Trump Lawyers Claim ‘60 Minutes' Harris Interview Caused Him ‘Mental Anguish,' Argue That the ‘First Amendment Is No Shield to News Distortion' in Motion to Deny Paramount Bid to Dismiss Lawsuit

President Trump's legal team filed an objection to Paramount Global's move to dismiss his $20 billion lawsuit against CBS over a '60 Minutes' segment, arguing that the TV newsmagazine's alleged deceptive editing of an interview with Kamala Harris is not protected by the First Amendment.
Trump filed the lawsuit against CBS just days before the 2024 presidential election, alleging the '60 Minutes' interview with Harris violated a Texas consumer protection law by misleading voters and caused Trump personal financial harm. His suit initially asked for $10 billion in damages. In February, the president amended the complaint to seek at least $20 billion.
More from Variety
Trump Reacts Angrily to Question About Wall Street's 'TACO Trade,' Meaning 'Trump Always Chickens Out' on His Tariff Threats: 'It's Called Negotiation'
Trump Pardons Reality Stars Todd and Julie Chrisley Following Tax Evasion and Bank Fraud Convictions
'Comics Unleashed' Returns to CBS Late-Night Schedule Following 'Midnight' Cancellation
In a March 2025 motion to dismiss Trump's suit, Paramount called the legal action 'an affront to the First Amendment' that is 'without basis in law or fact.' CBS News has maintained that the '60 Minutes' broadcast and promotion of the Harris interview was 'not doctored or deceitful.'
Meanwhile, lawyers for Paramount and Trump have engaged in settlement talks. Paramount offered $15 million to settle the suit — an amount rejected by Trump, according to a report by the Wall Street Journal. Trump's lawyers want more than that, and they want '60 Minutes' to issue an apology to the president, per the Journal article. In addition, Trump's lawyers President's team 'threatened another lawsuit' against CBS amid the settlement talks, according to the WSJ report.
On Wednesday (May 28), lawyers for Trump and his co-plaintiff, Rep. Ronny Jackson (R-Texas), filed their opposition to Paramount's motion to dismiss.
A key point of Trump's legal argument is that the edited versions of the '60 Minutes' Harris interview represent commercial speech, and that — as alleged in the president's lawsuit — CBS competes for advertising with Trump's media businesses, including Truth Social's parent company Trump Media & Technology Group (which is majority-owned by the president).
With the edited Harris interview, CBS's 'conduct, including news distortion, constituted commercial speech which cannot by any reasonable interpretation be found to have constituted editorial judgment, and that speech damaged Plaintiffs,' Trump's filing said. 'The fact that such commercial speech was issued by a news organization does not insulate Defendants from liability under the First Amendment.'
'[T]he First Amendment is no shield to news distortion,' according to the Trump team's filing.
According to the filing, the '60 Minutes' editing of the Harris interview 'led to widespread confusion and mental anguish of consumers, including Plaintiffs, regarding a household name of the legacy media apparently deceptively distorting its broadcasts, and then resisting attempts to clear the public record.'
A copy of the Trump team's motion, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, is at this link.
The legal battle comes as Paramount is seeking government approval for its $8 billion merger with Skydance Media. Three left-wing U.S. senators have warned Shari Redstone, Paramount's controlling shareholder, that such a settlement payment by Paramount to the president would be tantamount to an illegal bribe, although legal experts say it's very unlikely the media company could face such a charge.
The Paramount-Skydance deal is currently pending FCC approval. Trump-appointed FCC chairman Brendan Carr has maintained the agency's approval of Paramount-Skydance is not connected to the president's '60 Minutes' lawsuit. Last November, Carr said in a Fox News interview that a conservative group's 'news distortion' complaint against CBS over the '60 Minutes' Harris interview was 'likely to arise in the context of the FCC review of [the Paramount-Skydance] transaction.' Paramount Global has said Trump's lawsuit 'is completely separate from, and unrelated to, the Skydance transaction and the FCC approval process.'
In February, Redstone asked Paramount's board to resolve the Trump lawsuit, including by exploring the possibility of mediation, Variety has reported. Redstone recused herself from the board's discussions about a settlement with Trump.
In response to an FCC request in its examination of the 'new distortion' complaint, CBS News made public an unedited transcript of the '60 Minutes' interview with Harris that aired Oct. 6, 2024 (available at this link) and said the materials showed that 'consistent with 60 Minutes' repeated assurances to the public,' the broadcast 'was not doctored or deceitful.'
In a separate case, Trump last year sued ABC News and George Stephanopoulos after the anchor inaccurately stated on-air that Trump had been found liable for rape. (A New York jury found Trump liable for sexually abusing and defaming writer E. Jean Carroll.) In December 2024, Disney and ABC News agreed to pay $15 million to settle Trump's defamation lawsuit plus $1 million in legal fees.
Best of Variety
'Harry Potter' TV Show Cast Guide: Who's Who in Hogwarts?
New Movies Out Now in Theaters: What to See This Week
Emmy Predictions: Talk/Scripted Variety Series - The Variety Categories Are Still a Mess; Netflix, Dropout, and 'Hot Ones' Stir Up Buzz

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Yahoo

19 minutes ago

• Yahoo

Europe Frets About US Retreating From Region Ahead of NATO

(Bloomberg) -- NATO's European allies are focused on getting through this week's summit unscathed. But even if President Donald Trump is satisfied with fresh pledges to ramp up spending, anxiety is growing about the US military presence in the region. Bezos Wedding Draws Protests, Soul-Searching Over Tourism in Venice One Architect's Quest to Save Mumbai's Heritage From Disappearing JFK AirTrain Cuts Fares 50% This Summer to Lure Riders Off Roads NYC Congestion Toll Cuts Manhattan Gridlock by 25%, RPA Reports Only after the June 24-25 summit meeting in The Hague – where North Atlantic Treaty Organization members will pledge to spend 5% of GDP on defense – will the US present its military review, which will spell out the scope of what are likely significant reductions in Europe. With some 80,000 US troops in Europe, governments in the region have factored in at least a reversal of the military surge under former President Joe Biden of about 20,000 troops. The stakes got significantly higher overnight after US struck nuclear sites in Iran with the risk that Trump will get sucked into a spiraling conflict in the Middle East after being a vocal critic of US military involvement overseas. His foreign policy U-turn will be a topic that will be hard to avoid at the gathering, especially with NATO ally Turkey present and a key stakeholder in the region. Europeans have been kept in the dark on the Trump administration's plans. But officials in the region are bracing potentially for a far bigger withdrawal that could present a dangerous security risk, according to officials familiar with the discussions who declined to be identified as closed-door talks take place before the review. Up until early June, no official from the US had come to NATO to talk about the US force posture review, spurring concern among allies that this could be done at very short notice, according to a person familiar with the matter. It's unclear whether European nations have started planning to fill any potential gaps left by US forces. Withdrawing the aforementioned 20,000 troops could also have an even greater impact if other NATO allies follow the US lead and remove their troops from the east. The worry with even deeper cuts impacting US bases in Germany and Italy is they could encourage Russia to test NATO's Article 5 of collective defense with hybrid attacks across the alliance, the person familiar also said. Since returning to the White House, Trump and his allies have warned European capitals that – despite the mounting threat from Russia – they need to take charge of their security as the US turns its military and diplomatic focus to the Indo-Pacific region. Contacted by Bloomberg, NATO declined to respond to questions but referred to a statement by NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte in early June. When asked about a US drawdown from Europe, he said it was normal they would pivot to Asia. 'I'm not worried about that, but I'm absolutely convinced we will do that in a step-by-step approach,' Rutte said then. 'There will be no capability gaps in Europe because of this.' The White House referred questions to the Pentagon. 'The U.S. constantly evaluates force posture to ensure it aligns with America's strategic interests,' a defense official responded. The geopolitical shift is likely to have enormous consequences for the 32-member alliance, which is weathering its greatest challenge since it became the bulwark against Soviet power in the decades after World War II. European militaries long reliant on American hard power will have to fill the gap as Washington scales back. If a troop reduction focuses on efficiency, it would be far less problematic for Europeans than one that hits critical assets and personnel that Europe couldn't replace immediately, according to one European diplomat. The nature of a withdrawal would be more important than the troop numbers, the person said. A dramatic pullout announcement is likely to trigger an instant reaction from eastern member states, with those closer to Russia immediately requesting deployments from Western European allies. The holistic review of the US military, which Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth says should focus on threats facing the US, is meant to reflect the tilt in the global power dynamic, bringing potentially large-scale redeployment of weapons and troops. But European diplomats have bristled at the timing of the review, taking place only after NATO signs off on its most ambitious new weapons targets since the Cold War — with member states agreeing to foot the bill. A withdrawal that is more dramatic than anticipated will mean that, after acceding to Trump's ramp-up in defense spending, they still may be left with a heavy burden to respond to a rapidly growing Russian military. 'We would be remiss in not reviewing force posture everywhere, but it would be the wrong planning assumption to say, 'America is abandoning'' or leaving Europe, Hegseth said in Stuttgart in February. 'No, America is smart to observe, plan, prioritize and project power to deter conflict.' After the Trump administration balked at providing a backstop to European security guarantees to Ukraine, a pullout of more US troops could embolden Russia's Vladimir Putin, according to people familiar with the matter. 'The question is when pressure is on for a greater focus on the Indo-Pacific, what capabilities do they need to think about moving,' said Matthew Savill, director of military sciences at RUSI, a defense think tank. 'I don't get an impression that they have yet decided what that means for force levels in specific terms.' Germany, Europe's richest and most populous nation, is positioning itself to take on the largest share of the redistribution. Defense Minister Boris Pistorius is taking the lead in building out the military after the country scrapped constitutional debt restrictions when it comes to security. Berlin will do the 'heavy lifting,' he's said. Pistorius recently unveiled a new battle tank brigade in Lithuania and has said the country is committed to boosting its armed forces by as many as 60,000 soldiers. The military currently has about 182,000 active-duty troops. European governments are pushing Washington to communicate its plans clearly and space out any troop draw-downs to give them time to step up with their own forces. 'There are some capabilities, like deep precision strikes, where we Europeans need some time to catch up,' said Stefan Schulz, a senior official in the German Defense Ministry. He called for any US reduction to be done in an orderly fashion, 'so that this process of US reduction is matched with the uplift of European capabilities.' The ideal scenario would be an orderly shift within NATO toward a stronger Europe that would take about a decade, said Camille Grand, distinguished policy fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations and a former NATO assistant secretary general. A more dire scenario would involve a US administration acting out of frustration with European progress and drastically reducing troop presence. Grand said a 'plausible' scenario would be a cut to about 65,000 US troops, matching a low-point figure before Russia's annexation of Crimea in 2014 — a level that NATO could manage. 'But if we go below that, we are entering uncharted waters, a different world,' Grand said. --With assistance from Courtney McBride and Milda Seputyte. (Adds a graph of context referencing developments in the Middle East in fourth paragraph.) Luxury Counterfeiters Keep Outsmarting the Makers of $10,000 Handbags Is Mark Cuban the Loudmouth Billionaire that Democrats Need for 2028? Ken Griffin on Trump, Harvard and Why Novice Investors Won't Beat the Pros The US Has More Copper Than China But No Way to Refine All of It Can 'MAMUWT' Be to Musk What 'TACO' Is to Trump? ©2025 Bloomberg L.P. Error al recuperar los datos Inicia sesión para acceder a tu cartera de valores Error al recuperar los datos Error al recuperar los datos Error al recuperar los datos Error al recuperar los datos

Washington Post

20 minutes ago

• Washington Post

Hundreds protest in The Hague against NATO, days before the Dutch city hosts alliance summit

THE HAGUE, Netherlands — Hundreds of people protested Sunday against NATO and military spending and against a possible conflict with Iran, two days before a summit of the alliance in The Hague that is seeking to increase allies' defense budgets. 'Let's invest in peace and sustainable energy,' Belgian politician Jos d'Haese told the crowd at a park not far from the summit venue. Although billed as a demonstration against NATO and the war in Gaza, protesters were joined by Iranians who held up banners saying 'No Iran War,' the day after the United States launched attacks against three of Iran's nuclear sites. 'We are opposed to war. People want to live a peaceful life,' said 74-year-old Hossein Hamadani, an Iranian who lives in the Netherlands. Look at the environment. 'Things are not good. So why do we spend money on war?' he added. The Netherlands is hosting the annual meeting of the 32-nation alliance starting Tuesday, with leaders scheduled to meet Wednesday. The heads of government want to hammer out an agreement on a hike in defense spending demanded by U.S. President Donald Trump. The deal appeared largely done last week, until Spain's Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez wrote to NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte that committing Madrid to spending 5% of its gross domestic product on defense 'would not only be unreasonable, but also counterproductive .' U.S. allies have ramped up defense spending since Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered a full-scale invasion of Ukraine more than three years ago, but almost a third of them still don't meet NATO's current target of at least 2% of their gross domestic product. The summit is being protected by the biggest ever Dutch security operation, code named 'Orange Shield,' involving thousands of police and military personnel, drones, no-fly zones and cybersecurity experts. ___ Associated Press writer Molly Quell in The Hague contributed.

Newsweek

21 minutes ago

• Newsweek

Before and After Images Show Impact of US Strikes on Iran Nuclear Site

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. New satellite imagery shows large craters and ash at Iran's Fordow nuclear facility following U.S. airstrikes that President Donald Trump said had "totally obliterated" Tehran's major nuclear sites. The Context Trump confirmed late on Saturday that the U.S. had carried out "massive precision strikes" to take out Tehran's nuclear enrichment facilities and damage its ability to make a nuclear weapon. Fordow nuclear site in central Iran on Friday, prior to U.S. strikes on the complex on Saturday afternoon U.S. time. Fordow nuclear site in central Iran on Friday, prior to U.S. strikes on the complex on Saturday afternoon U.S. time. Satellite image ©2025 Maxar Technologies A view of the exterior of Fordow, a major nuclear site in central Iran on Sunday, after U.S. strikes on the facility on Saturday evening U.S. time. A view of the exterior of Fordow, a major nuclear site in central Iran on Sunday, after U.S. strikes on the facility on Saturday evening U.S. time. Satellite image ©2025 Maxar Technologies What To Know The U.S. struck Fordow, roughly 60 miles south of Tehran, as well as the Natanz complex to the southeast and Isfahan, southwest of Natanz, Trump said. The president hailed the attacks as a "spectacular military success," adding: "Iran's key nuclear enrichment facilities have been completely and totally obliterated." Experts said it was too early to tell exactly how much damage has been done to Iran's network of nuclear sites. General Dan Caine, the chairman of the U.S. joint chiefs of staff, said on Sunday morning that initial assessments of the operation dubbed Midnight Hammer indicated "all three sites sustained extremely severe damage and destruction," but analysis was ongoing. Israel continued attacking Iran into Sunday, and Tehran launched fresh strikes on several Israeli cities. Satellite imagery published by space imagery firm Maxar on Sunday showed a number of large craters or holes at the top of the ridge, under which is the underground complex at Fordow. Ash from airstrikes covers much of the area, and several of the entrances to Fordow's tunnel network appear to be blocked with dirt, Maxar said. Images separately published by Planet Labs on Sunday also showed ash covering the area around Fordow. Fordow is built under a mountain, a facility that was secret until 2009 and Israel has been unable to destroy with its weapons. While Israel has carried out strikes on Iran's nuclear sites—including Natanz and Isfahan—since it started its campaign over a week ago, the U.S. is considered the only country able to reach the deeply buried sites like Fordow using B-2 bombers and "bunker buster" bombs. These huge bombs had never been used before in combat. A view of Fordow prior to U.S. airstrikes on the underground complex, taken on Thursday, June 19, 2025. A view of Fordow prior to U.S. airstrikes on the underground complex, taken on Thursday, June 19, 2025. Satellite image ©2025 Maxar Technologies Craters are visible and ash can be seen on the ridge at Fordow on Sunday, after U.S. strikes on the underground facility. Craters are visible and ash can be seen on the ridge at Fordow on Sunday, after U.S. strikes on the underground facility. Satellite image ©2025 Maxar Technologies Caine told the media on Sunday morning that the U.S. had used a total of 14 30,000-pound GBU-57/B bombs against two nuclear target areas in Iran. Reports had suggested at least one GBU-57/B was fired on Natanz. A U.S. submarine launched more than 2 dozen Tomahawk cruise missiles against the aboveground facilities at Isfahan around 5 p.m. ET on Saturday, just before U.S. aircraft entered Iranian airspace. Washington used deception tactics and a host of fourth- and fifth-generation aircraft traveling ahead of B-2 bombers to sweep for Iranian fighter jets and air defenses, Caine said. At 6:40 p.m. ET, the first B-2 dropped two "bunker buster" bombs at Fordow, the chairman said. The rest of the munitions were dropped in the following 25 minutes, and Iran did not fire any shots at U.S. aircraft traveling in or out of Iran, Caine added. Caine said full damage assessments were still pending, but that "all three sites sustained extremely severe damage and destruction." The U.S. "achieved destruction of capabilities" at Fordow, U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said. What People Are Saying U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, speaking alongside General Dan Caine on Sunday, said, "Iran's nuclear ambitions have been obliterated." What Happens Next Trump has threatened further strikes on Iran if Tehran does not negotiate a deal, while the country's foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi called the American attacks "outrageous," promising "everlasting consequences."