Why Paramount's efforts to settle Trump's lawsuit has drawn mounting political heat
Paramount Global's efforts to appease President Trump could carry a steep price, and not just financially. As Paramount executives struggle to win government approval for its planned sale, the legal risks and political headaches are spreading — from Washington to Sacramento.
Three U.S. senators have warned Paramount's controlling shareholder Shari Redstone and other decision-makers that paying Trump to drop his $20-billion lawsuit over an October "60 Minutes" interview with former Vice President Kamala Harris could be considered a bribe.
Scrutiny widened late last week when two California Democrats proposed a state Senate hearing to probe details of the drama that has roiled the media company for months. The senators invited two former CBS News executives — who both left, in large part, because of the controversy — to testify before a joint committee hearing in Sacramento to help lawmakers examine problems with a possible Trump settlement.
"I haven't seen a president act in this brazen of a manner," state Sen. Josh Becker (D-Menlo Park) said in an interview. "We're concerned about a possible chilling effect any settlement might have on investigative and political journalism. It would also send a message that politically motivated lawsuits can succeed, especially when paired with regulatory threats."
Settling the Trump lawsuit is widely seen as a prerequisite for regulators to finally clear Paramount's $8-billion sale to Skydance Media, which Redstone has been desperately counting on to save her family's fortunes.
Trump contends CBS edited the "60 Minutes" interview to enhance Harris' appeal in the 2024 presidential election, which she lost. He reportedly rebuffed Paramount's recent $15-million offer to settle his lawsuit, which 1st Amendment experts have dismissed as frivolous.
"This is a really important case," said Scott L. Cummings, a legal ethics professor at UCLA's School of Law. "Legislators are starting to raise alarms."
Read more: Trump, '60 Minutes' and corruption allegations put Paramount on edge with sale less certain
But whether federal or state politicians could foil a Trump settlement is murky. Experts caution, for example, that it may be difficult, if a settlement is reached, to prove that Paramount's leaders paid a bribe.
Congress has grappled with such distinctions before, Cummings said. The U.S. Senate acquitted Trump in February 2020 after the House voted to impeach him for allegedly holding up nearly $400 million in security aid to pressure Ukraine to investigate former President Joe Biden and his son Hunter. Major universities and law firms offered significant concessions to the administration this year to try to carve out breathing room.
"We would have to have a lot more facts," Cummings said. "Bribery requires a quid pro quo ... and [Trump and his lieutenants] are always very careful not to explicitly couple the two things together. But, clearly, they are related, right? This is the challenge, legally speaking."
Even if a Paramount payoff could be proved to be a bribe, it's unclear who would prosecute such a case.
No one expects the Trump-controlled FBI or others within the U.S. Department of Justice to investigate allegations of bribery. Trump also has a grip on congressional Republicans and the Federal Communications Commission is run by a Trump appointee, Brendan Carr, who in one of his first acts as chairman, opened a public inquiry into whether the "60 Minutes" edits rose to the level of news distortion.
It may fall to state prosecutors to dig into the issue, Cummings said.
That hasn't stopped nationally prominent progressive lawmakers from sounding alarms.
U.S. Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) have demanded Paramount provide information about the company's deliberations or concessions to facilitate a deal with Trump, including whether newscasts were toned down.
"It is illegal to corruptly give anything of value to public officials to influence an official act," the lawmakers wrote in their May 19 letter to Redstone. "If Paramount officials make these concessions ... to influence President Trump ... they may be breaking the law."
Redstone and Paramount failed to respond to the senators' questions by this week's deadline, according to Warren's office.
Paramount and a Redstone spokesperson declined to comment.
Lawmakers often express interest in big media takeovers, and Skydance's proposed purchase of an original Hollywood movie studio and pioneering broadcaster CBS could be an industry game changer. But this time, interest is less focused on vetting the Ellison family or the deal's particulars and more about determining whether Trump inappropriately wields his power.
Trump has demanded Paramount pay "a lot" of money to settle his lawsuit. The president also has called for CBS to lose its station licenses, which are governed by the FCC.
For more than a month, attorneys for Paramount and Trump have participated in mediation sessions without resolution.
Paramount offered $15 million but Trump said no, according to the Wall Street Journal. Instead, the president reportedly demanded at least $25 million in cash, plus an additional $25 million in free commercials to pump his favorite causes. He also wants an apology.
The latter is a red line for CBS News executives who say they have done nothing wrong, according to insiders who were not authorized to discuss the sensitive deliberations.
Paramount's leaders have clashed over settlement efforts, according to the sources.
The two California state senators — Becker and Thomas J. Umberg (D-Santa Ana) — hope such fractures provide an opening.
Late last week, the pair invited former CBS News and Stations President Wendy McMahon and former "60 Minutes" executive producer Bill Owens to testify at a yet-unscheduled oversight hearing in Sacramento.
McMahon exited CBS last month under pressure for her management decisions, including resistance to the Trump settlement, sources said.
Owens resigned in April, citing a loss of editorial independence.
"You are being approached as friendly witnesses who may help our committees assess whether improper influence is being exerted in ways that threaten public trust and competition in the media sector," Becker and Umberg wrote to the former executives. Becker is chairman of the Senate Energy, Utilities & Communications Committee; Umberg heads the Senate Judiciary Committee.
California has an interest, in part, because Paramount operates in the state, including a large presence in Los Angeles, Becker told The Times.
Read more: Trump, '60 Minutes' and corruption allegations put Paramount on edge with sale less certain
The controversy over the edits began in October after CBS aired different parts of Harris' response to a question during a "60 Minutes" interview a month before the election. Producers of the public affairs show "Face the Nation" used a clip of Harris giving a convoluted response. The following day, "60 Minutes" aired the most forceful part of her answer, prompting conservatives to cry foul.
Trump filed his federal lawsuit in Texas days before the election, alleging CBS had deceptively edited the Harris interview to boost her election chances, an allegation CBS denies. After returning to the White House, Trump doubled the damages he was seeking to $20 billion. His team claims he suffered "mental anguish" as a result of the interview.
Read more: '60 Minutes,' the Associated Press, an Iowa newspaper: Trump's attacks on the media reach new heights
CBS has asked the Texas judge, a Trump appointee, to dismiss the lawsuit, saying the edits were routine.
Since then, the FCC's review of Paramount's Skydance deal has become bogged down. Paramount needs Carr's approval to transfer CBS television station licenses to the Ellison family.
Paramount has said it is treating the proposed settlement and FCC review on the Skydance merger as separate matters.
Experts doubt Trump sees such a distinction.
Trump and his team "essentially are using government processes to set up negotiations that end up benefiting Trump personally in ways that raise corruption concerns," Cummings said.
Paramount's decision could open the company to shareholder complaints.
The reason Trump's CBS "60 Minutes" lawsuit has become such a lightning rod is "because the lawsuit is so ridiculously frivolous," said Seth Stern, advocacy director for the Freedom of the Press Foundation, which owns Paramount shares and has vowed a lawsuit if the company capitulates.
"This is so transparently an abuse of power — a shakedown," Stern said.
Read more: Paramount adds three new board members amid Trump troubles and FCC review
Media analyst Richard Greenfield of LightShed Partners suggested that Trump's goal may be about more than his reported demand of nearly $50 million.
"The far bigger question is whether there is any number that Trump would want to settle the CBS/60 Minutes lawsuit," Greenfield wrote in a blog post this week. "If Trump's goal is to weaken the press and cause persistent fear of lawsuits that could negatively impact business combinations, keeping the CBS/60 Minutes lawsuit ongoing could be in the President's best interests."
UCLA's Cummings sees another deleterious outcome.
A settlement could "legitimize the narrative that Trump puts out that there's some sort of corruption within these media entities," Cummings said. "He could point to a settlement and say: 'I told you they did something wrong, and they now agreed because they paid me this amount of money.' "
"Even though they would be paying to get this deal through," Cummings said.
Sign up for our Wide Shot newsletter to get the latest entertainment business news, analysis and insights.
This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business Insider
44 minutes ago
- Business Insider
Who will be Trump's new Silicon Valley bestie?
Mark Zuckerberg, Meta Platforms founder and CEO Zuckerberg was something of a MAGA stan earlier this year. Meta, his company, dropped $1 million on Trump's inauguration, and Zuck even co-hosted a black-tie soirée that night to honor the second-time president. Now, with Meta in the throes of a federal antitrust lawsuit, Zuckerberg may not be on Trump's good side. But the Meta CEO could be playing the long game here: He snapped up a $23 million, 15,000 square-foot DC mega mansion, establishing more of a presence in the capital. Zuck has also been on a bit of a rebrand journey, from a hoodie-wearing founder to a gold chain-wearing CEO with unapologetic swagger. Part of this transformation has included podcast appearances, like an episode with Trump-endorsing Joe Rogan in which Zuck talked about his "masculine energy" and his proclivity for bowhunting. Sam Altman, OpenAI cofounder and CEO Altman has also been circling the throne. First came Stargate: the $100 billion AI infrastructure plan between OpenAI, Oracle, and SoftBank, announced the day after Trump's inauguration. Then, in May, the OpenAI CEO joined Trump on a trip to Saudi Arabia while Altman was working on a massive deal to build one of the world's largest AI data centers in Abu Dhabi. This reportedly rattled Musk enough to tag along at the last minute, according to the Wall Street Journal. OpenAI was ultimately selected for the deal, which Musk allegedly attempted to derail, the Wall Street Journal reported. Jeff Bezos, Amazon founder and executive chairman, Washington Post owner, and Blue Origin founder Back in 2015, Bezos wanted to launch Trump into orbit after the at-the-time presidential candidate fired shots at Bezos on what was Twitter, now X, calling the Washington Post, which Bezos owns, a "tax shelter," Bezos responded that he'd use Blue Origin, a space company Bezos founded, to "#sendDonaldtospace." Times have certainly changed. In January, Bezos said he is "very optimistic" about the administration's space agenda. Behind the scenes, he has reportedly given Trump political advice, allegedly as early as the summer of 2024, according to Axios. There was a brief flare-up in April, though, after Amazon reportedly considered listing Trump's tariffs next to products' prices on the site, according to Punchbowl News. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt called the plan a "hostile and political action." The idea, which was never implemented, was scrapped, and an Amazon spokesperson insisted it was only ever meant for its low-cost Haul store. If Trump does cancel Musk's SpaceX government contracts as he threatened to do, Bezos' Blue Origin, and rival to SpaceX, could stand to benefit. Blue Origin already has a $3 billion contract with NASA. Jensen Huang, Nvidia cofounder and CEO While Huang was notably missing from Trump's second inauguration in January, he did attend the Middle East trip in May. Nvidia is partnering with Oracle, SoftBank, and G42 on the OpenAI data center plans in the UAE. But Nvidia hasn't gotten off too easy: In April, Trump banned the chip maker from selling its most advanced chips, the H20, to China, a move that Nvidia says cost it $5.5 billion and reportedly prompted the company to modify the chip for China to circumvent US export controls. Sundar Pichai, Google CEO In April, a federal judge ruled that Google holds an illegal monopoly in some advertising technology markets. This is one of two major legal blows to Google in the past year: Back in August 2024, a federal judge ruled that Google violated antitrust law with its online search. If Google has to sell Chrome, Barclays told clients on Monday, Alphabet stock could fall 25%. This flurry of litigation — and potential divestment of the Chrome business — puts Pichai between a rock and a hard place. While the CEO was spotted with the rest of the technorati at Trump's inauguration, it's hard to say how he might cozy up to Trump, and whether friendly relations would do anything to remedy these rulings.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Trump boasts of ‘big win' over AP as court allows WH to ban access after ‘Gulf of America' spat
President Trump celebrated a 'big win' Friday as a federal appeals court ruled that his administration can ban the Associated Press from entering the Oval Office and other restricted areas amid its ongoing legal spat with the outlet over the Gulf of America. The White House can now restrict the wire service from the Oval Office, Mar-a-Lago and Air Force One, per a split 2-1 ruling by the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. 'Big WIN over AP today,' Trump posted on Truth Social. 'They refused to state the facts or the Truth on the GULF OF AMERICA. FAKE NEWS!!!' The court ruled Friday that certain White House spaces aren't open to the public or large press pools – effectively giving officials the power to decide which journalists and outlets get access, CNN reported. The decision comes after a lower court judge blocked the administration from restricting the AP from privileged areas where the press is typically allowed. 'We are disappointed in the court's decision and are reviewing our options,' a spokesperson for the Associated Press told the outlet. The legal dispute erupted in February when the White House barred the outlet from the Oval Office in response to the agency's refusal to update its style guide to reflect Trump's executive order renaming the Gulf of Mexico the Gulf of America. The AP, which manages the media's go-to style guide 'Associated Press Stylebook,' argued the large ocean basin has been called the Gulf of Mexico for 'more than 400 years' and other international groups have not acknowledged the change. 'VICTORY! As we've said all along, the Associated Press is not guaranteed special access to cover President Trump in the Oval Office, aboard Air Force One, and in other sensitive locations,' White House press secretary Karoline Levitt posted to X following the ruling. 'Thousands of other journalists have never been afforded the opportunity to cover the President in these privileged spaces. Moving forward, we will continue to expand access to new media so that more people can cover the most transparent President in American history rather than just the failing legacy media. 'And by the way @AP, it's still the Gulf of America.' Hundreds of reporters have a so-called 'hard pass' which allows access to the White House briefing room and press working area. A second, more limited group of journalists — referred to as the pool — is granted access to more intimate or restricted events with greater opportunity to ask the president face-to-face questions. The pool used to be decided by the White House Correspondents Association, until the Trump administration took it over to hand-pick which journalists they could add to — or remove from — the pool. The AP previously had access to the president's limited events every day alongside fellow wires Reuters and Bloomberg. Now only one wire service is allowed in the pool each day.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Minnesota AG Keith Ellison says current executive overreach is new in country's history
Jun. 6---- Although state attorneys general and other agencies are currently prevailing in court rulings against what they argue is executive overreach by the administration, there is still a concern the targeted agencies and departments — created by — may be forever damaged by the administration's attempts to dismantle them. Minnesota Attorney General says he hopes that is not the case, but he does not know. "I don't think anybody really knows," Ellison told the West Central Tribune in an interview Thursday after a presentation he gave in Willmar. "Our country's never been through this. I mean, from (President George) Washington until now, we've never had a president who's decided, 'I'm going to wreck the administrative state. I'm going to persecute the press by suing them. I'm going to persecute law firms. I'm going to ignore the courts.' This is new." Since taking office on Jan. 20 through May 23, Trump signed 157 executive orders, compared to the 220 executive orders he signed during his entire first term in office, according to For further comparison, signed 162 executive orders during his four-year term, signed 277 executive orders in his eight years in office and signed 291 executive orders during his eight years in office. During Ellison's presentation Thursday at the League of Women Voter of the Willmar Area monthly "Hot Topics" event, he explained the constitutional way to accomplish what the Trump administration is trying to accomplish — by going through Congress. "It's true that you can change birthright citizenship if you change the 14th Amendment," Ellison said. Trump signed an executive order on Jan. 20, his first day in office, to end birthright citizenship for certain people born in the U.S., which is currently being challenged in the courts. "You can even abolish the Department of Education if you introduce a bill in the House and in the Senate, you go through the committee process and then the president signs that bill into law," Ellison continued. "But what you cannot do, and which it is absolutely not conservative to do, is to just get rid of the Department of Education through an edict or proclamation, also known as the executive orders. ... You've got to operate constitutionally." He said he is not aware of another time in American history when the head of state used unconstitutional action to dismantle every American institution, which he and 23 other attorneys general are working hard to prevent through lawsuits. Ellison gave numerous examples of the issues that have been caused by the Trump administration's executive orders, including chaos and confusion. One of the lawsuits brought forth by the attorneys general is against the Trump administration's tariffs. Ellison served in the U.S. House from 2007 to 2019, including 12 years on the Financial Services Committee. "I'm not 100% against tariffs," he said. "I think there are times to use tariffs, but you don't have them on again, off again, 50% today, 100% tomorrow, back down to zero, back up to 50%," Ellison said. "... That is the surest way to ruin the economy." The Trump administration has also been sued over placing conditions on federal funding if local law enforcement agencies do not enforce immigration laws. Ellison explained that local law enforcement has its own jobs to do and the federal government is responsible for enforcing immigration laws. "I will not interfere with (U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement) if you have a judicial warrant to arrest somebody and put them in removal proceedings," Ellison said. "I demand, as an American, that they have due process rights, but I'm not going to get in the way of it if that's the legal process." Another lawsuit making its way through the courts is regarding the impoundment of federal education funding for K-12 schools that are teaching diversity, equity and inclusion. He pointed out that Secretary of Education Linda E. McMahon was asked if teaching African American history would be a violation and she said that she did not know. "Well, of course, she doesn't know, because it's not defined in law anywhere," he said. "There is no working definition (of diversity, equity and inclusion) that you can apply across the board as to what they say you can't do." The Trump administration attempt to force voters to prove their citizenship before being allowed to cast a ballot will affect millions of eligible voters who may find it difficult to produce their birth certificate or or other needed documentation if they have changed their name. Ellison said he used to be an advocate for a nationwide voting system to ensure uniform voting throughout the country. "I now no longer think that's a good idea, because the saving grace of this moment is to have 50 different voting systems," he said. " ... In a way, this ended up being a strength, because he cannot just go to some federal voting agency and say, 'Do it my way.' It's state by state." The Trump administration is also being sued in relation to transgender rights, with which not everyone in the audience would agree, Ellison noted during his presentation Thursday. When U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi threatened to sue Minnesota over its law allowing transgender youth to play for the sports team with which they identify, Ellison sued first. He said he believes that youth sports is about hanging out with friends, learning sportsmanship and learning not to quit. "I believe sports are good for kids, and kids should get to play. That's where I'm coming from," he said. He is also suing the Trump administration over its threat to pull congressionally-approved federal funding for medical institutions that provide gender-affirming care.
