CBS to Pay Trump $16 Million Over “60 Minutes” Editing Scandal
After a landmark settlement, the network admits to selective editing in Kamala Harris’s interview and agrees to release full transcripts for all future presidential candidates
Twitter
In a dramatic turn that could reshape the relationship between the press and politics, CBS and its parent company, Paramount Global, have agreed to pay former President Donald Trump $16 million following a lawsuit over biased editing of a 60 Minutes interview with Vice President Kamala Harris.
The lawsuit, filed in Texas in October 2024, accused the network of “deliberate editorial manipulation” that favored the Biden-Harris campaign during the run-up to the 2024 election. Trump alleged that key portions of Harris’s interview were edited out to protect her from scrutiny while his own statements were framed out of context or omitted entirely.
Court filings revealed that CBS producers had cut several tense moments from the original interview—segments in which Harris struggled to respond to national security concerns, dodged economic questions, and declined to address border policy failures.
Beyond the financial payout, CBS agreed to a far-reaching policy change: going forward, the network will release unedited video and full transcripts of all interviews with presidential and vice-presidential candidates within seven days of broadcast. Internally, the policy is already being referred to as the “Trump Rule.”
The impact was swift inside CBS. Longtime 60 Minutes producer Bill Owens stepped down, citing tensions with network leadership. Wendy McMahon, head of CBS News, also resigned in the wake of internal backlash over the network’s editorial independence.
While Trump’s legal team celebrated the outcome as a “victory for transparency,” others raised red flags. Press freedom watchdogs like the Freedom of the Press Foundation called the settlement “a chilling precedent,” and several Senate Democrats, including Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, accused Paramount of effectively paying “hush money” to push forward a controversial merger with Skydance Media, which is currently under FCC review.
Critics or not, the precedent is set. News organizations may now face legal and reputational risks if they are seen as selectively editing interviews with political candidates especially in an era where raw footage can easily be leaked, remixed, or litigated.
Whether this marks the beginning of a broader shift toward transparency - or simply a cautionary tale of media overreach, remains to be seen. But one thing is clear: the rules of engagement between journalists and politicians are being rewritten, and Trump just made his mark on the first page.