Paramount Caves – and We All Lose
The company gives Trump the last laugh while undermining the First Amendment
When Donald Trump sued CBS and Paramount for $10 billion in October of 2024 for supposedly deceptive editing of Kamala Harris’s response to a question about Middle East policy, the case was roundly ridiculed. Multiple commentators noted that the First Amendment barred Trump’s claims, which they dismissed as an abusive “political stunt.” Reason Magazine dismissed it as a “laughable lawsuit.”
Thanks to Paramount, however, Trump now gets the last laugh — and at the expense of essential First Amendment values. In other words, all of us.
Paramount announced Tuesday that it was settling this joke of a lawsuit for $16 million — to go toward Trump's future presidential library.
The widespread perception is that Paramount, the parent company of CBS and 60 Minutes, which ran the clips of Harris, ponied up what is in effect ransom money to ensure that a proposed $8 billion merger with Skydance Media would go through. To put a finer point on it, Shari Redstone, who owns the controlling stake in Paramount Global, stands to reap over $2 billion — possibly much more — from the merger.
The decision prompted howls of outrage from CBS current and former employees and across the media world. Both CBS News president Wendy McMahon and 60 Minutes executive producer Bill Owens resigned in response. And a who's who of prominent media figures disparaged the deal as a "disgraceful" betrayal of First Amendment values.
The facts of the case were unremarkable and benign. Trump sued Paramount (CBS’s parent company) for airing a 2023 60 Minutes segment that included a brief clip of Harris referring to Trump as someone who had “encouraged an insurrection.” The former president, who skipped the opportunity to participate in the segment, sued in a carefully chosen court, arguing a violation of Texas’s Deceptive Trade Practices Act and seeking $10 billion.
To shoehorn that into a consumer protection statute is legally implausible, but it was never really about the law. The complaint was vintage Trump: factually flimsy, strategically intimidating, and aimed not at redress but at chilling criticism.
Trump’s bullying was amplified by his FCC chair, Brendan Carr, who — in direct contravention of FCC guidelines — suggested that the editing of the Harris interview could delay or complicate the merger.
The near-universal view of First Amendment litigators was that the case could never stand up in court. As former CBS anchor Dan Rather wrote, “You settle a lawsuit when you’ve done something wrong. 60 Minutes did nothing wrong.” There is no doubt that in other times, CBS would have defended vigorously and almost certainly won.
Trump’s claim was never going to succeed. The statute prohibits deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of trade or commerce — it is a consumer protection law, not a tool for censoring political speech. Courts have repeatedly held that news broadcasts and editorial content are not “commercial conduct” within the scope of FDUTPA when they concern matters of public interest.
Moreover, the Harris clip was a description of well-documented conduct, made by a sitting vice president, during an interview. CBS aired it as part of a broader news segment, not as an endorsement of her statement. The claim of “consumer fraud” makes no sense on its face.
Trump’s lawsuits — whatever legal label they wear — are not about vindicating legal rights. They’re about retribution. He doesn’t file them to correct the record; he files them to punish his critics, drag them through litigation, and make others think twice before crossing him. These are not good-faith efforts to protect his name — they are tools of intimidation, part and parcel of a broader authoritarian instinct to silence dissent and bend institutions to his will.
He’s sued CNN for calling his election lies “the Big Lie.” He sued the Pulitzer board for awarding coverage of his Russia ties. He’s gone after The New York Times, former prosecutors, social media executives, Hillary Clinton. These cases almost always fail when litigated.
But that’s the point: many defendants won’t risk a drawn-out legal fight with a former president whose war chest is fueled by grievance and whose legal strategy is essentially “I’m Trump, I’m mad, and I’ll see you in court.” It’s a perverse inversion of the First Amendment — using the legal system itself as a means to chill speech, discourage investigative reporting, and cow media outlets into deference.
Which brings us back to Paramount.
Defenders of the settlement, if there are any, could try to invoke the economic interests of Paramount shareholders and defend the corporation’s decision to look out for the overall bottom line, including the merger.
What that ignores is that Paramount’s decision to fold — especially without a legal ruling — amounts to more than just a business calculation in our current climate. It sends a message, both to Trump and to the rest of the media ecosystem: if the legal attack is aggressive enough, and the stakes are high enough, even the biggest players may blink.
That message is especially corrosive in the current climate. At a time when public trust in the media is eroding, when authoritarian rhetoric has entered the mainstream, and when political actors are actively attempting to rewrite the history of January 6, media institutions have a heightened responsibility to defend not just the accuracy of their reporting but the norms that make free journalism possible.
The Constitution, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, gives media companies an added layer of protection from liability. A plaintiff — even in a deceptive trade practices suit — must show more than mere negligence; they must prove knowing falsehood or reckless disregard for the truth.
That rule makes it notoriously difficult to prove liability against media. But its purpose is not to benefit media — but rather all of us. It is to give wide berth to truthful reporting, which is the cornerstone of democratic self-governance that media promotes.
In return for this cushion of protection, the media are supposed to fight for the truth, fight to ensure we all are well-informed, fight against rulers’ natural efforts to suppress unfavorable information.
It’s that overall deal that justifies the extra measure of legal protection — and that same arrangement that Paramount’s craven decision to settle undermines.
Trump’s strategy for eroding constitutional rights and consolidating his power doesn’t rely solely — or even primarily — on legal battles and the Supreme Court. It also depends on brutal power plays against industries like media, universities, and law firms that surrender their influence voluntarily. The stakes are highest with the media, which holds its power largely in trust for the public.
We are seeing in Trump 2.0 a widespread erosion of rights — not always through sweeping judicial decisions or formal legislation, but through institutional retreat. Through the quiet acquiescence of those best positioned to resist.
It’s not hard to imagine the upshot of Paramount’s settlement. The playbook works, so it will be used again. Trump (or perhaps other intimidating copycats) will file more suits, against more journalists, for more routine acts of scrutiny. Some outlets will fight. Others will settle. The chilling effect compounds.
And this isn’t just about elite media. The smaller the newsroom, the bigger the pressure. Local journalists, nonprofit investigative reporters, freelance commentators — they don't have the resources to withstand even frivolous litigation. If Paramount won’t fight, what message does that send to a high school reporter with a tough story about a MAGA-aligned school board?
The First Amendment enshrines the right to criticize public officials — especially presidents and would-be presidents. It protects sharp questions, pointed language, and characterizations that may sting. That right is only as strong as our willingness to use it — and to defend those who do.
In that sense, Paramount’s quiet exit isn’t just a corporate shrug. It’s a low-rent, short-sighted surrender. And at this moment in our democracy, that’s a capitulation our society can’t afford.
Talk to you later.
Donald Trump is the biggest POS to ever reside in the White House. He needs to be impeached and, jailed for his corrupt behavior and hateful rhetoric. No president has destroyed the integrity of the position as much as he has. The guy who is a felon should never have been allowed to represent the United States of America 🇺🇸. He's the most anti American to ever serve the country.
This is what happens when an entertainment companies own newsrooms.