Connect with us

Politics

CBS hits back at FCC over probe into ‘60 Minutes' edits

Published

on

CBS hits back at FCC over probe into ‘60 Minutes' edits

CBS has asked the Federal Communications Commission to end its investigation into edits of its “60 Minutes” Kamala Harris interview, arguing that the federal government risks becoming “a roving censor” trampling on free speech rights.

President Trump was furious over the “60 Minutes” interview with then-Vice President Harris in October, in the closing weeks of the campaign. The president and other conservatives chided CBS after it was revealed that “60 Minutes” producers had edited Harris’ jumbled response to a question about the Biden administration’s handling of the Israel-Hamas war.

Trump sued CBS for $20 billion, claiming the edits amounted to election interference. The president has demanded “a lot” of money to settle the case, which many 1st Amendment experts call “frivolous.”

The controversy over the “60 Minutes” edits wound up before the FCC last fall when a conservative nonprofit group, the Center for American Rights, filed a news distortion complaint against CBS and its flagship television station, WCBS-TV, in New York.

“CBS distorted the news by using its slice-and-dice method of journalism to justify cleaning up the Vice President’s muddled and meandering answer,” the center said in a filing with the FCC, arguing that “60 Minutes” producers had become “the vice president’s cleanup crew.”

Advertisement

The FCC, until recently, has typically taken a hands-off approach to complaints about editorial decisions, and court cases have set a high bar for such claims. The FCC has said it would “only investigate claims that include evidence showing that the broadcast news report was deliberately intended to mislead viewers.”

The Center for American Rights lodged its FCC complaint in mid-October, ahead of Trump filing his lawsuit against CBS in federal court in Texas. The lawsuit is pending. CBS has asked a judge to dismiss the matter or move the case to New York, where CBS is based. The two sides also have agreed to the judge’s request that they present their arguments to a mediator.

“The complaint filed against CBS for ‘news distortion’ envisions a less free world in which the federal government becomes a roving censor — one that second guesses and even punishes specific editorial decisions that are an essential part of producing news programming,” the Paramount Global-owned network argued Monday in its response to the FCC inquiry.

Late last year, the Democratic former FCC chairwoman threw out complaints filed against CBS, ABC, NBC and Fox.

But Trump’s pick to lead the agency, Brendan Carr, quickly revived the CBS, NBC and ABC complaints.

Advertisement

First Amendment experts sounded alarms, saying the FCC was wading into treacherous territory in reviewing debate formats and decisions made by news producers. Carr demanded that CBS turn over the raw transcript and unedited interview, which it did.

Video of the unedited interview, released last month by the FCC and separately by CBS, confirmed the network’s account. But the release also highlighted that Harris’ convoluted answer had been clipped to its most succinct and cogent sentence.

Vice President Kamala Harris talks to “60 Minutes” correspondent Bill Whitaker.

(CBS News)

Advertisement

“The essence of the Complaint — that CBS somehow broke the law by airing a portion, but not all, of a candidate’s answer to a question in a news magazine program — is fatally flawed,” CBS said in its petition.

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.

CBS noted the U.S. Supreme Court has never “recognized a sweeping right by the government to second guess editorial decision-making.”

An FCC ruling against the network “would set a dangerous precedent that would enable the federal government to chill news coverage deemed unfavorable to whichever party were in power at a given moment in time,” CBS said.

But Daniel Suhr, president of the center, said Monday that broadcasters with FCC licenses, including CBS, have a duty to act in the public interest.

Advertisement

“CBS’s behavior here underlines why the public no longer trusts the supposed trustees of the public’s airwaves,” Suhr said.

The “60 Minutes” case has sparked clashes within Paramount. Journalists have called on the company to defend its flagship broadcast and journalists’ 1st Amendment rights.

Paramount’s controlling shareholder, Shari Redstone, has agitated for the Trump lawsuit to be settled to clear the way for her sale of the company to David Ellison’s Skydance Media. The $8-billion transaction requires the approval of the FCC.

Lawyers say 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 the Biden administration.

Trump has said he thinks certain TV stations should lose their FCC licenses.

Advertisement

The “60 Minutes” did not appear to diminish Trump’s standing among voters; he was elected president a month later.

Politics

Video: Fed Chair Responds to Inquiry on Building Renovations

Published

on

Video: Fed Chair Responds to Inquiry on Building Renovations

new video loaded: Fed Chair Responds to Inquiry on Building Renovations

transcript

transcript

Fed Chair Responds to Inquiry on Building Renovations

Federal prosecutors opened an investigation into whether Jerome H. Powell, the Federal Reserve chair, lied to Congress about the scope of renovations of the central bank’s buildings. He called the probe “unprecedented” in a rare video message.

“Good evening. This new threat is not about my testimony last June or about the renovation of the Federal Reserve buildings. This is about whether the Fed will be able to continue to set interest rates based on evidence and economic conditions, or whether instead, monetary policy will be directed by political pressure or intimidation.” “Well, thank you very much. We’re looking at the construction. Thank you.”

Advertisement
Federal prosecutors opened an investigation into whether Jerome H. Powell, the Federal Reserve chair, lied to Congress about the scope of renovations of the central bank’s buildings. He called the probe “unprecedented” in a rare video message.

By Nailah Morgan

January 12, 2026

Continue Reading

Politics

San Antonio ends its abortion travel fund after new state law, legal action

Published

on

San Antonio ends its abortion travel fund after new state law, legal action

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

San Antonio has shut down its out-of-state abortion travel fund after a new Texas law that prohibits the use of public funds to cover abortions and a lawsuit from the state challenging the city’s fund.

City Council members last year approved $100,000 for its Reproductive Justice Fund to support abortion-related travel, prompting Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton to sue over allegations that the city was “transparently attempting to undermine and subvert Texas law and public policy.”

Paxton claimed victory in the lawsuit on Friday after the case was dismissed without a finding for either side.

WYOMING SUPREME COURT RULES LAWS RESTRICTING ABORTION VIOLATE STATE CONSTITUTION

Advertisement

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton claimed victory in the lawsuit after the case was dismissed without a finding for either side. (Hannah Beier/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

“Texas respects the sanctity of unborn life, and I will always do everything in my power to prevent radicals from manipulating the system to murder innocent babies,” Paxton said in a statement. “It is illegal for cities to fund abortion tourism with taxpayer funds. San Antonio’s unlawful attempt to cover the travel and other expenses for out-of-state abortions has now officially been defeated.”

But San Antonio’s city attorney argued that the city did nothing wrong and pushed back on Paxton’s claim that the state won the lawsuit.

“This litigation was both initiated and abandoned by the State of Texas,” the San Antonio city attorney’s office said in a statement to The Texas Tribune. “In other words, the City did not drop any claims; the State of Texas, through the Texas Office of the Attorney General, dropped its claims.”

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said he will continue opposing the use of public funds for abortion-related travel. (Justin Lane/Reuters)

Advertisement

Paxton’s lawsuit argued that the travel fund violates the gift clause of the Texas Constitution. The state’s 15th Court of Appeals sided with Paxton and granted a temporary injunction in June to block the city from disbursing the fund while the case moved forward.

Gov. Greg Abbott in August signed into law Senate Bill 33, which bans the use of public money to fund “logistical support” for abortion. The law also allows Texas residents to file a civil suit if they believe a city violated the law.

“The City believed the law, prior to the passage of SB 33, allowed the uses of the fund for out-of-state abortion travel that were discussed publicly,” the city attorney’s office said in its statement. “After SB 33 became law and no longer allowed those uses, the City did not proceed with the procurement of those specific uses—consistent with its intent all along that it would follow the law.”

TRUMP URGES GOP TO BE ‘FLEXIBLE’ ON HYDE AMENDMENT, IGNITING BACKLASH FROM PRO-LIFE ALLIES

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott signed a law in August that blocks cities from using public money to help cover travel or other costs related to abortion. (Antranik Tavitian/Reuters)

Advertisement

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

The broader Reproductive Justice Fund remains, but it is restricted to non-abortion services such as home pregnancy tests, emergency contraception and STI testing.

The city of Austin also shut down its abortion travel fund after the law was signed. Austin had allocated $400,000 to its Reproductive Healthcare Logistics Fund in 2024 to help women traveling to other states for an abortion with funding for travel, food and lodging.

Continue Reading

Politics

California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta opts against running for governor. Again.

Published

on

California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta opts against running for governor. Again.

California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta announced Sunday that he would not run for California governor, a decision grounded in his belief that his legal efforts combating the Trump administration as the state’s top prosecutor are paramount at this moment in history.

“Watching this dystopian horror come to life has reaffirmed something I feel in every fiber of my being: in this moment, my place is here — shielding Californians from the most brazen attacks on our rights and our families,” Bonta said in a statement. “My vision for the California Department of Justice is that we remain the nation’s largest and most powerful check on power.”

Bonta said that President Trump’s blocking of welfare funds to California and the fatal shooting of a Minnesota mother of three last week by a federal immigration agent cemented his decision to seek reelection to his current post, according to Politico, which first reported that Bonta would not run for governor.

Bonta, 53, a former state lawmaker and a close political ally to Gov. Gavin Newsom, has served as the state’s top law enforcement official since Newsom appointed him to the position in 2021. In the last year, his office has sued the Trump administration more than 50 times — a track record that would probably have served him well had he decided to run in a state where Trump has lost three times and has sky-high disapproval ratings.

Advertisement

Bonta in 2024 said that he was considering running. Then in February he announced he had ruled it out and was focused instead on doing the job of attorney general, which he considers especially important under the Trump administration. Then, both former Vice President Kamala Harris and Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) announced they would not run for governor, and Bonta began reconsidering, he said.

“I had two horses in the governor’s race already,” Bonta told The Times in November. “They decided not to get involved in the end. … The race is fundamentally different today, right?”

The race for California governor remains wide open. Newsom is serving the final year of his second term and is barred from running again because of term limits. Newsom has said he is considering a run for president in 2028.

Former Rep. Katie Porter — an early leader in polls — late last year faltered after videos emerged of her screaming at an aide and berating a reporter. The videos contributed to her dropping behind Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco, a Republican, in a November poll released by the UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies and co-sponsored by The Times.

Porter rebounded a bit toward the end of the year, a poll by the Public Policy Institute of California showed, however none of the candidates has secured a majority of support and many voters remain undecided.

Advertisement

California hasn’t elected a Republican governor since 2006, Democrats heavily outnumber Republicans in the state, and many are seething with anger over Trump and looking for Democratic candidates willing to fight back against the current administration.

Bonta has faced questions in recent months about spending about $468,000 in campaign funds on legal advice last year as he spoke to federal investigators about alleged corruption involving former Oakland Mayor Sheng Thao, who was charged in an alleged bribery scheme involving local businessmen David Trung Duong and Andy Hung Duong. All three have pleaded not guilty.

According to his political consultant Dan Newman, Bonta — who had received campaign donations from the Duong family — was approached by investigators because he was initially viewed as a “possible victim” in the alleged scheme, though that was later ruled out. Bonta has since returned $155,000 in campaign contributions from the Duong family, according to news reports.

Bonta is the son of civil rights activists Warren Bonta, a white native Californian, and Cynthia Bonta, a native of the Philippines who immigrated to the U.S. on a scholarship in 1965. Bonta, a U.S. citizen, was born in Quezon City, Philippines, in 1972, when his parents were working there as missionaries, and immigrated with his family to California as an infant.

In 2012, Bonta was elected to represent Oakland, Alameda and San Leandro as the first Filipino American to serve in California’s Legislature. In Sacramento, he pursued a string of criminal justice reforms and developed a record as one of the body’s most liberal members.

Advertisement

Bonta is married to Assemblywoman Mia Bonta (D-Alameda), who succeeded him in the state Assembly, and the couple have three children.

Times staff writer Dakota Smith contributed to this report.

Continue Reading

Trending