President Donald Trump’s lawsuit against CBS parent company Paramount over edits made to a “60 Minutes” interview was settled on July 2 after the media company agreed to pay $16 million, the company said.
Paramount said in a statement that the money would be allocated to Trump’s future presidential library and would not be paid to him directly or indirectly.
“The settlement does not include a statement of apology or regret,” the company stated.
The Epoch Times contacted Paramount and the White House for comment but did not receive a response by publication time.
The amended complaint also named Rep. Ronny Jackson (R-Texas) as a plaintiff, alleging he was harmed as a consumer of CBS’s news programming.
Trump’s legal team said in the amended complaint that the interview “was conducted by CBS’s Bill Whitaker ... and recorded in two sessions.”
On Oct. 6, CBS aired a promotional excerpt of the interview during CBS’s “Face the Nation,” in which Harris responded to a question asked by Whitaker regarding Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu “incoherently and indecisively,” the lawsuit said.
The following day, on Oct. 7, CBS broadcast and posted the interview online, according to the lawsuit. When it aired, it contained “approximately fifteen minutes of manipulated footage from the interview interspersed with about six minutes of footage related to the topics being addressed.”
During the broadcast, Whitaker asked Harris the same question regarding Netanyahu, and this time her reply was “coherent” and “decisive,” the lawsuit said.
“Quite simply, the version of the Interview that Plaintiffs and other consumers ultimately saw during 60 Minutes on October 7, 2024 was not the Interview that Defendants advertised on October 6, 2024 during Face the Nation and at other times prior to the Election Special,” the complaint said.
“The Preview and the Interview are both distortive, and to Defendants’ commercial and pecuniary benefit. Instead of broadcasting and posting the Interview online as advertised during the Preview and at other times prior to the Election Special, Defendants deceptively manipulated the Interview in a manner calculated to make Harris appear coherent and decisive, and thus the product more commercially appealing to Defendants’ audience.”






