https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/01/us/politics/justice-department-rioter-weaponization.html
Pardoned January 6 Rioter Who Threatened Police Joins Justice Dept.
The pardoned rioter, a former F.B.I. agent who was charged with encouraging the mob that stormed the Capitol, is a counselor to Ed Martin, the director of the so-called weaponization committee.
Listen to this article · 4:41 minutes
The selection of Jared L. Wise means a man who had urged violence against police officers on Jan. 6 is now responsible for the department’s official effort to exact revenge against those who had tried to hold the rioters accountable. Credit: Kenny Holston/The New York Times
by Alan Feuer and Adam Goldman
July 1, 2025
New York Times
A former F.B.I. agent who was charged with encouraging the mob that stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, to kill police officers has been named as an adviser to the Justice Department task force that President Trump established to seek retribution against his political enemies.
The former agent, Jared L. Wise, is serving as a counselor to Ed Martin, the director of the so-called Weaponization Working Group, according to people familiar with the group’s activities.
Mr. Martin, a longtime supporter of Jan. 6 defendants, was put in charge of the weaponization group in May after Mr. Trump withdrew his name for a Senate-confirmed position as the U.S. attorney in Washington. His nomination faltered in part because of the work he had done as an advocate and defense lawyer for people charged in connection with the Capitol attack.
Even in a Justice Department that has often been pressed into serving Mr. Trump’s political agenda, the appointment of Mr. Wise to the weaponization task force was a remarkable development. His selection meant that a man who had urged violence against police officers was now responsible for the department’s official effort to exact revenge against those who had tried to hold the rioters accountable.
It remains unclear exactly what role Mr. Wise will play as Mr. Martin’s adviser. But one person familiar with the working group’s activities said that Mr. Martin was proud to have Mr. Wise on his team, adding that there was no better person to serve on the weaponization task force than someone who had experienced the federal government being weaponized against him.
If “we could genetically design an adviser” to Mr. Martin, the person said, he would look like Mr. Wise.
Mr. Wise was charged with encouraging the mob that stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, to kill police officers. Credit: Department of Justice
When federal prosecutors initially charged Mr. Wise in May 2023, they accused him of telling the police outside the Capitol that they were like the Gestapo, Nazi Germany’s feared secret police. As violence erupted, his charging document said, he told other rioters who were attacking law enforcement officers, “Kill ’em! Kill ’em! Kill ’em!”
Mr. Wise then raised his arms in celebration after breaching the Capitol in a face mask, prosecutors said, and escaped through a window.
The case against him was dismissed on Mr. Trump’s first day back in office as part of the sprawling grant of clemency the president gave to all of the nearly 1,600 people who took part in the Capitol attack. Mr. Trump’s act of mercy came at an especially significant moment for Mr. Wise: When his indictment was thrown out, he was in the middle of his criminal trial in Federal District Court in Washington.
Mr. Wise worked on public corruption and counterterrorism matters at the F.B.I. field offices in Washington and New York. He was briefly detailed to Israel, where he worked with the Palestinian Authority, and to Libya, where he helped agents investigate the 2012 terrorist attack in Benghazi. Mr. Wise left the bureau after his supervisors in New York became unhappy with his work, and his career had stalled, a former senior F.B.I. official said.
Mr. Wise later joined the conservative group Project Veritas under the supervision of a former British spy, Richard Seddon, who had been recruited by the security contractor Erik Prince to train operatives to infiltrate trade unions, Democratic congressional campaigns and other targets.
At Project Veritas, according to a former employee with direct knowledge of his employment, Mr. Wise used the code name Benghazi and trained at the Prince family ranch in Wyoming with other recruits. Mr. Wise was among a group of Project Veritas operatives assigned to infiltrate teacher unions in Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan and Kentucky, according to the former employee. Mr. Seddon oversaw the operation.
The Weaponization Working Group was created in February, not long after Mr. Trump returned to the White House, purportedly to root out “abuses of the criminal justice process” by local and federal law enforcement officers.
But as its name suggested, the investigative body was also an example of how Justice Department, under Mr. Trump’s leadership, planned to weaponize its expansive powers to investigate and perhaps take legal action against people who had run afoul of the president.
According to a memo from Attorney General Pam Bondi, one of the group’s missions was to look into the “improper investigative tactics and unethical prosecutions” arising from the Justice Department’s sprawling investigation of the Capitol attack.
ABOUT THE AUTHORS:
Alan Feuer covers extremism and political violence for The Times, focusing on the criminal cases involving the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol and against former President Donald J. Trump.
Adam Goldman writes about the F.B.I. and national security for The Times. He has been a journalist for more than two decades.
See more on: U.S. Politics, Federal Bureau of Investigation, U.S. Justice Department, Donald Trump, Pamela J Bondi
The Latest on the Trump Administration:
- Domestic Policy Bill: If President Trump gets the latest version of his signature legislation passed through the House, it will be a vivid demonstration of his continuing hold over the Republican Party.
- War in Ukraine: The administration announced a pause in the delivery of some weapons to Ukraine because of dwindling stockpiles, which raised concerns in the country amid an increase in Russian attacks. Meanwhile, a lack of new U.S. sanctions on Russia has allowed the Kremlin to acquire the money and materials it needs to continue the war.
- National Guard: The administration released about 150 troops who were sent to the Los Angeles area because of protests, allowing them to return to regular duty fighting wildfires.
- K-12 Schools: With little explanation, the administration has declined to release nearly $7 billion in funding that helps pay for after-school and summer programs, support for learning English, teacher training and other services.
- Trump Family Business: Records show that Trump’s finances were shaky before he was elected to a second term. But then he capitalized on his victory through cryptocurrency and other means.
- Paramount: The company said it had agreed to pay Trump $16 million to settle his lawsuit over the editing of a Kamala Harris interview on the CBS News program “60 Minutes.”
Trump and the Supreme Court's War on Birthright Citizenship ft. Sherrilyn Ifill | The Joy Reid Show
The Joy Reid Show
July 1, 2025
#ImmigrationTruth #RufoHypocrisy #UndocumentedVoices
VIDEO:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xQf5m74NFPQ
Joy Reid’s explosive breakdown exposes how the Supreme Court’s latest ruling cracks open the door for Donald Trump to strip citizenship on a whim — and it’s all rooted in the same white nationalist playbook. A Tennessee Republican wants a naturalized citizen deported over rap lyrics. A Texas man, born on a U.S. Army base, is shackled and dumped in Jamaica — a country he’s never even seen. And now, thanks to a right-wing court gutting nationwide injunctions, Trump’s push to kill birthright citizenship just got real.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/jul/02/january-6-rioter-justice-department-jared-l-wise
US Capitol attack
Former January 6 defendant now advising justice department’s ‘weaponization working group’
Jared L Wise, who allegedly called for police to be killed at US Capitol, had his case dropped in Trump’s clemency order
US politics live – latest updates
by Rachel Leingang
2 July 2025
The Guardian (UK)
A former FBI agent who allegedly shouted “kill ’em!” at law enforcement officers during the January 6 insurrection is now advising a “weaponization working group” in the Trump justice department, a sign of the elevated role rioters are playing since they were granted clemency by the president.
Jared L Wise has been named an adviser or counselor to Ed Martin, the advocate for January 6ers who was previously acting as US attorney for Washington DC and is now leading the weaponization working group, the New York Times and ABC News reported on Tuesday. The contours of Wise’s role are not clear.
The move is a further embrace by the Trump administration of those who stormed the US Capitol in 2021 seeking to overturn Trump’s electoral loss and shows how fundamentally the justice department has shifted on January 6 since Trump won last November, tailoring itself to his retribution agenda.
The justice department’s prosecution of Wise was under way when Trump took office in January, so it was one of many cases that were dismissed before a verdict. He had been charged with two felonies and four misdemeanors, and he had pleaded not guilty.
On his first day in office, Trump granted clemency to all who were convicted or charged for their roles in the January 6 riot, including those charged with violent acts.
The justice department, under the Biden administration, had identified Wise in footage inside the US Capitol and engaging with police among a group of protesters outside. Video footage from a Metropolitan police department body camera showed Wise saying to police officers: “You guys are disgusting. I’m former – I’m former law enforcement. You’re disgusting. You are the Nazi. You are the Gestapo. You can’t see it … Shame on you! Shame on you! Shame on you!”
The department’s press release on Wise notes that once violence broke out against law enforcement officers in front of him, Wise said, “Yeah, fuck them! Yeah, kill ’em!” and then, in the direction of people who were attacking the police line: “Kill ’em! Kill ’em! Kill ’em!”
Before attending the January 6 riot, he was an FBI special agent and supervisory special agent from 2004 to 2017, according to the justice department. He was also an operative for the rightwing media outlet Project Veritas, where he was “assigned to infiltrate teacher unions in Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan and Kentucky”, according to the New York Times.
The justice department’s weaponization working group was set up in February to analyze instances in the previous four years in which “a department’s or agency’s conduct appears to have been designed to achieve political objectives or other improper aims rather than pursuing justice or legitimate governmental objectives”, according to a memo announcing it. This includes the investigations into Trump, prosecutions of January 6 defendants, anti-abortion protests and supposed anti-Catholic bias.
Martin, whose nomination to become the US attorney for DC was withdrawn after it became unclear how he could secure confirmation, is a vocal and frequent advocate for January 6 defendants. Stanley Woodward, who had defended people involved in the insurrection and many others in Trump’s orbit over the years, is now in the No 3 position in the justice department, associate attorney general.
Explore more on these topics
US Capitol attack
US justice system
Law (US)
US politics
Trump administration
news
Paramount to Pay Trump $16 Million to Settle ‘60 Minutes’ Lawsuit
President Trump had sued over an interview with former Vice President Kamala Harris. The company needs federal approval for a multibillion-dollar sale.
Listen to this article · 7:48 minutes
President Trump had sued over an interview with former Vice President Kamala Harris. The company needs federal approval for a multibillion-dollar sale.
Listen to this article · 7:48 minutes
Learn more
President Trump sued Paramount for $10 billion last year, claiming that “60 Minutes” deceptively edited an interview with former Vice President Kamala Harris in order to interfere with the election. Credit: Haiyun Jiang for The New York Times
by Benjamin MullinMichael M. GrynbaumLauren Hirsch and David Enrich
July 2, 2025
New York Times
Paramount said late Tuesday that it had agreed to pay President Trump $16 million to settle his lawsuit over the editing of an interview on the CBS News program “60 Minutes,” an extraordinary concession to a sitting president by a major media organization.
Paramount said its payment included Mr. Trump’s legal fees and costs and that the money, minus the legal fees, would be paid to Mr. Trump’s future presidential library.
As part of the settlement, Paramount said, it agreed to release written transcripts of future “60 Minutes” interviews with presidential candidates. The company said the settlement did not include an apology.
The deal is the clearest sign yet that Mr. Trump’s ability to intimidate major American institutions extends to the media industry.
Many lawyers had dismissed Mr. Trump’s lawsuit as baseless and believed that CBS would have ultimately prevailed in court, in part because the network did not report anything factually inaccurate, and the First Amendment gives publishers wide leeway to determine how to present information.
But Shari Redstone, the chair and controlling shareholder of Paramount, told her board that she favored exploring a settlement with Mr. Trump. Some executives at the company viewed the president’s lawsuit as a potential hurdle to completing a multibillion-dollar sale of the company to the Hollywood studio Skydance, which requires the Trump administration’s approval.
After weeks of negotiations with a mediator, lawyers for Paramount and Mr. Trump worked through the weekend to reach a deal ahead of a court deadline that would have required both sides to begin producing internal documents for discovery, according to two people familiar with the negotiations. Another deadline loomed: Paramount was planning to make changes to its board of directors this week that could have complicated the settlement negotiations.
A spokesman for Mr. Trump’s legal team said in a statement that the settlement was “another win for the American people” delivered by the president, who was holding “the fake news media accountable.”
“CBS and Paramount Global realized the strength of this historic case and had no choice but to settle,” the spokesman said.
The size of the settlement, $16 million, is the same sum that ABC News agreed to pay in December to settle a defamation case filed by Mr. Trump against the network and one of its anchors, George Stephanopoulos. Paramount’s board was concerned that paying a higher amount to settle the case could increase the company’s exposure to potential legal actions from shareholders accusing it of bribery.
The sale of Paramount would end the Redstone family’s decades-long control of CBS News and Paramount Pictures and put them in the hands of David Ellison, the son of Larry Ellison, a tech billionaire who has backed Mr. Trump.
Brendan Carr, the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, has said the president’s lawsuit against Paramount was not linked to the F.C.C.’s review of the company’s merger with Skydance. Paramount has also said the two issues were unrelated.
Within the CBS newsroom, a prospective settlement was seen as a low moment in the near-century-long history of a network that once housed Walter Cronkite and Edward R. Murrow, whose famed rebuff of McCarthyism in the 1950s was recently depicted on the Broadway stage by George Clooney. “60 Minutes,” which pioneered on-air investigative reporting, recently completed its 51st consecutive season as the country’s most-watched news program.
Mr. Trump sued Paramount for $10 billion last year, claiming that “60 Minutes” deceptively edited an interview with former Vice President Kamala Harris in order to interfere with the election.
The transcript of the interview showed that Ms. Harris gave a lengthy answer to a question about Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel’s prime minister. About 21 seconds of that answer aired in a preview of the interview on “Face the Nation,” another CBS News show. A different seven-second part of the answer aired the next day in a prime-time episode of “60 Minutes.”
Mr. Trump said in his lawsuit that CBS’s actions amounted to “news distortion” that was aimed at tipping the scales in favor of the Democratic Party. Paramount disputed that characterization.
Even before its resolution, Mr. Trump’s lawsuit — and Ms. Redstone’s apparent willingness to entertain a settlement — had engulfed CBS News in turmoil. Tensions within the network over how to handle the president’s legal attacks contributed to the resignation of the “60 Minutes” executive producer, Bill Owens; the CBS News president, Wendy McMahon, was later forced out.
Watching the case with Mr. Trump unfold, many CBS journalists believed the long-term credibility of “60 Minutes” was at stake. Scott Pelley, the veteran “60 Minutes” correspondent, said last month that any settlement would be “very damaging to CBS, to Paramount, to the reputation of those companies.”
Executives at CBS and Paramount applied more scrutiny than usual to segments on “60 Minutes” that could be construed as critical of the Trump administration. CBS News has not killed a story because of the pressure, but Mr. Owens, when he resigned in April, said he “would not be allowed” to make independent journalistic decisions. Ms. McMahon said when she left that it had “become clear the company and I do not agree on the path forward.”
Ms. Redstone told the board that she was recusing herself from its discussions of how to handle the Trump suit, given that her financial stake in the pending Skydance deal is so much greater than the stakes of other shareholders, whose interests the directors are expected to represent. This spring, she was diagnosed with thyroid cancer and has recently been receiving treatment.
Even before her diagnosis, though, she told board members that she wanted the company to explore a settlement with Mr. Trump. Ms. Redstone has said she wants to avoid a protracted legal war with the president that could cost hundreds of millions of dollars and jeopardize other divisions that have business with the government.
Ms. Redstone has also told confidants that she harbors concerns about the editorial judgment of CBS News. She has acknowledged being troubled by some of her network’s news coverage and on occasion has raised those concerns publicly and spoken to corporate leadership.
Senators like Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and Bernie Sanders of Vermont have warned that any payment by Paramount to Mr. Trump could be construed as a bribe, and they said they would consider holding a congressional hearing about it.
The prospect of being accused of bribery, and perhaps facing legal action because of it, had vexed Paramount’s directors, who had to weigh the corporate benefits of a settlement against the perception that they were greenlighting a deal to secure an unrelated merger.
The Freedom of the Press Foundation, a First Amendment group, has said it planned to file a lawsuit on behalf of shareholders against Ms. Redstone and the Paramount board in the event of a settlement; the group has retained the prominent litigator Abbe Lowell for its effort.
Paramount is planning to make changes to its board on Wednesday. Judith McHale, a long-serving director, is leaving, and the company is planning to add three new directors: Mary Boies, counsel to the law firm Boies Schiller Flexner; Charles E. Ryan, a co-founder of Almaz Capital; and Roanne Sragow Licht, an adjunct professor at Boston University.
Tyler Pager contributed reporting.
Benjamin Mullin reports for The Times on the major companies behind news and entertainment. Contact him securely on Signal at +1 530-961-3223 or at benjamin.mullin@nytimes.com.
ABOUT THE AUTHORS:
Michael M. Grynbaum is a media correspondent at The Times. He is the author of "Empire of the Elite," a cultural history of Condé Nast magazines.
Lauren Hirsch is a Times reporter who covers deals and dealmakers in Wall Street and Washington.
David Enrich is a deputy investigations editor for The Times. He writes about law and business.
See more on: U.S. Politics, CBS News, Federal Communications Commission, Paramount, Kamala Harris, Donald Trump
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/02/business/media/trump-paramount-cbs-60-minutes-lawsuit.html
For ‘60 Minutes,’ a Humbling Moment at an Uneasy Time for Press Freedom
After an astonishing concession to a sitting president, the country’s most popular television news program faces the prospect of new ownership and a chilled environment for the First Amendment.
Listen to this article · 8:02 minutes
Learn more
CBS and its parent company, Paramount, agreed to pay a $16 million settlement to President Trump to resolve a left-field lawsuit brought by the president against the news program “60 Minutes.” Credit: Hiroko Masuike/The New York Times
After an astonishing concession to a sitting president, the country’s most popular television news program faces the prospect of new ownership and a chilled environment for the First Amendment.
Listen to this article · 8:02 minutes
Learn more
CBS and its parent company, Paramount, agreed to pay a $16 million settlement to President Trump to resolve a left-field lawsuit brought by the president against the news program “60 Minutes.” Credit: Hiroko Masuike/The New York Times
by Michael M. Grynbaum and David Enrich
July 2, 2025
New York Times
For many veteran correspondents at “60 Minutes,” paying even $1 to settle a left-field lawsuit from an aggrieved president seemed too high a price.
At stake, they believed, was the long-term credibility of the country’s most decorated and most-watched television news program, a journalistic institution since 1968 that prided itself on holding elected leaders to account.
Late Tuesday, CBS’s parent company, Paramount, concluded differently. It agreed to pay $16 million so President Trump would drop a lawsuit that essentially boiled down to a politician’s gripe: that “60 Minutes” had edited an interview with his 2024 opponent, former Vice President Kamala Harris, in a manner that he did not like.
Many legal experts called Mr. Trump’s case frivolous and unwinnable, running counter to long-established First Amendment protections for the American press. On Wednesday, many journalists and First Amendment groups expressed dismay at the outcome.
“Today is a dark day for press freedom,” said Seth Stern, the director of advocacy at the nonprofit Freedom of the Press Foundation. He called Paramount’s decision “spineless” and “an invitation” for the president to target other news outlets. Two Democratic senators, Elizabeth Warren and Ron Wyden, referred to the settlement as a bribe and called for an investigation and possible criminal charges.
But Paramount’s leader, Shari Redstone, viewed the situation differently and encouraged her board to explore a settlement. She was in the midst of a multibillion-dollar deal to sell Paramount to a Hollywood studio, Skydance, and the Trump administration needed to sign off.
Paramount said its decision to settle was unrelated to the Skydance sale, and the company did not issue an apology to Mr. Trump. George Cheeks, a Paramount co-chief executive, said on Wednesday that a “settlement offers a negotiated resolution to allow companies to focus on their core objectives rather than being mired in uncertainty and distraction.”
The lawsuit centered on a lengthy answer Ms. Harris gave to a question about Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel’s prime minister. About 21 seconds of that answer aired in a preview of the interview on “Face the Nation,” another CBS News show. A different seven-second part of the answer aired the next day in a prime-time episode of “60 Minutes.”
Mr. Trump claimed that CBS’s actions misled viewers and were aimed at tipping the scales in favor of the Democratic Party. A spokesman for Mr. Trump’s legal team said the settlement “holds the Fake News media accountable for their wrongdoing and deceit.” As part of the settlement, CBS said that “60 Minutes” would release transcripts of future interviews with presidential candidates.
The humbling of a muscular journalistic organization — arguably the best-known brand in broadcast news — might have been unthinkable eight months ago, when Mr. Trump filed his $10 billion suit against CBS days before the presidential election.
But Mr. Trump has now brought several major American institutions to heel. Ivy League universities and wealthy law firms have capitulated to a president who wields the levers of government as vehicles of retribution. Even before Mr. Trump took office, ABC News agreed to pay $16 million to settle a defamation case that the president filed against one of its anchors, George Stephanopoulos.
Jeff Fager, a former CBS News chairman who ran “60 Minutes” for 14 years, said in an interview on Wednesday that the settlement “is a shame, and it’s a mistake.” He said he was concerned about how a new corporate owner might oversee his former program.
“What matters is how far they are going down the road to curtail what ‘60 Minutes’ covers, and when they air it,” Mr. Fager said.
Ms. Redstone, who inherited Paramount from her mogul father, Sumner Redstone, told her board that she was recusing herself from formal discussions on how to handle Mr. Trump’s suit. She told confidants that she wanted to avoid a protracted legal war with the president, and she has expressed her own concerns about the editorial judgment of CBS News, particularly the network’s coverage of the war between Israel and Hamas.
Whether or not it affected her view of Mr. Trump’s lawsuit, Ms. Redstone was also eager for the Federal Communications Commission to approve her company’s sale to Skydance.
Paramount’s market value has fallen since Ms. Redstone struck the deal; if the sale falls through, she may struggle to find a new buyer.
The F.C.C. has not yet commented on the fate of Paramount’s sale; its chairman, Brendan Carr, has said previously that the regulatory review and the president’s lawsuit were unrelated. Skydance is run by David Ellison, whose father, the tech billionaire Larry Ellison, is a Trump supporter. Last month, Mr. Trump said the younger Mr. Ellison would “do a great job” as the owner of Paramount’s media assets.
One F.C.C. commissioner, Anna Gomez, who was nominated by former President Joseph R. Biden Jr., said on Wednesday that Paramount’s settlement “marks a dangerous precedent for the First Amendment, and it should alarm anyone who values a free and independent press.”
Several media lawyers echoed that sentiment.
“A cold wind just blew through every newsroom,” said Bob Corn-Revere, a lawyer at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, who is defending an Iowa pollster in a separate Trump suit. “Paramount may have closed this case, but it opened the door to the idea that the government should be the media’s editor in chief.”
Within CBS’s news division, the lawsuit had already taken a toll.
In April, several months after Mr. Trump filed his suit, the executive producer of “60 Minutes,” Bill Owens, abruptly resigned. The president had been regularly complaining about segments on the show, and Mr. Owens said that CBS had installed new layers of oversight on his program that encroached on his journalistic independence.
His departure prompted Scott Pelley, the veteran correspondent, to deliver an unusual on-air rebuke of CBS’s parent company, telling “60 Minutes” viewers that “Paramount began to supervise our content in new ways.”
None of this year’s segments on “60 Minutes” were axed by CBS or Paramount executives. In May, though, CBS forced out the news division’s president, Wendy McMahon, who acknowledged in a memo that “it’s become clear the company and I do not agree on the path forward.”
Ms. McMahon had been under internal pressure after her overhaul of “CBS Evening News” led to a ratings decline, and Ms. Redstone had criticized her handling of some Middle East coverage.
In the days before she was forced out, Ms. McMahon had resisted an idea from Mr. Cheeks, the Paramount co-chief executive, to pre-empt the season finale of “60 Minutes” with an unrelated sports special. The finale had been set to include a segment, reported by Anderson Cooper, about a Trump administration order for large-scale firings at the Internal Revenue Service. The idea for a special was not pursued.
On Wednesday, Ms. McMahon’s successor, Tom Cibrowski, addressed the settlement during his newsroom’s morning call. He emphasized that Paramount had not apologized to Mr. Trump, and he thanked the staff for “blocking out the noise” as the lengthy settlement talks progressed.
It’s time “to lock arms and do your jobs,” Mr. Cibrowski said.
Lauren Hirsch and Benjamin Mullin contributed reporting.
ABOUT THE AUTHORS:
Michael M. Grynbaum is a media correspondent at The Times. He is the author of "Empire of the Elite," a cultural history of Condé Nast magazines.
David Enrich is a deputy investigations editor for The Times. He writes about law and business.
A version of this article appears in print on July 3, 2025 of the New York edition with the headline: ‘60 Minutes’ Faces Chill From a Deal With Trump.
Order Reprints | Today’s Paper
July 2, 2025
New York Times
For many veteran correspondents at “60 Minutes,” paying even $1 to settle a left-field lawsuit from an aggrieved president seemed too high a price.
At stake, they believed, was the long-term credibility of the country’s most decorated and most-watched television news program, a journalistic institution since 1968 that prided itself on holding elected leaders to account.
Late Tuesday, CBS’s parent company, Paramount, concluded differently. It agreed to pay $16 million so President Trump would drop a lawsuit that essentially boiled down to a politician’s gripe: that “60 Minutes” had edited an interview with his 2024 opponent, former Vice President Kamala Harris, in a manner that he did not like.
Many legal experts called Mr. Trump’s case frivolous and unwinnable, running counter to long-established First Amendment protections for the American press. On Wednesday, many journalists and First Amendment groups expressed dismay at the outcome.
“Today is a dark day for press freedom,” said Seth Stern, the director of advocacy at the nonprofit Freedom of the Press Foundation. He called Paramount’s decision “spineless” and “an invitation” for the president to target other news outlets. Two Democratic senators, Elizabeth Warren and Ron Wyden, referred to the settlement as a bribe and called for an investigation and possible criminal charges.
But Paramount’s leader, Shari Redstone, viewed the situation differently and encouraged her board to explore a settlement. She was in the midst of a multibillion-dollar deal to sell Paramount to a Hollywood studio, Skydance, and the Trump administration needed to sign off.
Paramount said its decision to settle was unrelated to the Skydance sale, and the company did not issue an apology to Mr. Trump. George Cheeks, a Paramount co-chief executive, said on Wednesday that a “settlement offers a negotiated resolution to allow companies to focus on their core objectives rather than being mired in uncertainty and distraction.”
The lawsuit centered on a lengthy answer Ms. Harris gave to a question about Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel’s prime minister. About 21 seconds of that answer aired in a preview of the interview on “Face the Nation,” another CBS News show. A different seven-second part of the answer aired the next day in a prime-time episode of “60 Minutes.”
Mr. Trump claimed that CBS’s actions misled viewers and were aimed at tipping the scales in favor of the Democratic Party. A spokesman for Mr. Trump’s legal team said the settlement “holds the Fake News media accountable for their wrongdoing and deceit.” As part of the settlement, CBS said that “60 Minutes” would release transcripts of future interviews with presidential candidates.
The humbling of a muscular journalistic organization — arguably the best-known brand in broadcast news — might have been unthinkable eight months ago, when Mr. Trump filed his $10 billion suit against CBS days before the presidential election.
But Mr. Trump has now brought several major American institutions to heel. Ivy League universities and wealthy law firms have capitulated to a president who wields the levers of government as vehicles of retribution. Even before Mr. Trump took office, ABC News agreed to pay $16 million to settle a defamation case that the president filed against one of its anchors, George Stephanopoulos.
Jeff Fager, a former CBS News chairman who ran “60 Minutes” for 14 years, said in an interview on Wednesday that the settlement “is a shame, and it’s a mistake.” He said he was concerned about how a new corporate owner might oversee his former program.
“What matters is how far they are going down the road to curtail what ‘60 Minutes’ covers, and when they air it,” Mr. Fager said.
Ms. Redstone, who inherited Paramount from her mogul father, Sumner Redstone, told her board that she was recusing herself from formal discussions on how to handle Mr. Trump’s suit. She told confidants that she wanted to avoid a protracted legal war with the president, and she has expressed her own concerns about the editorial judgment of CBS News, particularly the network’s coverage of the war between Israel and Hamas.
Whether or not it affected her view of Mr. Trump’s lawsuit, Ms. Redstone was also eager for the Federal Communications Commission to approve her company’s sale to Skydance.
Paramount’s market value has fallen since Ms. Redstone struck the deal; if the sale falls through, she may struggle to find a new buyer.
The F.C.C. has not yet commented on the fate of Paramount’s sale; its chairman, Brendan Carr, has said previously that the regulatory review and the president’s lawsuit were unrelated. Skydance is run by David Ellison, whose father, the tech billionaire Larry Ellison, is a Trump supporter. Last month, Mr. Trump said the younger Mr. Ellison would “do a great job” as the owner of Paramount’s media assets.
One F.C.C. commissioner, Anna Gomez, who was nominated by former President Joseph R. Biden Jr., said on Wednesday that Paramount’s settlement “marks a dangerous precedent for the First Amendment, and it should alarm anyone who values a free and independent press.”
Several media lawyers echoed that sentiment.
“A cold wind just blew through every newsroom,” said Bob Corn-Revere, a lawyer at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, who is defending an Iowa pollster in a separate Trump suit. “Paramount may have closed this case, but it opened the door to the idea that the government should be the media’s editor in chief.”
Within CBS’s news division, the lawsuit had already taken a toll.
In April, several months after Mr. Trump filed his suit, the executive producer of “60 Minutes,” Bill Owens, abruptly resigned. The president had been regularly complaining about segments on the show, and Mr. Owens said that CBS had installed new layers of oversight on his program that encroached on his journalistic independence.
His departure prompted Scott Pelley, the veteran correspondent, to deliver an unusual on-air rebuke of CBS’s parent company, telling “60 Minutes” viewers that “Paramount began to supervise our content in new ways.”
None of this year’s segments on “60 Minutes” were axed by CBS or Paramount executives. In May, though, CBS forced out the news division’s president, Wendy McMahon, who acknowledged in a memo that “it’s become clear the company and I do not agree on the path forward.”
Ms. McMahon had been under internal pressure after her overhaul of “CBS Evening News” led to a ratings decline, and Ms. Redstone had criticized her handling of some Middle East coverage.
In the days before she was forced out, Ms. McMahon had resisted an idea from Mr. Cheeks, the Paramount co-chief executive, to pre-empt the season finale of “60 Minutes” with an unrelated sports special. The finale had been set to include a segment, reported by Anderson Cooper, about a Trump administration order for large-scale firings at the Internal Revenue Service. The idea for a special was not pursued.
On Wednesday, Ms. McMahon’s successor, Tom Cibrowski, addressed the settlement during his newsroom’s morning call. He emphasized that Paramount had not apologized to Mr. Trump, and he thanked the staff for “blocking out the noise” as the lengthy settlement talks progressed.
It’s time “to lock arms and do your jobs,” Mr. Cibrowski said.
Lauren Hirsch and Benjamin Mullin contributed reporting.
ABOUT THE AUTHORS:
Michael M. Grynbaum is a media correspondent at The Times. He is the author of "Empire of the Elite," a cultural history of Condé Nast magazines.
David Enrich is a deputy investigations editor for The Times. He writes about law and business.
A version of this article appears in print on July 3, 2025 of the New York edition with the headline: ‘60 Minutes’ Faces Chill From a Deal With Trump.
Order Reprints | Today’s Paper
See more on: CBS News, ABC News, Paramount, Skydance Productions LLC, Federal Communications Commission, Shari Redstone
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/01/us/trump-education-funds.html
Trump Withholds Nearly $7 Billion for Schools, With Little Explanation
The money, which was allocated by Congress, helps pay for after-school programs, support for students learning English and other services.
Listen to this article · 5:40 minutes
Learn more
Trump Withholds Nearly $7 Billion for Schools, With Little Explanation
The money, which was allocated by Congress, helps pay for after-school programs, support for students learning English and other services.
Listen to this article · 5:40 minutes
Learn more
The move is likely to be challenged in court and has already been criticized as illegal by Democrats and teachers’ unions. Credit: KC McGinnis for The New York Times
by Sarah Mervosh and Michael C. Bender
July 1, 2025
New York Times
The Trump administration has declined to release nearly $7 billion in federal funding that helps pay for after-school and summer programs, support for students learning English, teacher training and other services.
The money was expected to be released by Tuesday. But in an email on Monday, the Education Department notified state education agencies that the money would not be available.
The administration offered little explanation, saying only that the funds were under review. It gave no timeline for when, or if, the money would be released, saying instead that it was “committed to ensuring taxpayer resources are spent in accordance with the president’s priorities.” The frozen funds are unrelated to the millions of dollars in cuts included in the domestic policy bill that squeaked through the Senate on Tuesday.
“It’s catastrophic,” said Jodi Grant, executive director of the Afterschool Alliance, a group that works to expand after-school services for students. She estimated that the federal dollars for after-school and summer-school programs — about $1.3 billion annually — support 1.4 million students, mostly lower income, representing about 20 percent of all students in after-school programs nationally.
The move is likely to be challenged in court and has already been criticized as illegal by Democrats and teachers’ unions, who emphasized that the money had been appropriated by Congress and was approved by President Trump in March as part of a broader funding bill.
“This is lawless,” said Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers.
The administration has taken an aggressive approach to cutting back the federal government’s role in education, including plans to eliminate the Education Department entirely. Though only Congress can abolish the department, the Trump administration has taken an ax to education staffing and funding more broadly as it seeks to whittle down the department.
The administration has suggested that it may seek to eliminate the nearly $7 billion in frozen funding. Russell Vought, the director of the White House Office of Management and Budget, said during a Senate Appropriations Committee hearing last week that the administration was considering ways to claw back the funding through a process known as recessions. The administration would formally ask lawmakers to claw back a set of funds it has targeted for cuts. Even if Congress fails to vote on the request, the president’s timing would trigger a law that freezes the money until it ultimately expires.
“No decision has been made,” Mr. Vought said.
The withholding of dollars on Tuesday threw school district budgets into uncertainty, with only weeks to go before the start of school in many parts of the country.
Heidi Sipe, the superintendent in Umatilla, Ore., a low-income, rural district, said her district’s after-school program has traditionally gone until 4:45 or 5:30 p.m. and was fully funded through federal dollars.
She recently sent a note to parents urging them to make backup plans, though few exist in her community, where she said there is no Y.M.C.A. or similar alternatives.
In Omaha, Nicole Everingham, who helps manage after-school funding for programs at 42 public schools, said a loss of funding would force her group to consolidate the number of schools that can offer after-school care, and also mean fewer slots for students, because of staffing reductions.
“It completely puts us in flux,” said Ms. Everingham, the development director for Collective for Youth, which helps coordinate after-school programming for about half of Omaha public schools.
Even if the money comes through after a delay, she said, it could disrupt the ability to hire staff by the start of school in mid-August, creating chaos for working parents who depend on after-school programs.
Many school districts also rely on federal dollars to help non-English-speaking students and families, including training teachers and hiring translators.
“Without this outreach, families who do not speak English could be cut off from schools and the support system they need,” said Ana DeGenna, the school district superintendent in Oxnard, Calif.
Several of the federally funded programs have been in place for decades. The 21st Century Community Learning Centers, which support before- and after-school programs, were created in 1994 by federal legislation, and expanded six years later with the passage of the No Child Left Behind Act. Both measures, the first passed during a Democratic administration and the second under a Republican president, were approved by broad bipartisan majorities.
One of the newest programs, known as Student Support and Academic Enrichment grants, has been in place for a decade, supporting many services for issues like mental health and school technology. That law that authorized those grants received broad bipartisan support, including from Representative Tim Walberg of Michigan and Senator Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, both Republicans who are now chairmen of the education committees in their respective chambers.
But criticism about cutting funding for these programs has largely been limited to Democrats.
“Every day that this funding is held up is a day that school districts are forced to worry about whether they’ll have to cut back on after-school programs or lay off teachers instead of worrying about how to make sure our kids can succeed,” Senator Patty Murray, a Democrat who is the vice chairwoman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, said in a statement.
by Sarah Mervosh and Michael C. Bender
July 1, 2025
New York Times
The Trump administration has declined to release nearly $7 billion in federal funding that helps pay for after-school and summer programs, support for students learning English, teacher training and other services.
The money was expected to be released by Tuesday. But in an email on Monday, the Education Department notified state education agencies that the money would not be available.
The administration offered little explanation, saying only that the funds were under review. It gave no timeline for when, or if, the money would be released, saying instead that it was “committed to ensuring taxpayer resources are spent in accordance with the president’s priorities.” The frozen funds are unrelated to the millions of dollars in cuts included in the domestic policy bill that squeaked through the Senate on Tuesday.
“It’s catastrophic,” said Jodi Grant, executive director of the Afterschool Alliance, a group that works to expand after-school services for students. She estimated that the federal dollars for after-school and summer-school programs — about $1.3 billion annually — support 1.4 million students, mostly lower income, representing about 20 percent of all students in after-school programs nationally.
The move is likely to be challenged in court and has already been criticized as illegal by Democrats and teachers’ unions, who emphasized that the money had been appropriated by Congress and was approved by President Trump in March as part of a broader funding bill.
“This is lawless,” said Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers.
The administration has taken an aggressive approach to cutting back the federal government’s role in education, including plans to eliminate the Education Department entirely. Though only Congress can abolish the department, the Trump administration has taken an ax to education staffing and funding more broadly as it seeks to whittle down the department.
The administration has suggested that it may seek to eliminate the nearly $7 billion in frozen funding. Russell Vought, the director of the White House Office of Management and Budget, said during a Senate Appropriations Committee hearing last week that the administration was considering ways to claw back the funding through a process known as recessions. The administration would formally ask lawmakers to claw back a set of funds it has targeted for cuts. Even if Congress fails to vote on the request, the president’s timing would trigger a law that freezes the money until it ultimately expires.
“No decision has been made,” Mr. Vought said.
The withholding of dollars on Tuesday threw school district budgets into uncertainty, with only weeks to go before the start of school in many parts of the country.
Heidi Sipe, the superintendent in Umatilla, Ore., a low-income, rural district, said her district’s after-school program has traditionally gone until 4:45 or 5:30 p.m. and was fully funded through federal dollars.
She recently sent a note to parents urging them to make backup plans, though few exist in her community, where she said there is no Y.M.C.A. or similar alternatives.
In Omaha, Nicole Everingham, who helps manage after-school funding for programs at 42 public schools, said a loss of funding would force her group to consolidate the number of schools that can offer after-school care, and also mean fewer slots for students, because of staffing reductions.
“It completely puts us in flux,” said Ms. Everingham, the development director for Collective for Youth, which helps coordinate after-school programming for about half of Omaha public schools.
Even if the money comes through after a delay, she said, it could disrupt the ability to hire staff by the start of school in mid-August, creating chaos for working parents who depend on after-school programs.
Many school districts also rely on federal dollars to help non-English-speaking students and families, including training teachers and hiring translators.
“Without this outreach, families who do not speak English could be cut off from schools and the support system they need,” said Ana DeGenna, the school district superintendent in Oxnard, Calif.
Several of the federally funded programs have been in place for decades. The 21st Century Community Learning Centers, which support before- and after-school programs, were created in 1994 by federal legislation, and expanded six years later with the passage of the No Child Left Behind Act. Both measures, the first passed during a Democratic administration and the second under a Republican president, were approved by broad bipartisan majorities.
One of the newest programs, known as Student Support and Academic Enrichment grants, has been in place for a decade, supporting many services for issues like mental health and school technology. That law that authorized those grants received broad bipartisan support, including from Representative Tim Walberg of Michigan and Senator Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, both Republicans who are now chairmen of the education committees in their respective chambers.
But criticism about cutting funding for these programs has largely been limited to Democrats.
“Every day that this funding is held up is a day that school districts are forced to worry about whether they’ll have to cut back on after-school programs or lay off teachers instead of worrying about how to make sure our kids can succeed,” Senator Patty Murray, a Democrat who is the vice chairwoman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, said in a statement.
ABOUT THE AUTHORS:
Sarah Mervosh covers education for The Times, focusing on K-12 schools.
Michael C. Bender is a Times political correspondent covering President Trump, the Make America Great Again movement and other federal and state elections.
See more on: Education Department (US), Donald Trump
