With His '60 Minutes' Coup, Trump Sends a Not-So-Subtle Message to the Press
Donald Trump has essentially done just that in his ongoing battle with the press, albeit by targeting a uniquely vulnerable journalistic giant, '60 Minutes.' Setting aside the details, this qualifies as one of those instances where mere appearance perfectly embodies what journalists often refer to as a 'chilling effect' — that is, something that dissuades people from exercising their First Amendment rights in advance based on the fear of reprisals.
After suing CBS for billions over a '60 Minutes' story, and railing against recent coverage that the thin-skinned Commander in Chief viewed as negative towards him, Trump achieved his knockout blow with the news that award-winning '60 Minutes' executive producer Bill Owens would resign after nearly 40 years on the program, which he announced in a memo to staff on Tuesday.
First reported by the New York Times, Owens wrote that over the last several months it has 'become clear that I would not be allowed to run the show as I have always run it. To make independent decisions based on what was right for '60 Minutes,' right for the audience.'
Owens included the reassuring note that the venerable newsmagazine would 'do what it has done for 57 years' — and CBS News reiterated its commitment to that mission — but one could be forgiven for greeting that with a degree of skepticism, given his reference to diminished independence. And in that admission, Trump had already won a victory, demonstrating to the press that if his pressure tactics could lead to a change at the granddaddy of TV news programs, what might that mean for anybody at a lesser news outlet perceived as having crossed or wronged him?
As noted, '60 Minutes' found itself in a particularly awkward position, having drawn Trump's ire at a time when the network's parent company, Paramount Global, is seeking to ensure no roadblocks get thrown in the way of its pending merger with Skydance Media, amid ongoing regulatory review.
Presidential administrations always enjoy a degree of leverage over corporations, but with billions of dollars hanging in the balance for Paramount chairman Shari Redstone and other investors, rarely can they be viewed in a manner as directly transactional as that.
The reaction to the news was one of disappointment, if not necessarily surprise, across the journalism community. As New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof put it, 'So sad to see the owners of CBS, a news organization whose correspondents have risked their lives covering wars, upheavals and dictators abroad, knuckle under to authoritarianism at home. CBS journalists deserve better from their bosses.'
So sad to see the owners of CBS, a news organization whose correspondents have risked their lives covering wars, upheavals and dictators abroad, knuckle under to authoritarianism at home. CBS journalists deserve better from their bosses. https://t.co/F74WicQMTJ
— Nicholas Kristof (@NickKristof) April 22, 2025
'Tiffany network no more,' tweeted journalism professor and critic Jeff Jarvis, alluding to CBS' storied history.
The stewardship of '60 Minutes,' though, is far more significant here because of what it symbolizes than any changes that might practically impact the program.
It's worth recalling Trump's initial lawsuit was predicated on the flimsy premise that the newsmagazine had edited a pre-election interview with his rival, Kamala Harris, in order to make her look better, never mind that such editing is viewed as standard TV-news practice, and that Trump had been offered a similar forum he declined to accept.
Given how heavily Trump relies on victimization and grievance, what actually happened was of less importance than fostering the impression a venerable news organization had somehow placed its thumb on the scale for Harris — an argument his supporters have been assiduously programmed to believe.
Nor has the campaign against '60 Minutes' occurred in a vacuum, coming as it has amid threats to independent journalism on multiple fronts, including the administration's skirmish with the Associated Press for failing to adopt the designation 'Gulf of America,' efforts to defund public broadcasting and attempts to make government subscriptions to publications like Politico somehow look like nefarious payoffs.
Yet while Owens is hardly a household name, '60 Minutes' is. And whatever behind-the-scenes concerns and tensions played a role in the producer's decision to quit, the view from the cheap seats suggests that Trump, in layman's terms, complained to the manager and got the offending employee removed.
The ripple effects from that remain to be seen, but the take-down-the-biggest-inmate-you-can-find approach represents a highly effective means of sending a message to those who might be thinking about testing your mettle. Because suddenly, the familiar ticking clock that greets '60 Minutes' viewers each week feels like a countdown on what problematic concession Trump will seek to extract from the world of journalism next.
The post With His '60 Minutes' Coup, Trump Sends a Not-So-Subtle Message to the Press appeared first on TheWrap.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
25 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Exclusive-Trump administration to formally axe Elon Musk's 'five things' email
WASHINGTON (Reuters) -The Trump administration plans as soon as Tuesday to formally axe a program launched by billionaire former Trump adviser Elon Musk requiring federal employees to summarize their five workplace achievements from the prior week, two people familiar with the matter said. The Office of Personnel Management, the federal human resources agency that implemented Musk's push to slash the federal workforce, plans to announce the end of the "five things" email to HR representatives across the federal government later on Tuesday, the two people said, declining to be named because the matter was not public. While many federal agencies had already phased out compliance with the weekly email, the move, not previously reported, signals the Trump administration is turning the page on one of Musk's most unpopular initiatives following a dramatic row between the two men in early June. The White House and OPM did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Musk, who spent over a quarter of a billion dollars to help Trump win November's presidential election, led the Department of Government Efficiency's efforts to slash the budget and cut the federal workforce until his departure in May to refocus on his tech empire. Musk initially received a warm White House sendoff from Trump, but then incurred the president's wrath by describing Trump's tax cut and spending bill as an abomination. Trump pulled the nomination of Musk ally and tech entrepreneur Jared Isaacman to lead NASA and later threatened to cancel billions of dollars worth of federal contracts with Musk's companies after the blowup between the two men. The "five things" email, launched by Musk in February to boost accountability, sparked tensions with department chiefs who were blindsided by the weekend email mandating the move. It also fueled confusion among government workers who received mixed messages about whether and how to comply. Reuters reported in March that the White House installed two Trump loyalists at OPM to ensure better policy coordination between the White House and the agency. Scott Kupor, a venture capitalist who took the helm at OPM in July, foreshadowed the end of the initiative last month, describing processing of the weekly response emails as "very manual" and "not efficient." It is "something that we should look at and see, like, are we getting the value out of it that at least the people who put it in place thought they were," he said.
The Hill
26 minutes ago
- The Hill
VFW had a seat at the table. Now they're trying to flip it.
Too many of America's disabled veterans continue to struggle to access the VA disability benefits they've earned. The consequences are stark: 33,000 veterans are homeless, and an average of 17 die by suicide each day. While the Trump administration has made incredible strides in cutting the VA claims backlog by 25 percent since January, Congress must take further action to ensure that our veterans no longer have to fight and claw for the benefits that are often the difference between life and death. That's why I introduced the CHOICE for Veterans Act of 2025 — a bill that protects veterans from fraud and exploitation and ensures they have the right to choose how to navigate the benefits process. My legislation allows veterans to choose help from accredited private claims agents if they prefer, all while keeping in place the full range of free support options — such as those offered by Veterans Service Organizations like the VFW. The CHOICE for Veterans Act includes strong safeguards: no upfront fees, mandatory disclosure of free alternatives, capped fees and no payment unless benefits are secured. This ensures that veterans don't go into debt to file claims. The CHOICE for Veterans Act of 2025 is about trust, transparency and real choice. I spent months in conversation with the major Veterans Service Organizations like the VFW and American Legion. I directly addressed their legitimate concerns about fraud and exploitation. My office invited them in, listened carefully, and incorporated into the bill strong language that addressed every objection they raised. Their input helped shape the final version of the CHOICE for Veterans Act of 2025. That's why the VFW's recent public opposition is so frustrating. They know that the bill doesn't put veterans in debt because they helped shape the very safeguards it includes. The truth is, the CHOICE for Veterans Act contains some of the strongest financial protections ever included in legislation designed to serve our veterans. The bill was crafted to expand access to disability claims services by offering accredited private help without removing any existing options. Veterans can still work with Veterans Service Organizations or file claims on their own — that hasn't changed. This bill simply ensures the right to seek specialized assistance. Nothing in the bill eliminates current options. The claims assistance system remains intact, with the added benefit of giving veterans the choice of specialized assistance. No two disability claims are the same, and they shouldn't be treated as such. The VFW's claims are misleading and directly contradicted by the bill's text. The CHOICE Act clearly requires that veterans are informed of all available free options at every step of the claims process. This includes the VA itself and the Veterans Service Organizations that veterans have always had access to. Veterans deserve honesty about what this bill actually does — and it's time for the VFW to stop misleading them. If a veteran does choose to work with a paid consultant, the rules are strict. No upfront fees are allowed. Veterans cannot be charged one penny until their claim is resolved in their favor. When a claim is resolved, a veteran must be given the option to pay in installments that don't exceed their monthly increase from the VA, and no interest can ever be charged on payment plans. Veterans secure lifetime benefits in exchange for a limited, interest-free fee, paid only to accredited experts. Our goal has always been to expand access to benefits through an all-of-the-above approach that protects disabled veterans from poverty, debt and exploitation. These protections are not hidden, nor are they optional. They are mandated by the bill. What veterans are asking for is simple: faster results and fewer delays. They want someone who can help them navigate a complex process without making it worse. This is a recurring issue I hear from veterans in my district. The political games and false narratives surrounding the CHOICE for Veterans Act must stop. This issue is far too important to be bogged down by mis- and dis-information campaigns. As a proud veteran myself, I look forward to the day when President Trump signs this bill into law, so we can begin to seriously confront the crises facing disabled veterans in America.
Los Angeles Times
26 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
Trump's politically motivated sanctions against Brazil strain relations among old allies
SAO PAULO — President Trump has made clear who his new Latin America priority is: former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro, a personal and political ally. In doing so, he has damaged one of the Western hemisphere's most important and long-standing relationships, by levying 50% tariffs that begin to take effect Wednesday on the largest Latin America economy, sanctioning its main justice and bringing relations between the two countries to the lowest point in decades. The White House has appeared to embrace a narrative pushed by Bolsonaro allies in the U.S., that the former Brazilian president's prosecution for attempting to overturn his 2022 election loss is part of a 'deliberate breakdown in the rule of law,' with the government engaging in 'politically motivated intimidation' and committing 'human rights abuses,' according to Trump's statement announcing the tariffs. The message was clear earlier, when Trump described Bolsonaro's prosecution by Brazil's Supreme Court as a 'witch hunt' — using the same phrase he has employed for the numerous investigations he has faced since his first term. Bolsonaro faces charges of orchestrating a coup attempt to stay in power after losing the 2022 election to President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva. A conviction could come in the next few months. The U.S. has a long history of meddling with the affairs of Latin American governments, but Trump's latest moves are unprecedented, said Steven Levitsky, a political scientist at Harvard University. 'This is a personalistic government that is adopting policies according to Trump's whims,' Levitsky said. Bolsonaro's sons, he noted, have close connections to Trump's inner circle. The argument has been bolstered by parallels between Bolsonaro's prosecution and the attempted prosecution of Trump for trying to overturn his 2020 election loss, which ended when he won his second term last November. 'He's been convinced Bolsonaro is a kindred spirit suffering a similar witch hunt,' Levitsky said. After Bolsonaro's defeat in 2022, Trump and his supporters echoed his baseless election fraud claims, treating him as a conservative icon and hosting him at the Conservative Political Action Conference. Steve Bannon, the former Trump adviser, recently told Brazil's news website UOL that the U.S. would lift tariffs if Bolsonaro's prosecution were dropped. Meeting that demand, however, is impossible for several reasons. Brazilian officials have consistently emphasized that the judiciary is independent. The executive branch, which manages foreign relations, has no control over Supreme Court justices, who in turn have stated they won't yield to political pressure. On Monday, the court ordered that Bolsonaro be placed under house arrest for violating court orders by spreading messages on social media through his sons' accounts. Justice Alexandre de Moraes, who oversees the case against Bolsonaro, was sanctioned under the U.S. Magnitsky Act, which is supposed to target serious human rights offenders. De Moraes has argued that defendants were granted full due process and said he would ignore the sanctions and continue his work. 'The ask for Lula was undoable,' said Bruna Santos of the Inter-American Dialogue in Washington, D.C., about dropping the charges against Bolsonaro. 'In the long run, you are leaving a scar on the relationship between the two largest democracies in the hemisphere.' Three key factors explain the souring of U.S.-Brazil ties in recent months, said Oliver Stuenkel, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace: growing alignment between the far-right in both countries; Brazil's refusal to cave to tariff threats; and the country's lack of lobbying in Washington. Lawmaker Eduardo Bolsonaro, Jair Bolsonaro's third son, has been a central figure linking Brazil's far-right with Trump's MAGA movement. He took a leave from Brazil's Congress and moved to the U.S. in March, but he has long cultivated ties in Trump's orbit. Eduardo openly called for Magnitsky sanctions against de Moraes and publicly thanked Trump after the 50% tariffs were announced in early July. Democratic Massachusetts Rep. Jim McGovern, author of the Magnitsky Act, which allows the U.S. to sanction individual foreign officials who violate human rights, called the administration's actions 'horrible.' 'They make things up to protect someone who says nice things about Donald Trump,' McGovern told The Associated Press. Eduardo Bolsonaro's international campaign began immediately after his father's 2022 loss. Just days after the elections, he met with Trump at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida. As investigations against Bolsonaro and his allies deepened, the Brazilian far right adopted a narrative of judicial persecution and censorship, an echo of Trump and his allies who have claimed the U.S. justice system was weaponized against him. Brazil's Supreme Court and Electoral Court are among the world's strictest regulators of online discourse: they can order social media takedowns and arrests for spreading misinformation or other content it rules 'anti-democratic.' But until recently, few believed Eduardo's efforts to punish Brazil's justices would succeed. That began to change last year when billionaire Elon Musk clashed with de Moraes over censorship on X and threatened to defy court orders by pulling its legal representative from Brazil. In response, de Moraes suspended the social media platform from operating in the country for a month and threatened operations of another Musk company, Starlink. In the end, Musk blinked. Fábio de Sá e Silva, a professor of international and Brazilian studies at the University of Oklahoma, said Eduardo's influence became evident in May 2024, when he and other right-wing allies secured a hearing before the U.S. House Foreign Affairs Committee. 'It revealed clear coordination between Bolsonaro supporters and sectors of the U.S. Republican Party,' he said. 'It's a strategy to pressure Brazilian democracy from the outside.' Brazil has a diplomatic tradition of maintaining a low-key presence in Washington, Stuenkel said. That vacuum created an opportunity for Eduardo Bolsonaro to promote a distorted narrative about Brazil among Republicans and those closest to Trump. 'Now Brazil is paying the price,' he said. After Trump announced sweeping tariffs in April, Brazil began negotiations. President Lula and Vice President Geraldo Alckmin — Brazil's lead trade negotiator — said they have held numerous meetings with U.S. trade officials since then. Lula and Trump have never spoken, and the Brazilian president has repeatedly said Washington ignored Brazil's efforts to negotiate ahead of the tariffs' implementation. Privately, diplomats say they felt the decisions were made inside the White House, within Trump's inner circle — a group they had no access to. A delegation of Brazilian senators traveled to Washington in the final week of July in a last-ditch effort to defuse tensions. The group, led by Senator Nelsinho Trad, met with business leaders with ties to Brazil and nine U.S. senators — only one of them Republican, Thom Tillis of North Carolina. 'We found views on Brazil were ideologically charged,' Trad told The AP. 'But we made an effort to present economic arguments.' While the delegation was in Washington, Trump signed the order imposing the 50% tariff. But there was relief: not all Brazilian imports would be hit. Exemptions included civil aircraft and parts, aluminum, tin, wood pulp, energy products and fertilizers. Trad believes Brazil's outreach may have helped soften the final terms. 'I think the path has to remain one of dialogue and reason so we can make progress on other fronts,' he said. Pessoa and Riccardi write for the Associated Press. AP writer Mauricio Savarese in Sao Paulo contributed to this report.
