In what feels more like a scene from a dystopian political thriller than real life, US President Donald Trump has secured a $US16 million (AU$24 million) settlement from media giant Paramount, the parent company of CBS, over claims the network deceptively edited an interview with former Vice President Kamala Harris. B&T senior Reporter Aimee Edwards unpacks a concerning trend in Trump’s America and what it means for press freedom and democracy.
If you’re wondering what the hell is happening in America, you’re not alone (and in all honesty, it’s likely not the first time this week you’ve asked yourself that question).
What’s the lawsuit about?
The original suit, filed by Trump in October 2024, centred on a 60 Minutes interview with Harris, who was then running against Trump as the Democratic presidential nominee. CBS aired two slightly different versions of the interview, in which Harris appeared to give conflicting answers to the same question about the Israel–Hamas war.
Trump’s legal team claimed the editing was politically motivated and designed to “tip the scales” against him in a hotly contested electoral race. CBS dismissed the case as “completely without merit”, saying the editing reflected everyday editorial practice.
But instead of going to trial, Paramount quietly settled the lawsuit last week, agreeing to pay Trump the multimillion-dollar sum. The money won’t go directly to Trump, at least not officially. It’s earmarked for his “future presidential library or charitable causes,” according to Paramount.
The media giant was also quick to clarify that the settlement includes no admission of wrongdoing, no apology and no requirement for CBS to retract or revise its reporting.
“The settlement does not include a statement of apology or regret,” the network said in a statement.
Why did Paramount fold?
On paper, this appears to be a case of a media company caving in to avoid a costly court battle. But the timing is impossible to ignore. Paramount is currently seeking approval from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) for an $8.4 billion merger with Skydance Media, a deal that requires the green light from regulators, who have shown an alarming tendency to answer to the Trump administration.
The FCC is technically an independent agency, but with a Trump loyalist, Brendan Carr, already on board, Paramount’s decision has raised eyebrows.
US Senator Elizabeth Warren didn’t mince her words. She called the settlement “bribery in plain sight,” adding that, “Paramount has refused to provide answers to a congressional inquiry, so I’m calling for a full investigation into whether or not any anti-bribery laws were broken”.
Fellow Democrat Bernie Sanders called it “a dark day for independent journalism and freedom of the press”, warning the payout would “only embolden Trump to continue attacking, suing and intimidating the media, which he has labelled ‘the enemy of the people’.”
A pattern of silencing the press
This isn’t Trump’s first legal strike against the media, and it’s unlikely to be his last. The CBS payout follows similar multimillion-dollar settlements from Meta (about $25 million) and ABC News ($15 million), both related to Trump’s claims of bias or defamation. And just last week, his administration threatened to sue CNN over its coverage of immigration enforcement and reporting on Iran’s nuclear program.
In February, Trump escalated the CBS lawsuit by inflating his damages claim from $10 billion to $20 billion and invoking a Texas consumer protection law, in Amarillo, a federal district where the sole judge is a 2019 Trump appointee.
As part of the settlement, 60 Minutes has also agreed to release full transcripts of interviews with future presidential candidates after they air, subject to legal and national security redactions.
Does all this sound a little too familiar?
Earlier this year, former Opposition Leader Peter Dutton told Liberal Party supporters to “forget about what you’ve been told by the ABC, The Guardian and the other hate media.” He offered no evidence to support such claims; he didn’t need to. The line landed with supporters primed to believe that any media scrutiny is an attack.
It was a tactic straight from Trump’s playbook: frame journalists as enemies, undermine public broadcasters and suggest only partisan outlets are telling “the truth.” During his campaign, Dutton distanced himself from Trumpism in policy, but the attacks on media independence mirrored a troubling trend.
The Guardian Australia seized on Dutton’s remarks in a fundraising email with the subject line, “A note from the ‘hate media’,” comparing Dutton’s language to that of Trump, and asking for financial support to keep holding figures like Dutton to account.
This isn’t just a US issue. The idea that political leaders can use courts, regulatory bodies or public opinion to punish media organisations is corrosive to democracy but a common tactic used in authoritarian regimes where state owned media are a propaganda arm of the government and independent media organisations are heavily curtailed.
Trump’s settlements are being hailed by his team as “wins for the American people.” In reality, they represent a win for one man and a direct threat to press freedom and democracy.
In America, Trump once attempted to ban the Associated Press because it refused to refer to the Gulf of Mexico as the “Gulf of America”. A federal judge had to order access to be restored.
In Australia, that kind of absurdity still sounds unthinkable. However, the moment political power begins to dictate which media organisations are considered “legitimate,” the path to that kind of authoritarianism is set. And it often starts not with grand declarations, but with lawsuits, settlements and phrases like “hate media.”
In a world where democracy increasingly relies on robust journalism, the cost of staying silent or settling might be much higher than $24 million.
