Latest news with #Trump-critical
Yahoo
03-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
How To Watch ‘60 Minutes' Segment On Trump's Legal Battles: Time, Channel, Streaming Info
60 Minutes is gearing up to air another hard-hitting report on President Trump this Sunday — just as its parent company, Paramount Global, tries to win his favor for a major merger. The segment, led by veteran correspondent Scott Pelley, dives into how Trump is wielding executive orders to go after top law firms he accuses of 'weaponizing' the legal system against him. It's not just Trump under scrutiny — Pelley recently turned the spotlight on his own network. Last week, he stunned viewers by accusing Paramount of meddling with the show's coverage. That clash reportedly helped push out 60 Minutes boss Bill Owens, who believed the network had compromised its journalistic independence. 'Bill insisted on tough, fair reporting,' Pelley said. 'But now, as Paramount chases a merger that needs Trump's approval, the company started overseeing our content in new ways. No story has been killed, but Bill felt the integrity was gone.' Sources say Paramount chair Shari Redstone pressed CBS CEO George Cheeks to delay Trump-critical stories until after the merger with Skydance Media — but there's no proof the request was enforced. Officially, CBS says the show's editorial independence remains intact. Still, the timing couldn't be more tense: as Trump keeps lashing out at 60 Minutes, the show keeps firing back — while Paramount walks a tightrope between journalism and business interests. So, where can you watch the 60 Minutes segment on Trump's legal battles? When does it air? And how can you stream it? We have you covered on everything you need to know. The 60 Minutes segment on Trump's legal battles will air on Sunday, May 4 at 7 p.m. ET on CBS. It will center on his ongoing legal battle with Paramount over the way CBS edited its 2024 60 Minutes interview with then-Vice President Kamala Harris. If you're looking for the old-fashioned way, you can tune into CBS to watch the segment when it airs live. But if you have already cut the cord, you can also watch 60 Minutes live on Paramount+. Don't think you're going to make it on time? No worries! New episodes get added to the streaming platform's library the next day. You can sign up for Paramount+ for as little as $5.99 per month. It's also likely that 60 Minutes will upload interview clips to their YouTube page as well as their social media feed.
Yahoo
01-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Does Florida need a Trump library or are lawmakers worshipping at the altar again?
Florida lawmakers, bless their hearts, are already angling to bring a future Donald Trump presidential library to the state. And they don't want any Trump-critical counties like Palm Beach County getting in the way. I know what you're thinking. What's the rush in planning? It might be prudent to allow Trump's presidential legacy to marinate in a little history before we hastily commit to encouraging something as plainly preposterous as a 'Trump library.' After all, it's still to be determined whether he uses the military against U.S. citizens, invades a former ally, jails opposition lawmakers or declares himself above the dictates of the U.S. Supreme Court — all outcomes well within the bounds of possibility. So what's the rush for a presidential library? It's not like Trump even reads. This can wait. If we rush this, we're just guaranteeing that future generations will marvel at the depths of our collective blindness. But no, Florida lawmakers appear to have an incurable case of premature adulation, as they push a law that would prevent local governments in the state from having any regulatory authority over a Trump library in their city or county. 'In anticipation of Florida's first presidential library, we should roll out the welcome mat and offer the president maximum flexibility to construct this historic landmark in Florida,' Senate Bill 118's sponsor, state Sen. Jason Brodeur, R-Sanford, told his colleagues. 'The protections in this bill will prevent any municipality from imposing frivolous obstacles to the establishment of a presidential library within the state." I think he's talking about us. NBC News has already reported that a presidential team is looking at Florida Atlantic University in Boca Raton as a potential site for the library. The idea is that it would be relatively near Trump's winter retreat, Mar-a-Lago in Palm Beach. Although Trump won Florida in the last three general elections, he lost Palm Beach County every time. So, a Trump library in Boca Raton is not going to be as welcomed as it might be in say, Sarasota, Pensacola or Jacksonville. I guess that's why Republican lawmakers are trying to take local control away from a future site of the library. This means that whatever over-the-top, garish self-tribute Trump designs for himself will be something the people in the area of the library will have to stomach. Just as his flagpole at Mar-a-Lago had to be the biggest pole in Palm Beach in violation of local zoning regulations, his presidential library will undoubtedly have to be the biggest, most garish display of them all, maybe with the word 'TRUMP' flashing down on the community in nightly drone light shows. Opinion: Trump doesn't care about 'working from home' when he's doing it at Mar-a-Lago I envision Boca Raton turning into a kind of America's Pyongyang with a giant golden Trump statue outside a library building — one visible from miles around. And I can see the outside of the library ringed with scores of life-sized stainless steel statues (like the Korean War Veterans Memorial in Washington, D.C.) as a representation of an overflow crowd of people who want to get in the library, but can't because it's already full of worshippers. Under the proposed bill, the city and county selected to house the library will have no say on the building's height, appearance or any tasteless aesthetics that Trump might dream up. It could violate any and all local zoning laws without recourse. Brodeur predicted that a Trump library 'would be one of the biggest attractions ever built in Florida.' I don't know about that. I would think it would be a considerable challenge to fill it. What are we talking about here? A hall of Tweets? A display of paper shredders? A collage of untrustworthy golf scorecards? The Four Pinocchios Cafe? Maybe a re-creation of the Mar-a-Lago bathroom used to store top-secret government documents? Opinion: I don't care if they rename Southern Boulevard for Trump. But let locals decide. Let's keep this in mind: a Trump library is optional. Not every president gets a presidential library. There are currently just 13 presidential libraries. They are overseen by the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). That's the organization that tried to recover the government documents Trump kept after losing the 2020 election, so it's not his favorite group. Trump just fired the head of the National Archives in February, evidence that he is apparently still stewing in contempt over the group's mission to preserve the records of his administration. So, why not just put the Trump library idea on ice, at least until after we find out whether a nation of willfully blind elected cowards will allow him to complete the takeover of the other two branches of government? In the meantime, I'm confident that Florida lawmakers can find some other less egregious ways to dream up performative acts of fealty to Trump. Frank Cerabino is a news columnist with The Palm Beach Post, which is part of the USA Today Network - Florida. He can be reached at fcerabino@ This article originally appeared on Palm Beach Post: Trump library coming? Florida lawmakers want us to butt out | Opinion
Yahoo
06-02-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
USAID Paying for Politico Is a Nontroversy
Conservatives and libertarians are correct to draw attention to all sorts of reckless spending within the federal government. President Donald Trump has deputized Elon Musk and his Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) to root out waste, fraud, and abuse. DOGE has recently fixated on the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), which spends billions of dollars on foreign aid to other countries. Foreign aid is an unpopular category of government spending—even though many Americans mistakenly believe that it constitutes a large proportion of overall spending—and it makes sense to closely scrutinize USAID's activities. However, some critics of USAID have seized on a misleading claim: Namely, that the organization was funneling millions of dollars to Politico. In reality, it appears that government agents were paying for subscriptions to Politico's premium product. That may or may not be a worthwhile use of government funds (more on this in a moment), but at any rate, it does not represent some kind of direct subsidy to the news outlet. Many conservative social media personalities seem to feel differently. On Wednesday, rightwing pundit Benny Johnson—among others—circulated the rumor on X that Politico had received $8 million from USAID. Johnson clearly thought this was a big story; he appended the caption "biggest scandal in news media history," with no further qualifications. Johnson also speculated that without such funding, Politico would go out of business. Adding fuel to the fire was an apparently unrelated mishap concerning Politico's payment processing services: Due to a technical error, employees of the news website were not paid for the most recent pay period. Kyle Becker, an independent commentator on X, implied that this had something to do with Musk shutting off USAID payments. Suddenly, all the Trump-critical coverage that has appeared at Politico over the years seemed like part of some Deep State plot, funded by American taxpayers in order to spite the MAGA movement. "Everything makes sense now," wrote Becker. Unfortunately, these theories are based on a fundamental misunderstanding of Politico's business model. First, the $8 million figure represents total government expenditures to Politico since 2016, not USAID dollars specifically. The amount paid by USAID to Politico totals $44,000. A government agency directly transferring cash to a journalistic outlet that's supposed to cover it impartially might still constitute a scandal; in general, the feds should not subsidize journalistic projects. But importantly, USAID was not generously donating the money to Politico—the government paid the money in exchange for subscriptions to Politico's premium content. This is a pretty important difference; USAID is paying for the service Politico provides, in much the same way that a government agency has to pay for janitorial services, electricity, or office supplies. If a federal office buys a new printer, it isn't necessarily malicious. It could be malicious, if the printer costs too much money, is defective, or was purchased as part of some kickback scheme—but the reality that government offices need printers isn't really up for argument. When confronted with these facts, many of the conservative social media accounts asserted that something must be awry, since $44,000 is still way too much for a Politico subscription. They assume that USAID is overpaying in exchange for favorable coverage of progressive causes and unfavorable coverage of Trump. But that's not what USAID and the other government agencies are paying for. In truth, Politico's premium product isn't political news coverage, progressively slanted or otherwise: It's minute-to-minute updates on regulatory decisions that impact specific industries. This is information that political and government agencies need and that Politico supplies, for a premium price. As independent journalist Lee Fang points out, Politico isn't the only game in town: Bloomberg and LexisNexis run similar services. Politico's price tag is comparable to theirs. "Politico provides paywalled 'pro' subscription services that cost over $10,000 per login for up-to-the-minute, detailed reporting on policy decisions and regulations," writes Fang. "The $8.1 million in Politico subscriptions referenced above relates to years of subscriptions by agency officials across the government." These services are clearly valuable—in fact, Republican legislators pay for them, too. Customers of Politico's services include Rep. Lauren Boebert (R–Colo.), Rep. Elise Stefanik (R–N.Y.), and even Speaker of the House Mike Johnson (R–La.). Republicans want their staffers well informed of legislative updates. Corie Whalen, a communications director for former Rep. Justin Amash (L–Mich.), notes that it would be both impractical and ultimately more expensive to expect legislative staff to gather the necessary information some other way. In a day and age where subscriptions to news and entertainment products cost individuals around $10 to $20 a month, I understand why people are suspicious of subscription costs in the thousands of dollars. But the pricing tiers for organizations are simply more expensive. For instance, consider X. An individual seeking the perks of official verification on the social media site can expect to pay $3, $8, or $22 per month depending on the desired level of premium access. For businesses and governments seeking verification, the cost for full access is $10,000 per year. Maybe government agencies should be pooling resources more aggressively, like family members all sharing one Netflix account. But that would be an issue of government efficiency—not some attempt to pay Politico for favorable coverage. None of this means that either USAID or Politico are blameless entities. It is entirely fair to criticize Politico for slanted coverage; for instance, no outlet is more responsible for foisting on the American people the lie that the Hunter Biden laptop story constituted Russian disinformation. In October 2020, after The New York Post published the story in question, former national intelligence experts signed an open letter declaring that the laptop resembled Russian disinformation. Politico went even further, publishing a headline that made this claim much stronger: "Hunter Biden story is Russian disinfo, dozens of former intel officials say." When Joe Biden was asked about the laptop during the subsequent presidential debate, he dismissed it with reference to Politico's false characterization. This was a massive error on the news outlet's part—but it is not explained by some secret financial payoff on the part of USAID. I am joined by Amber Duke to discuss Trump's plan to gut the Education Department, DOGE cuts to USAID, and the latest news on tariffs. I finished the third season of Marvel's What If…? The finale did a great job of tying all three seasons together, and ended up telling a more coherent story than I expected. I enjoyed it. That said, Marvel needs to come up with a more inventive style of combat between its heroes and villains. I'm getting real sick of the good guys and the bad guys shooting beams of light at each other; every fight is some punching and kicking, and then tons and tons of lasers. It's becoming visually uninteresting. I don't know whose fault this is; even the later Harry Potter films—which similarly feature way, way too many laser light showdowns—make use of more original concepts. See the Voldemort/Dumbledore battle at the climax of Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix. The post USAID Paying for Politico Is a Nontroversy appeared first on
