Politics
Paramount says Trump's CBS ‘60 Minutes' lawsuit seeks to 'punish' network
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.
Politics
Newsom moves to reshape who runs California’s schools under budget plan
SACRAMENTO — Gov. Gavin Newsom on Thursday unveiled a sweeping proposal to overhaul how California’s education system is governed, calling for structural changes that he said would shift oversight of the Department of Education and redefine the role of the state’s elected schools chief.
The proposal, which is part of Newsom’s state budget plan that will be released Friday, would unify the policymaking State Board of Education with the department, which is responsible for carrying out those policies. The governor said the change would better align education efforts from early childhood through college.
“California can no longer postpone reforms that have been recommended regularly for a century,” Newsom said in a statement. “These critical reforms will bring greater accountability, clarity, and coherence to how we serve our students and schools.”
Few details were provided about how the role of the state superintendent of public instruction would change, beyond a greater focus on fostering coordination and aligning education policy.
The changes would require approval from state lawmakers, who will be in the state Capitol on Thursday for Newsom’s last State of the State speech in his final year as governor.
The proposal would implement recommendations from a 2002 report by the state Legislature, titled “California’s Master Plan for Education,” which described the state’s K-12 governance as fragmented and “with overlapping roles that sometimes operate in conflict with one another, to the detriment of the educational services offered to students.” Newsom’s office said similar concerns have been raised repeatedly since 1920 and were echoed again in a December 2025 report by research center Policy Analysis for California Education.
“The sobering reality of California’s education system is that too few schools can now provide the conditions in which the State can fairly ask students to learn to the highest standards, let alone prepare themselves to meet their future learning needs,” the Legislature’s 2002 report stated. Those most harmed are often low-income students and students of color, the report added.
“California’s education governance system is complex and too often creates challenges for school leaders,” Edgar Zazueta, executive director of the Assn. of California School Administrators, said in a statement provided by Newsom’s office. “As responsibilities and demands on schools continue to increase, educators need governance systems that are designed to better support positive student outcomes.”
The current budget allocated $137.6 billion for education from transitional kindergarten through the 12th grade — the highest per-pupil funding level in state history — and Newsom’s office said his proposal is intended to ensure those investments translate into more consistent support and improved outcomes statewide.
“For decades the fragmented and inefficient structure overseeing our public education system has hindered our students’ ability to succeed and thrive,” Ted Lempert, president of advocacy group Children Now, said in a statement provided by the governor’s office. “Major reform is essential, and we’re thrilled that the Governor is tackling this issue to improve our kids’ education.”
Politics
Video: Federal Agent Fatally Shoots Woman in Minneapolis
new video loaded: Federal Agent Fatally Shoots Woman in Minneapolis
transcript
transcript
Federal Agent Fatally Shoots Woman in Minneapolis
Federal officials claimed that the 37-year-old woman was trying to kill agents with a car in Minneapolis, while city and state officials disputed their account.
-
“No! No! Shame — shame! What did you do?” “It was an act of domestic terrorism, what happened. It was — our ICE officers were out in an enforcement action. They got stuck in the snow because of the adverse weather that is in Minneapolis. They were attempting to push out their vehicle, and a woman attacked them and those surrounding them, and attempted to run them over and ram them with her vehicle. An officer of ours acted quickly and defensively shot to protect himself and the people around him.” “We’ve been warning for weeks that the Trump administration’s dangerous, sensationalized operations are a threat to our public safety.” “They are already trying to spin this as an action of self-defense. Having seen the video of myself, I want to tell everybody directly: That is bullshit. This was an agent recklessly using power that resulted in somebody dying — getting killed.” “Get out of the fucking car.” “No! No! Shame! [gunshots] Shame! Oh, my fucking God. What the fuck? What the fuck? You just fucking — what the fuck did you do?” “There is nothing to indicate that this woman was the target of any law enforcement investigation or activity. This woman was in her car, and it appears, then blocking the street because of the presence of federal law enforcement, which is obviously something that has been happening not just in Minneapolis, but around the country.”
By Jamie Leventhal and Devon Lum
January 7, 2026
Politics
Trump greenlights Russian sanctions bill, paving way for 500% tariff on countries supporting Moscow: Graham
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
Sen. Lindsey Graham announced Wednesday that President Donald Trump has approved a Russian sanctions bill designed to pressure Moscow to end its war with Ukraine.
Graham revealed the development in a post on X, describing it as a pivotal shift in the U.S. approach to the Russia-Ukraine conflict.
“After a very productive meeting today with President Trump on a variety of issues, he greenlit the bipartisan Russia sanctions bill that I have been working on for months with Senator Blumenthal and many others,” Graham said.
“This will be well-timed, as Ukraine is making concessions for peace and Putin is all talk, continuing to kill the innocent.”
TRUMP TOUTS ‘TREMENDOUS PROGRESS’ BUT SAYS HE’LL MEET PUTIN AND ZELENSKYY ‘ONLY WHEN’ PEACE DEAL IS FINAL
Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., speaks during a news conference at the U.S. Capitol July 31, 2024, in Washington, D.C. (Kent Nishimura/Getty Images)
According to the Sanctioning Russia Act of 2025, the bipartisan legislation is designed to grant Trump sweeping, almost unprecedented, authority to economically isolate Russia and penalize major global economies that continue to trade with Moscow and finance its war against Ukraine.
Most notably, the bill would require the United States to impose a 500% tariff on all goods imported from any country that continues to purchase Russian oil, petroleum products or uranium. The measure would effectively squeeze Russia financially while deterring foreign governments from undermining U.S. sanctions.
TRUMP CASTS MADURO’S OUSTER AS ‘SMART’ MOVE AS RUSSIA, CHINA ENTER THE FRAY
President Donald Trump speaks during a meeting at the White House Oct. 14, 2025, in Washington, D.C. (Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)
“This bill will allow President Trump to punish those countries who buy cheap Russian oil fueling Putin’s war machine,” Graham said.
“This bill would give President Trump tremendous leverage against countries like China, India and Brazil to incentivize them to stop buying the cheap Russian oil that provides the financing for Putin’s bloodbath against Ukraine.”
Graham said voting could take place as early as next week and that he is looking forward to a strong bipartisan vote.
US MILITARY SEIZES TWO SANCTIONED TANKERS IN ATLANTIC OCEAN
The vessel tanker Bella 1 was spotted in Singapore Strait after U.S. officials say the U.S. Coast Guard pursued an oil tanker in international waters near Venezuela. (Hakon Rimmereid/via Reuters)
The move on the Russian sanctions bill follows another sharp escalation in America’s clampdown on Moscow. Earlier Wednesday, U.S. forces reportedly seized an oil tanker attempting to transport sanctioned Venezuelan oil to Russia.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
Graham publicly celebrated the seizure in another post on X, describing it as part of a broader winning streak of U.S. intervention aimed at Venezuela and Cuba.
In the post, he also took aim at critics such as Sen. Rand Paul, who has opposed the bill, arguing that it would damage America’s trade relations with much of the world.
Fox News Digital reached out to the White House for comment.
-
Detroit, MI5 days ago2 hospitalized after shooting on Lodge Freeway in Detroit
-
Dallas, TX3 days agoDefensive coordinator candidates who could improve Cowboys’ brutal secondary in 2026
-
Technology2 days agoPower bank feature creep is out of control
-
Health4 days agoViral New Year reset routine is helping people adopt healthier habits
-
Nebraska1 day agoOregon State LB transfer Dexter Foster commits to Nebraska
-
Nebraska2 days agoNebraska-based pizza chain Godfather’s Pizza is set to open a new location in Queen Creek
-
Politics4 days agoDan Bongino officially leaves FBI deputy director role after less than a year, returns to ‘civilian life’
-
Entertainment1 day agoSpotify digs in on podcasts with new Hollywood studios