NEW YORK — In a blockbuster media and political development, Paramount Global and CBS have agreed to a settlement potentially exceeding $30 million to resolve former President Donald Trump’s lawsuit accusing the network of election interference tied to a 2024 “60 Minutes” interview with then–Vice President Kamala Harris.

The deal includes an upfront $16 million payout to cover Trump’s legal expenses and contributions to causes such as his future presidential library or charities, according to Fox News Digital. CBS has not admitted wrongdoing, but agreed to reform its editorial standards as part of the settlement.

What’s Changing at CBS?

As part of the agreement, CBS will now release full, unedited transcripts of all future interviews with presidential candidates. Insiders are already calling this policy change the “Trump Rule.”

While CBS hasn’t conceded any journalistic fault, sources say the new policy aims to rebuild trust and transparency after months of backlash.

The Numbers: A Massive Payout

• $16 million paid upfront to Trump
• Additional mid–eight-figure allocation anticipated for future public service announcements and conservative-aligned messaging across CBS platforms
• The total amount may surpass the $15 million ABC paid Trump last year in a separate defamation case

Paramount executives dispute the additional allocation figure, but Trump’s legal team sees the deal as a resounding victory.

“President Trump delivers another win for the American people… CBS and Paramount Global had no choice but to settle,” a spokesperson for Trump’s team said.

The Lawsuit: What Sparked the Battle

Trump’s legal complaint centered on a 2023 “60 Minutes” interview with Kamala Harris. A preview clip on Face the Nation showed Harris fumbling through a widely mocked answer about Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu — what critics called a “word salad.” A different, more concise version of her response aired during the network’s primetime broadcast.

Trump alleged this selective editing was meant to shield Harris from criticism right before Election Day — and that it amounted to election interference. CBS maintained that both clips came from the same answer and denied any intent to mislead.

Still, the FCC got involved, forcing CBS to release the unedited transcript, which revealed both parts of Harris’ answer were cut and aired separately.

Political and Industry Fallout

Trump originally sought $20 billion in damages. And while CBS avoided that number, the network was clearly under pressure — especially with Paramount Global’s pending merger with Skydance Media in the background. There were fears that Trump’s FCC could block the deal if the lawsuit wasn’t resolved.

Not everyone inside CBS agreed with the decision to settle:

• “60 Minutes” producers reportedly called the lawsuit “complete bulls—”
• Longtime executive producer Bill Owens resigned in April over the dispute, citing a lack of editorial independence
• CBS News President Wendy McMahon also stepped down in May, stating, “It’s time for me to move on”

Meanwhile, Sen. Bernie Sanders and eight other Democratic senators had urged Paramount not to settle, calling the lawsuit an “attack on the First Amendment.”

No Apology, No Personal Payout

The settlement does not include any admission of guilt or a formal apology. No money is going directly to Trump himself—the funds are earmarked for legal and charitable use.

Paramount emphasized that the settlement is unrelated to the Skydance deal and that it is simply “abiding by the legal process.” Still, the timing suggests a strategic move to clear the decks ahead of the July 2 shareholder meeting.

Trump: “They Cheated the American People”

Trump, for his part, called the CBS segment a “fraud on the American people.” On Truth Social, he claimed Harris’ original answer was so damaging it would have “cost her many of the votes she ended up getting.”

The case, Trump argued, showed that the media had gone too far in trying to influence elections—and this time, he fought back and won.

Final Take

This is more than just a legal victory for Trump—it’s a shot across the bow for mainstream media. Whether you view it as justice or intimidation, the settlement marks a pivotal moment in the evolving relationship between politics, press freedom, and accountability in the digital age.

Source: FOX News – Paramount, CBS forced to pay eight figures, change editorial policy in settlement with President Trump

The post Trump Scores Big Win as CBS Agrees to Eight-Figure Settlement appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.

NEW YORK — National Public Radio (NPR) and three local public radio stations have taken legal action against President Donald Trump’s administration, challenging an executive order that aims to slash federal funding for public media.

The lawsuit, filed Tuesday in a federal court in Washington, comes from NPR along with Colorado Public Radio, Aspen Public Radio, and KUTE, Inc. It argues that Trump’s recent executive order targeting federal support for NPR and PBS violates the First Amendment’s protections on free speech.

What’s Behind the Lawsuit?

Earlier this month, Trump signed an executive order directing the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and other federal agencies to stop funding NPR and PBS. The order also pushes these agencies to hunt down any indirect public funding going to these outlets. The White House justified the move by claiming bias in their news coverage.

But NPR and its partners see it differently. The lawsuit states that the executive order is a direct attempt to punish NPR for news content the president dislikes, chilling free speech and violating constitutional rights.

“This order is textbook retaliation and viewpoint-based discrimination,” the filing reads. It also argues the order interferes with NPR and its local stations’ editorial independence and freedom to associate.

A Battle That Was Expected

NPR and PBS leaders quickly condemned the executive order, calling it illegal. While PBS hasn’t joined this lawsuit yet, they’re expected to file their own legal challenge soon. This fight over public media funding is part of a broader push by the Trump administration to dismantle government-backed news organizations.

Broader Media Tensions Under the Trump Administration

This lawsuit isn’t an isolated incident. The administration has clashed repeatedly with various media outlets. For example:

• Efforts to cut funding and restrict government-run news sources like Voice of America and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty have also led to court battles.
• The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has launched investigations into major networks such as ABC, CBS, and NBC News.
• The Associated Press took legal action after the administration restricted their access in retaliation for refusing to comply with a presidential directive to rename the Gulf of Mexico.

What’s Next?

The legal fight between NPR and the administration highlights ongoing tensions over media freedom and government influence. As the case moves forward, it will likely draw national attention to the balance between political power and the role of public media in a democracy.

Source: AP News – NPR sues Trump administration over executive order to cut federal funding to public media

The post NPR Sues Trump Administration Over Public Media Funding Cuts appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.

A federal judge on Monday declined to immediately reinstate The Associated Press’ access to White House events, ruling that the news organization had not demonstrated irreparable harm. However, he urged the Trump administration to reconsider its decision, warning that legal precedent was “uniformly unhelpful” to the White House.

Key Points from the Ruling

Judge Trevor N. McFadden ruled against an immediate restraining order but left room for further legal review.
The judge warned that barring AP could be considered viewpoint discrimination.
The case will continue, with the next hearing set for March 20.

“It seems pretty clearly viewpoint discrimination,” – Judge McFadden to government attorney Brian Hudak

With no immediate ruling, the White House remains free to deny AP access to the Oval Office and other presidential events.

The White House’s Stance

The Trump administration defended its two-week-old ban on AP, arguing that:
Press access is a privilege, not a right
AP reporters still have some access to White House news events
The president has the discretion to decide who he speaks with

To reinforce its stance, the White House installed monitors in the briefing room displaying the phrases “Gulf of America“ and “Victory.”

“As we have said from the beginning, asking the President of the United States questions in the Oval Office and aboard Air Force One is a privilege granted to journalists, not a legal right.”

Was AP Targeted for Viewpoint Discrimination?

The dispute began when the AP refused to adopt Trump’s executive order renaming the ‘Gulf of Mexico’ as the ‘Gulf of America.’

AP insisted on using “Gulf of Mexico“ in its reporting, citing its global audience and commitment to journalistic accuracy. However, it also acknowledged Trump’s order in coverage.

AP attorney Charles Tobin argued that barring AP was unconstitutional:

“The issue is that once the president allows the press pool in, he can’t say, ‘I don’t like you. You’re fake news. Get out.’”

Government attorney Brian Hudak defended the move:

“That’s not just special access. That’s extra-special access.”

Judge McFadden pressed both sides on the role of the White House Correspondents’ Association in determining press pool access. He questioned whether the government was bound by its decisions but later noted that banning only AP seemed discriminatory.

AP Fights Back: A Legal Battle Over Press Freedom

On Friday, AP filed a lawsuit against three top Trump officials:
Susan Wiles – White House Chief of Staff
Taylor Budowich – Deputy Chief of Staff
Karoline Leavitt – White House Press Secretary

The AP’s lawsuit calls the White House’s move a “targeted attack” on press freedom, arguing that it violates the First Amendment.

“We look forward to our next hearing on March 20, where we will continue to stand for the right of the press and the public to speak freely without government retaliation. This is a fundamental American freedom.” – AP Spokesperson Lauren Easton

Dozens of news organizations, including Fox News and Newsmax, have signed a letter urging the White House to reverse its policy.

Trump’s History of Press Battles

This isn’t the first time the Trump administration has clashed with the media:
In 2018, CNN’s Jim Acosta had his White House credentials revoked before a Trump-appointed judge ruled in his favor.
Trump has repeatedly criticized AP, calling its journalists “radical left lunatics.”
The administration believes AP’s widely used Stylebook influences reporting nationwide and wants it to reflect “Gulf of America” for American audiences.

Trump’s executive order on geographical renaming follows similar actions, such as his push to rename Denali back to Mount McKinley—a change AP recognized, as the mountain is entirely within the U.S.

What’s Next?

March 20 – The next court hearing
AP continues reporting from outside restricted areas
Legal experts anticipate a long legal battle over press freedom vs. executive discretion

This case will be a major test of the First Amendment and how much power the president has over media access.

Source

The post Judge Denies AP’s Immediate Return to White House but Urges Reconsideration appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.

President Donald Trump has escalated his legal battle against CBS, doubling his lawsuit damages to $20 billion and adding Paramount Global as a defendant. The lawsuit, initially filed in October 2024, claims news distortion, election interference, and financial harm related to CBS’s editing of a “60 Minutes” interview with Vice President Kamala Harris.

Trump’s Allegations Against CBS

In an amended complaint filed on February 7 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Trump’s legal team argues that CBS:

Edited Harris’s responses to make her appear more articulate.
Misrepresented her full statements by airing different portions on Face the Nation and 60 Minutes.
Diverted viewership from Trump’s media platform, Truth Social, reducing ad revenue.
Engaged in election interference, aiming to benefit Harris politically.

“It is beyond dispute that Defendants wanted Harris to win the Election,” the complaint reads. “Their primary motivation was commercial and pecuniary gain.”

The lawsuit accuses CBS of “gross broadcast distortion cover-up“, claiming the full, unedited interview—released later—revealed intentional manipulation of Harris’s remarks on Israel and the war in Gaza.

CBS Denies Allegations

CBS dismissed the lawsuit, calling the editing standard journalistic practice:

“The 60 Minutes broadcast was not doctored or deceitful,” CBS stated.
“We edited the interview to ensure Harris’s full answers were fairly represented.”

CBS also defended the decision to air a shorter portion of Harris’s answer on 60 Minutes, while a longer segment appeared on Face the Nation.

However, the full transcript showed that Harris’s statements were edited, combining two different responses into one polished answer. This led Trump to accuse CBS of election fraud and call for the network to lose its broadcasting license.

Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Reopens Investigation

Coinciding with Trump’s lawsuit, the FCC has reopened an investigation into CBS for news distortion—a complaint initially dismissed in January but revived by new FCC Chairman Brendan Carr.

“CBS played the same question on two different programs, but the answers were different,” Carr stated in a Fox News interview.
“Was this for clarity and length—or something else?”

However, Democratic FCC Commissioner Anna Gomez criticized the move as politically motivated and an attempt to intimidate the media.

Legal and Political Ramifications

Trump’s legal team is now citing the Lanham Act, which covers false advertising and unfair competition, to justify the additional $10 billion in damages. They claim CBS’s manipulated coverage harmed Trump’s business interests, including Truth Social and TMTG.

The lawsuit also includes Rep. Ronny Jackson (R-Texas) as a plaintiff, arguing that he was misled as a consumer of broadcast news.

What’s Next?

CBS and Paramount have not yet responded to the amended complaint.
The lawsuit could set a major legal precedent regarding news editing and election coverage.
The FCC’s investigation may impact CBS’s broadcasting rights and future election coverage standards.

As the 2024 election approaches, this case could fuel further debate on media bias, free speech, and election integrity.

Stay tuned for updates as the legal battle unfolds.

Source

The post Trump Increases CBS Lawsuit to $20 Billion Over Kamala Harris Interview appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.

Justin Baldoni has taken legal action, filing a $250 million libel lawsuit against The New York Times in response to an article that detailed accusations of sexual harassment by his co-star, Blake Lively. The suit claims that the newspaper published a story “rife with inaccuracies, misrepresentations, and omissions” by relying heavily on Lively’s “self-serving narrative.”

The Allegations and Legal Battle

In December, Lively filed a complaint with the California Civil Rights Department, accusing Baldoni of sexual harassment and retaliation. Lively claimed that after voicing concerns about harassment on the set of their film It Ends With Us, Baldoni and his team retaliated by leaking negative press to damage her professional reputation. The New York Times reported on these allegations in an article titled “‘We Can Bury Anyone’: Inside a Hollywood Smear Machine” on December 21, which included details from Lively’s complaint—information that is typically confidential.

Following the publication of the article and Lively’s claims, Baldoni was dropped by his talent agency, WME, which also represents Lively and her husband, Ryan Reynolds. The Screen Actors Guild (SAG-AFTRA) quickly showed support for Lively, and Sony, the studio behind It Ends With Us, also backed her.

Baldoni’s Lawsuit: False Allegations and Strategic Manipulation

In his lawsuit, Baldoni argues that Lively fabricated the allegations of sexual harassment in order to take control of the film production and reshape her public image. He accuses her of using “salacious, headline-grabbing allegations” to damage his reputation and distract from her own public blunders.

The lawsuit also claims that The New York Times failed to uphold journalistic standards, publishing the article based largely on unverified claims from Lively while disregarding evidence that contradicted her narrative. Baldoni’s legal team asserts that the newspaper “lifted nearly verbatim” from Lively’s account without fact-checking and ignored critical evidence that exposed her motives.

A spokesperson for The New York Times responded, defending the article’s accuracy, saying it was “meticulously and responsibly reported” based on thousands of pages of documents, including text messages and emails. The spokesperson emphasized that no errors had been pointed out by Baldoni or his representatives.

Lively’s Counterclaim: A New Federal Lawsuit

Despite Baldoni’s legal actions, Lively’s attorneys maintain that her allegations remain unchanged. They filed a federal complaint on Tuesday, addressing the same claims made in her original complaint to the California Civil Rights Department. Lively’s legal team is eager to defend her position in court.

Meanwhile, Baldoni’s lawsuit was filed by attorney Bryan Freedman in Los Angeles Superior Court, representing a total of 10 plaintiffs, including Baldoni, Wayfarer Studios, and his producing partner, Jamey Heath—who is also accused of sexual harassment by Lively. The suit also includes Baldoni’s publicist and crisis manager, Jennifer Abel and Melissa Nathan.

Disputed Text Messages and Further Accusations

Central to the legal dispute are text messages between Baldoni and Lively. Lively’s complaint included text messages that allegedly demonstrated an orchestrated attempt by Baldoni’s PR team to damage her reputation. However, Baldoni’s suit contends that these messages were manipulated, claiming the Times intentionally omitted messages that contradicted Lively’s version of events.

Baldoni’s legal team has provided what they believe are irrefutable text messages showing Lively’s own involvement in creating a smear campaign. One example includes a text from Lively to Baldoni stating that she was “just pumping in my trailer if you wanna work out our lines,” which directly contradicts a claim made in her complaint that Baldoni and Heath entered her trailer uninvited while she was undressed, including while breastfeeding.

The Snowball Effect: Legal and Media Fallout

Since the initial complaint, both parties have been embroiled in a back-and-forth exchange, raising questions about how private messages were obtained. Baldoni’s former publicist, Stephanie Jones, filed a lawsuit claiming that the text messages came from the phone of Baldoni’s current publicist, Abel. Abel and others named in Lively’s complaint have denied all of the allegations, asserting that it was Lively who leaked negative press to damage Baldoni’s image.

In a statement to CNN, Baldoni’s attorney, Bryan Freedman, described the situation as a “vicious smear campaign” against Baldoni. Freedman accuses Lively and The New York Times of manipulating the narrative to revitalize Lively’s public image in the face of mounting criticism.

“We embrace the full truth,” Freedman said, “and we have all of the communications to back it.”

Looking Ahead

As both parties prepare for legal battles in court, the case has sparked further questions about the manipulation of media narratives in the age of social media and celebrity influence. Lively’s allegations have garnered widespread attention, but Baldoni’s lawsuit claims that much of the public perception is based on misinformation and a skewed narrative.

The lawsuit, which calls for substantial damages, is likely to continue to make headlines as both sides present their arguments in court. As the legal process unfolds, both Baldoni and Lively’s teams are committed to defending their positions, with each party asserting that the truth is on their side.

Source

The post Justin Baldoni Sues The New York Times Over Blake Lively’s Harassment Claims appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.

Employees of Wheel of Fortune and Jeopardy! find themselves caught in the middle of an intense legal battle between Sony Pictures Television and CBS. This ongoing lawsuit is stirring uncertainty and unease among the shows’ staff, a source close to the matter tells Closer.

The Dispute: Sony vs. CBS

Sony, the longtime producer of the two iconic game shows, is suing CBS, the distributor, for breach of contract. Sony alleges that CBS entered into unauthorized licensing deals for the shows and took commissions from those deals, bypassing their agreement. Additionally, CBS is accused of licensing the shows at below-market rates and failing to optimize advertising revenues.

“The reality is that CBS has been egregiously undercutting the value of these shows in favor of its own self-interest and in violation of its contractual obligations,” the legal complaint states.

Key Allegations

• Unauthorized Licensing: Sony claims CBS struck deals in Australia and New Zealand that violated their contract.
• Revenue Disputes: CBS is accused of withholding millions in revenue generated from these deals.
• Commission Controversy: CBS reportedly earns 35–40% commission from stations airing the shows, which Sony believes undermines their value.

Why Sony Is Taking a Stand

According to an insider, Sony’s leadership feels Wheel of Fortune and Jeopardy! are worth far more than current arrangements reflect. Despite the risks of suing a regular business partner, Sony believes this aggressive move is necessary to protect the long-term profitability of the franchises.

“The feeling at Sony is these shows are worth a lot more than anybody realizes,” the source explains. “They have a ton of leverage right now because their creative decision to pick Ryan Seacrest as Pat Sajak’s replacement has sparked a ratings boost not seen in years.”

The Ryan Seacrest Effect

Ryan Seacrest, 50, recently succeeded Pat Sajak, 78, as host of Wheel of Fortune. His debut injected fresh energy into the show, driving ratings to a three-year high, according to Nielsen. This surge in popularity reinforces Sony’s position as it seeks to renegotiate terms with CBS.

“Sony’s decision to hire Ryan has reinvigorated the franchise,” the insider says. “With the future looking bright, they’re determined to secure every penny these shows are worth.”

Balancing Profitability and Talent

Beyond the lawsuit, Sony is also focused on securing Seacrest for the long term. His current contract spans two years, but Sony is reportedly preparing to negotiate an extension.

“There’s also the matter of securing Ryan for a longer term,” the insider notes. “Even though the lawsuit has created some short-term uncertainty, Sony executives genuinely believe this will benefit the franchises in the long run.”

Impact on Employees and the Industry

While the lawsuit aims to redefine the distribution relationship, it’s creating anxiety among crew members. Some worry the aggressive strategy may disrupt their long-serving roles. However, Sony insists the move is designed to ensure the shows’ longevity and profitability.

“Sony is going after every penny these shows are worth,” the source says. “It may look heartless to long-serving crew members, but the goal is to make both shows more profitable and extend their lives.”

The Bigger Picture

Sony’s bold strategy to protect and maximize the value of Wheel of Fortune and Jeopardy! could reshape the shows’ future. As the legal battle unfolds, all eyes are on how this dispute impacts not only the workplace but also the legacy of two of television’s most enduring franchises.

Source

The post Sony Battles CBS Over Wheel of Fortune and Jeopardy! Rights appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.