of a retired couple, a stack of coins, a piggy bank and a baby. Composite image created by Newsweek of a retired couple, a stack of coins, a piggy bank and a baby. Photo-illustration by Newsweek/Getty How Much Can Be Saved? How much can be saved depends on whether contributions are made by the family of the child, and whether that child and/or their family/employers make contributions when they are an adult. The Internal Revenue Service is also expected to clarify tax rules around the savings before the accounts become available, which will impact overall savings. Based on an average return rate of 7 percent annually and the maximum $5,000 being invested every year, by the time a child reaches 65 years old, they could bank approximately $6,950,000 before tax—plenty of money to see them through a long and comfortable retirement. The simple fact of the matter is that to continue making the maximum $5,000 contributions every year means the parents of the child must be extremely financially secure, given that they may already be making contributions to their own savings funds, like 401(k)'s and general savings accounts. According to data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis, Americans saved only 4.5 percent of their disposable personal income in May 2025. In a more realistic scenario, where the family and/or account beneficiary save a consistent $1,000 per year in the account and leave it untouched until 65, it would result in a saving of $1,464,800—still, nothing to be disappointed about. If the $1,000 seeded from the government remains in the account with no contributions, by the time the account holder reaches 65, they will have around $93,380 to help them through later life. "That amount of money is a tremendous gift for a child, and opens up a lot of extra doors," Matt Hylland, a financial planner at Arnold and Mote Wealth Management, told Newsweek. "Perhaps they can be more comfortable taking a job in an industry they enjoy, even if it is lower paying. Or, it gives them the freedom to save for other non-retirement goals like a home down payment, or college savings for their children." College and Home Buying There's also the fact that plenty of savers with Trump accounts are unlikely to keep the money there all the way through to retirement, with many being likely to use the funds to pay for college expenses or to buy a home. As Hefty said, the account rules "reflect the overall goal of the program, which is to support long-term retirement preparedness." But he also acknowledged that the exceptions for earlier use—like education or first-home buying—align with key milestones in life.` Based on the same 7-percent compounding rate and the maximum annual contribution of $5,000, the account would be worth $194,856 by the time the child turns 18. In a more realistic scenario, where the parent has put away $1,000 into the account per year, this would drop to $55,831—which is still no small amount to help toward expensive college bills. The national average age to buy a home in the U.S. is now 38, according to a 2024 report by the National Association of Realtors. In this scenario, with a $1,000 seed and $1,000 contributions each year, there would be around $210,700—a hefty down payment, or in some cases, the total cost of a home in a more inexpensive area of the country. "If the seed contribution continues beyond 2028," Hylland said, "the potential for long-term impact grows even further." "Even a modest contribution, combined with the federal seed money, can be beneficial over time," he said. "I believe nearly every child who receives a Trump account will benefit in some way. The scale of that benefit will vary, but the baseline is an improvement compared to having no such account at all."
Newsweek
26 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Could Donald Trump's Push for Republicans To Redistrict Backfire?
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. As President Donald Trump and Republicans mull redrawing red-state congressional maps to benefit the GOP, experts weighed in about whether those efforts could backfire. Why It Matters Republicans in states like Ohio and Texas are poised to redraw their maps ahead of the 2026 midterm elections in an attempt to thwart Democratic gains in the House. Historically, the party in the White House loses seats during the midterms, and Democrats view Trump's declining approval rating as a boon in key districts. But Republicans' mid-decade redistricting plans threaten to limit Democrats' gains next November, fueling concern from the left, as well as calls for blue-leaning states like California to retaliate by redrawing their own maps in an escalating redistricting arms race. President Donald Trump attends a meeting in the White House in Washington on July 9, 2025. President Donald Trump attends a meeting in the White House in Washington on July 9, To Know Republicans are looking to pick up five seats in Texas, where Republicans already hold a 25-13 advantage in Congress. They could do so by targeting seats in south Texas, where Republicans have made inroads with Latino voters over the past few years, and by breaking up districts in the Houston and Dallas suburbs. They would do so by packing Democrat voters in as few districts as possible, while having Republican incumbents take on some new Democratic-leaning areas to reduce the number of blue districts. That means incumbent Republicans may win by smaller margins, but—if successful—would maximize the number of GOP-leaning districts. However, it runs the risk of creating what is known as a "dummymander" that backfires and benefits Democrats. That would happen if Republicans stretch themselves too thin in some districts, allowing Democrats to prevail, particularly during a "blue wave" like 2018. It is a concern for Republicans, who are eyeing Representative Lizzie Fletcher's Houston-area district and Representative Julie Johnson's Dallas-area district as potential redraw opportunities. However, other incumbents would need to take in some of those Democratic voters. The risk is that if 2026 is a blue wave, Democrats could hold onto those districts, as well as flip others that are presently more solidly Republican. Joshua Blank, who runs the Texas Politics Project at the University of Texas at Austin, told Newsweek that they are unlikely to "do anything that would result in serious exposure for its members, even if 2026 turns out to be a good year for Democrats." "The risk to Republicans is truly in their own hands," Blank said. "It's easy to imagine them effectively carving out 2 new seats, but as the number of new GOP seats increases, with the president wanting five new GOP seats, the amount of line shifting has to increase dramatically. Not only might this lead to unintended consequences, but it is also likely to result in more avenues for legal challenges that will delay or potentially halt the final implementation of the maps." Two south Texas districts—represented by Democratic Representatives Henry Cuellar and Vicente Gonzalez—are likely to be safer opportunities for the GOP, he said. "Regardless of whether or not you believe that south Texas is permanently moving towards the GOP, those seats are surrounded by solidly Republican districts that can shed reliably Republican voters without putting those members into newly competitive seats," he said. That's harder to accomplish in urban and suburban areas, where there are fewer reliable Republicans, he said. Shawn J. Donahue, professor of political science at the University of Buffalo and an expert on redistricting, told Newsweek it is possible that redraws could backfire, but that Republicans have been able to make fairly durable maps in recent history. North Carolina is one example he pointed to. Although the state is nearly evenly divided between Democrats and Republicans, the GOP managed to redraw the map to give themselves 10 safe districts, three safe Democratic districts and a competitive district, currently held by Democratic Representative Don Davis, though Trump also carried it at the presidential level. "Those 10 seats look pretty resilient," he said. "The question is how far do you try to push, packing one particular party to just a few seats. How much are you willing to spread out your own voters?" Missouri, Ohio May Be Safer Opportunities for GOP Redraws in Missouri and Ohio are fairly safe, Donahue said. In Missouri, Republicans are looking at redrawing the Fifth Congressional District, which contains Kansas City and is held by Democratic Representative Emanuel Cleaver, to become more Republican. They could stretch the more urban and Democratic parts of the district to include rural, conservative areas, he said. That is a similar tactic Tennessee Republicans used in Nashville. Although the city could sustain a Democratic district of its own, they divided it into three Republican districts mixed with conservative suburbs and rural areas. Ohio could pan out similarly, he said, as the Toldeo-based seat represented by Democratic Representative Marcy Kaptur is already tenuous if she opts not to run again. The Akron-based seat held by Representative Emilia Sykes could also be more easily redrawn, he said. Florida could be more difficult. Republicans made gains across the state last year and could make efforts to crack Tampa into several districts or redraw areas in the southern part of the state where Trump made inroads. But whether the state continues to get more conservative, or shifts back to be more competitive, is an open question that could determine how far Republicans can go. "If those areas are going to continue to become more Republican or stay where they were in 2024 or 2022, it's different than if some of those voters are going to be, 'We don't really like what's going on, so we're going to start voting Democratic again,'" he said. Democratic Opportunities to Strike Back Are Limited Another risk, on paper, is that Democratic states could retaliate by redrawing their own maps to be more Democratic-friendly. But states like New Jersey have laws on the books prohibiting mid-decade redistricting, while states like California have independent commissions. California Governor Gavin Newsom has said the state could redraw its maps. Donahue noted that lawmakers could implement a ballot measure earlier next year to achieve this. However, that may not necessarily pass in time for the midterms. New York similarly would need to cross legal hurdles that could make it difficult to redraw maps by 2027 but also face a political challenge, Donahue said. "Unless you're willing to draw districts that go from Manhattan to parts of upstate New York, one of the things that's tricky is that New York was a lot closer in 2024 than in 2020, so would you actually risk spreading your Democratic voters out too much?" he said. New York backed former Vice President Kamala Harris by only about 13 percentage points last November—down from former President Joe Biden's 23-point victory in 2020 and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's 22.5-point victory in 2016. Illinois has a similar problem. Democrats control the process in the state and already have a 14-3 map, but it also drifted rightward, so any redraw would run the risk of leaving Democratic incumbents in more vulnerable positions, Donahue said. What People Are Saying Shawn J. Donahue, professor of political science at the University of Buffalo, told Newsweek: "How willing are you to draw districts that have ridiculous looking lines? I mean, Democrats in Illinois didn't seem to have a problem with that and Republicans in Texas didn't seem to have a problem with it." Representative Eric Burlison, a Missouri Republican, told KCUR on redrawing the map: "I literally just got off the phone with the White House, and they do want that. And this is the first that I've heard it directly from them, because before that I heard it through rumors, through other people." Senator Elissa Slotkin, a Michigan Democrat, told Axios: "If they're going to go nuclear in Texas, I'm going to go nuclear in other places. I'm not going to fight with one arm tied behind my back. I don't want to do that, but if they're proposing to rig the game, we're going to get in that game and fight." President Donald Trump told reporters this month: "No, no, just a very simple redrawing. We pick up five seats. But we have a couple of other states where we will pick up seats also." What Happens Next The redistricting arms race will likely continue over the coming months, with Texas already being in a special session that will, in part, address redistricting. Ohio's redraw is also definitive, as the state is legally required to redo its map, but specifics about how it will play out are unclear.
USA Today
27 minutes ago
- USA Today
People are starving in Gaza. Why are we so comfortable just letting that happen?
If Trump were truly empathetic to Palestinians, he would stop the United States from sending military aid to Israel and instead focus on getting aid into Gaza. Gaza is facing starvation. The U.S. government could do more to intervene. That's it. That's the tweet. The situation in Gaza is continuing to get worse. There have been more than 125 deaths due to malnutrition since the Israel-Hamas war began in 2023, and more than 1,000 Palestinians have been killed trying to access food. About 470,000 people are being affected by famine-like conditions, according to the World Food Program. The images coming out of Gaza are horrific, showing emaciated children starving due to a lack of resources. Things have gotten so bad that two Israeli human rights groups said on July 28 that the country was committing genocide in Gaza, a claim that had already been made by Amnesty International and a United Nations special committee. President Donald Trump has the power to do something about this. Whether he actually steps up to the plate is unlikely. I run a soup kitchen in Gaza. The horrors of starvation here are indescribable. | Opinion Trump seems concerned about starvation in Gaza. Will he do anything? Trump acknowledged the issue at a July 28 news conference when he was asked if he agreed with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's claim that there is 'no starvation in Gaza.' The U.S. president seemed to disagree that there is no starvation. 'Based on television, I would say not particularly, because those children look very hungry,' Trump said. He went on to say that the United States would 'be even more involved,' and said he'd ask Netanyahu to ensure that these children received food. I'm not about to celebrate Trump's bare minimum answer. He does not deserve a pat on the back for acknowledging a humanitarian crisis, even if it goes against a U.S. ally. It's good that he wants people to get food, but I'll believe he means it when aid trucks are finally able to make their way into Gaza. Netanyahu has yet to respond to Trump's claims. If Trump were truly empathetic to Palestinians, he would stop the United States from sending military aid to Israel and instead focus on getting aid into Gaza. In the first year of the war against Hamas, our country sent $17.9 billion to Israel; the $30 million Trump recently designated to aid distribution is a fraction of that. If Trump truly believes this has reached the level of a humanitarian crisis, he needs to be focusing on providing relief to the people of Gaza and threatening to withhold aid to Israel until this crisis is subdued. Trump could also show that he is capable of diplomacy and cutting deals by working to reignite ceasefire conversations between Israel and Hamas after those talks were abandoned on July 25. Opinion: Trump must think big with Israel. It's time for a Palestinian state. Why are we just standing around while kids starve? Currently, Israeli leaders seem to have no interest in alleviating the hunger plaguing the people of Gaza. They say it's because Hamas has routinely stolen aid from the United Nations, even though there is no proof of this, according to The New York Times (there is proof of the group stealing from smaller organizations). Opinion alerts: Get columns from your favorite columnists + expert analysis on top issues, delivered straight to your device through the USA TODAY app. Don't have the app? Download it for free from your app store. It can be easy to feel as though we have no agency over this conflict as ordinary people, but something can be done. We cannot turn away as people are starving, especially when our country is capable of doing something about it. Yes, it's important to fight terrorism, and what Hamas did on Oct. 7, 2023, is unforgivable. But innocent people, innocent children, continue to suffer because of this conflict. The United States has the power to alleviate this suffering as a close ally to Israel. We must demand intervention before this catastrophe gets any worse. While posting photos and infographics about the starvation on social media might make you feel good, it is no substitute for calling your elected officials and demanding something be done, nor is it as effective as protesting in the streets. To many people in my generation, this is the greatest issue of our lifetime. We must continue to speak up about the injustices we're witnessing and demand that things change as these horrors persist. Follow USA TODAY columnist Sara Pequeño on X, formerly Twitter: @sara__pequeno You can read diverse opinions from our USA TODAY columnists and other writers on the Opinion front page, on X, formerly Twitter, @usatodayopinion and in our Opinion newsletter.
