Paramount Settlement With Trump Would Set ‘Dangerous Precedent,’ But Likely Wouldn’t Draw Bribery Charge, Experts Say
Most legal observers regard President Trump’s lawsuit over the editing of a “60 Minutes” interview with Kamala Harris as frivolous. Nevertheless, parent company Paramount Global has been angling to settle the case, given that the administration has the power to stall or block its merger with Skydance.
Doing so would likely generate backlash from CBS journalists and others who would see it as another major media organization capitulating to the president in hopes of currying favor.
“These are not ‘settlements’ — they are ‘bribes’ and should be described accurately,” wrote Ian Bassin, a former associate counsel in the Obama White House, on BlueSky. “The reporting even explains that CBS executives believe this payment will help avert Trump blocking their merger. That’s a bribe.”
But even if Paramount were to offer a cash payout to the president or his library in hopes of winning merger approval, legal experts say it probably doesn’t have to worry about incurring liability for bribery.
“It’s almost impossible to prosecute any of this as a quid pro quo under the bribery statute,” said Richard Painter, a law professor at the University of Minnesota and a former White House ethics counsel under President George W. Bush. “You need to show the express quid pro quo. It’s extremely difficult.”
The federal bribery law bars “corruptly” giving anything of value to a public official with the intent to influence an official act. For example, former U.S. Sen. Robert Menendez was convicted last year of bribery and other corruption offenses for accepting gold bars and a Mercedes in exchange for various acts.
But in the Paramount case, the purported “thing of value” would not be something as obvious as gold bars. It would be a written legal settlement, signed off on by teams of lawyers. It would be challenging to show that was merely a pretext, and that its true purpose was something else.
“I don’t see that as a bribe. I see that as a business decision,” said Dmitry Gorin, a criminal defense lawyer who has handled federal corruption cases. “I think companies are making a cost-benefit decision, and they want to stay in good stead with the administration.”
Paramount Global and CBS declined to comment.
Trump filed the lawsuit last year under the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, arguing that CBS had deceived consumers by including a long portion of Harris’ answer to a question about Gaza in a “Face the Nation” broadcast, and another more succinct portion of the answer a day later on “60 Minutes.”
Under pressure from the Federal Communications Commission, CBS News earlier this month released the full interview footage and a transcript of its sessions with Harris for the Oct. 7 special. Trump’s newly appointed FCC chairman, agency veteran Brendan Carr, last month was quick to reinstate a “news distortion” complaint brought against WCBS-TV New York for the “60 Minutes” Harris interview.
“Each excerpt reflects the substance of the vice president’s answer,” CBS said at the time, saying the editing was “not doctored or deceitful.”
CBS has argued in court that the First Amendment protects its editorial decisions, and that Trump has no standing to complain about them under a law meant to prohibit false advertising.
If Paramount were to come to terms anyway, it would only be the latest such settlement. In December, ABC News agreed to pay $16 million, including a $15 million check to the Trump presidential library, to resolve a defamation suit that many observers believe it could have won in court. Last month, Meta agreed to pay $25 million to settle Trump’s lawsuit for kicking him off Facebook. And this week, X, formerly known as Twitter, agreed to pay around $10 million to resolve a similar case.
Norman Eisen, a former ethics counsel in the Obama White House, said that settling the CBS lawsuit would be “legally unfounded and an example of anticipatory obedience,” as well as a betrayal of journalistic and democratic responsibility.
“The appearance of a quid pro quo of dropping this case in exchange for merger approval would however likely not be enough to lead to any significant legal challenges,” said Eisen, now a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. “They are hard to bring and have a very high standard of proof.”
“But that doesn’t mean any of this smells good,” he added, noting the role the FCC has played in adding to the pressure on CBS.
“The whiff of undue government pressure is unmistakable,” he said, noting that Trump has become “increasingly emboldened” in his attacks on the media. “CBS should not capitulate lest they add another dangerous precedent.”
Painter has written about pressure from the Trump and Biden administrations on social media companies to adjust their content moderation policies, which he sees as similarly troubling. He believes the monetary settlements are “chump change” compared to what the president truly wants, which is greater control of the messages that reach the general public.
“The gravest risk is that the president has the power to use his office to seek to influence the content of media platforms,” Painter said. “At the end of the day, you have de facto state control of media.”
Doing so would likely generate backlash from CBS journalists and others who would see it as another major media organization capitulating to the president in hopes of currying favor.
“These are not ‘settlements’ — they are ‘bribes’ and should be described accurately,” wrote Ian Bassin, a former associate counsel in the Obama White House, on BlueSky. “The reporting even explains that CBS executives believe this payment will help avert Trump blocking their merger. That’s a bribe.”
But even if Paramount were to offer a cash payout to the president or his library in hopes of winning merger approval, legal experts say it probably doesn’t have to worry about incurring liability for bribery.
“It’s almost impossible to prosecute any of this as a quid pro quo under the bribery statute,” said Richard Painter, a law professor at the University of Minnesota and a former White House ethics counsel under President George W. Bush. “You need to show the express quid pro quo. It’s extremely difficult.”
The federal bribery law bars “corruptly” giving anything of value to a public official with the intent to influence an official act. For example, former U.S. Sen. Robert Menendez was convicted last year of bribery and other corruption offenses for accepting gold bars and a Mercedes in exchange for various acts.
But in the Paramount case, the purported “thing of value” would not be something as obvious as gold bars. It would be a written legal settlement, signed off on by teams of lawyers. It would be challenging to show that was merely a pretext, and that its true purpose was something else.
“I don’t see that as a bribe. I see that as a business decision,” said Dmitry Gorin, a criminal defense lawyer who has handled federal corruption cases. “I think companies are making a cost-benefit decision, and they want to stay in good stead with the administration.”
Paramount Global and CBS declined to comment.
Trump filed the lawsuit last year under the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, arguing that CBS had deceived consumers by including a long portion of Harris’ answer to a question about Gaza in a “Face the Nation” broadcast, and another more succinct portion of the answer a day later on “60 Minutes.”
Under pressure from the Federal Communications Commission, CBS News earlier this month released the full interview footage and a transcript of its sessions with Harris for the Oct. 7 special. Trump’s newly appointed FCC chairman, agency veteran Brendan Carr, last month was quick to reinstate a “news distortion” complaint brought against WCBS-TV New York for the “60 Minutes” Harris interview.
“Each excerpt reflects the substance of the vice president’s answer,” CBS said at the time, saying the editing was “not doctored or deceitful.”
CBS has argued in court that the First Amendment protects its editorial decisions, and that Trump has no standing to complain about them under a law meant to prohibit false advertising.
If Paramount were to come to terms anyway, it would only be the latest such settlement. In December, ABC News agreed to pay $16 million, including a $15 million check to the Trump presidential library, to resolve a defamation suit that many observers believe it could have won in court. Last month, Meta agreed to pay $25 million to settle Trump’s lawsuit for kicking him off Facebook. And this week, X, formerly known as Twitter, agreed to pay around $10 million to resolve a similar case.
Norman Eisen, a former ethics counsel in the Obama White House, said that settling the CBS lawsuit would be “legally unfounded and an example of anticipatory obedience,” as well as a betrayal of journalistic and democratic responsibility.
“The appearance of a quid pro quo of dropping this case in exchange for merger approval would however likely not be enough to lead to any significant legal challenges,” said Eisen, now a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. “They are hard to bring and have a very high standard of proof.”
“But that doesn’t mean any of this smells good,” he added, noting the role the FCC has played in adding to the pressure on CBS.
“The whiff of undue government pressure is unmistakable,” he said, noting that Trump has become “increasingly emboldened” in his attacks on the media. “CBS should not capitulate lest they add another dangerous precedent.”
Painter has written about pressure from the Trump and Biden administrations on social media companies to adjust their content moderation policies, which he sees as similarly troubling. He believes the monetary settlements are “chump change” compared to what the president truly wants, which is greater control of the messages that reach the general public.
“The gravest risk is that the president has the power to use his office to seek to influence the content of media platforms,” Painter said. “At the end of the day, you have de facto state control of media.”