Paramount Global has asked a federal judge to toss President Trump’s $20-billion lawsuit over edits to a “60 Minutes” interview, alleging Trump’s legal effort was designed to “punish” CBS for editorial decisions — a violation of protected free speech rights.
In its motion to dismiss the lawsuit filed Thursday, Paramount argued that Trump and fellow plaintiff Rep. Ronny Jackson, a Texas Republican, “seek to punish a news organization for constitutionally protected editorial judgments they do not like.”
“They not only ask for $20 billion in damages but also seek an order directing how a news organization may exercise its editorial judgment in the future,” Paramount said in the court filing. “The 1st Amendment stands resolutely against these demands.”
First Amendment experts have long said Paramount, the parent company of CBS, had a solid defense in the “60 Minutes” case because news producers and editors have wide latitude to decide what material to broadcast as long as the information aired isn’t distorted.
Nonetheless, Paramount’s controlling shareholder Shari Redstone has agitated to settle the lawsuit with Trump to help clear a path for her company’s sale to David Ellison’s Skydance Media. The $8-billion transaction requires the approval of federal regulators.
The effort to try to settle the case was met with loud protests by CBS News journalists who insist they did nothing wrong in the editing of last fall’s “60 Minutes” interview with then-Vice President Kamala Harris.
Paramount has separately agreed to mediation, as required by the judge. Paramount was facing a Friday deadline to file the motion to dismiss.
Last fall, CBS invited Trump for an interview with “60 Minutes,” but he backed out. The network went forward with a broadcast that featured Harris.
CBS News has acknowledged that it aired a partial answer by Harris to a question by CBS News correspondent Bill Whitaker about the Biden administration’s handling of the Israel-Hamas war.
The issue became controversial after CBS aired different portions of Harris’ answer on two news programs.
Trump has alleged the network deceptively edited a “60 Minutes” interview with Harris to try to tip the election in her favor. Last month, he amended his initial $10-billion lawsuit — increasing the alleged damages to $20 billion — in an attempt to steer the legal argument away from 1st Amendment grounds by claiming that “60 Minutes” was a fraudulent product foisted on the people of Texas.
Trump filed the suit in Amarillo, Texas, where it would be heard by a Trump-appointed judge. Jackson, Trump’s former doctor who lives in Texas, was added to the lawsuit and alleged that he suffered harm by the “60 Minutes” broadcast.
Paramount separately asked the judge to move the case to federal court in New York, where CBS is based, if he declined to dismiss the claims.
CBS producers have long insisted that they quoted Harris accurately.
The Federal Communications Commission has separately opened an investigation into claims of news distortion stemming from the “60 Minutes” broadcast. Video of the unedited interview, released last month by FCC Chairman Brendon Carr and separately by CBS, supported the network’s account.
But the release also showed that Harris gave a jumbled answer, which was clipped to its most succinct and cogent sentence.
Conservatives have criticized CBS for not airing more of Harris’ response. Trump described Harris’ answer as a “word salad” that suggested she was “incoherent” and “indecisive,” according to the president’s amended complaint.
News organizations routinely edit interviews, removing extraneous words and redundant phrases. The practice has long been accepted — as long as the edits don’t change the context or meaning.
Paramount defended the edits.
“The answers that aired on each news show were simply excerpts of a single answer Vice President Harris gave to a single question, and taken together, viewers heard virtually all of Harris’ answer,” Paramount argued in the motion.
First Amendment experts have said Trump would have had a difficult time arguing the “60 Minutes” interview harmed him because the question did not reference him. Instead, it was about whether the Biden administration had sway with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
Trump’s amended filing also tried to steer the case away from 1st Amendment grounds.
Instead, the Trump amended filing asserts the case should not hinge on free speech arguments but should be considered a violation of the Texas Deceptive Practices Trade Act, which regulates commercial business practices. Trump has asserted the interview amounted to “election interference,” and that it constituted “unfair competition” to his Truth Social platform.
