In a high-profile legal battle, Paramount Global has filed motions to dismiss President Donald Trump’s $20 billion lawsuit against CBS, arguing the case is an assault on First Amendment protections and lacks legal standing.
The lawsuit, initially filed five days before the 2024 presidential election, alleges that CBS manipulated an interview with former Vice President Kamala Harris on 60 Minutes to portray her in a more favorable light, allegedly distorting the truth to influence voters. Trump’s legal team claims the network’s editing amounted to “unfair competition” and “false advertising,” purportedly harming Trump and diverting online traffic away from his platform, Truth Social.
Paramount’s Legal Defense
On Thursday, Paramount Global—parent company of CBS—submitted two motions to dismiss the case, citing First Amendment protections and jurisdictional concerns.
“If the First Amendment means anything, it means that public officials like Plaintiffs cannot hold news organizations like CBS liable for the simple exercise of editorial judgment,” one of the motions stated. Paramount argues that Trump and his team have no legal grounds to dictate how a media outlet edits and presents its content.
Additionally, the company asserts that the lawsuit was filed in an improper jurisdiction. The case was brought in Amarillo, Texas, despite CBS and Paramount having no direct ties to the state, and despite the interview itself having no connection to Texas. Trump’s legal team included Texas Representative Ronny Jackson as a plaintiff, claiming he suffered unspecified “substantial damages” due to CBS’s alleged consumer fraud under Texas law.
The Controversy Over the Interview Edits
At the heart of the dispute is an interview segment in which Harris responded to 60 Minutes correspondent Bill Whitaker’s suggestion that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was disregarding the Biden administration’s stance during Israel’s conflict with Hamas.
“Well, Bill, the work that we have done has resulted in a number of movements in that region by Israel that were very much prompted by, or a result of many things, including our advocacy for what needs to happen in the region,” Harris originally stated.
However, when the interview aired in its final edited form, CBS cut out the first half of her answer, instead broadcasting only her statement: “We are not going to stop pursuing what is necessary for the United States to be clear about where we stand on the need for this war to end.”
Conservative critics quickly seized on the shortened response, mocking Harris for delivering what they called another “word salad.” Trump’s attorneys argue that CBS deliberately edited her response to avoid public scrutiny of her speaking style and to present her in a more articulate and favorable light. They claim this manipulation constitutes “partisan and unlawful acts of election and voter interference.”
CBS Defends Its Editorial Practices
CBS and 60 Minutes have pushed back against the allegations, insisting that editing is a standard journalistic practice used to fit time constraints while maintaining factual integrity.
“In reporting the news, journalists regularly edit interviews – for time, space, or clarity,” the news program stated. “In making these edits, 60 Minutes is always guided by the truth and what we believe will be most informative to the viewing public – all while working within the constraints of broadcast television.”
The lawsuit gained further traction when the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) intervened, prompting CBS to release the full unedited transcript and video. The FCC had received a “news distortion” complaint from the Center for American Rights, leading to increased scrutiny of CBS’s handling of the interview.
Political and Business Implications
Beyond the courtroom battle, Paramount’s legal maneuvering could have broader business ramifications. The company is currently negotiating a merger with Skydance Media, and sources indicate that settling the lawsuit with Trump could help smooth the path for regulatory approval.
FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr, appointed under the Trump administration, has the authority to stall or scrutinize the merger deal. Industry insiders speculate that resolving the lawsuit could be part of a strategic effort by Paramount to avoid regulatory roadblocks.
As of now, the proposed merger is expected to close by March 20, though the timeline could be extended twice by 90 days if FCC approval is delayed. Paramount remains hopeful that the deal will be finalized in the first half of the year.
What’s Next?
Paramount’s motions to dismiss now await a ruling from the Amarillo-based judge presiding over the case, who was appointed by Trump. If the case is not dismissed, it could move into a prolonged legal battle, potentially influencing both media and political landscapes in the coming months.
.jpeg)
