Trump Sues CBS and 60 Minutes Over Kamala Harris Interview Claims Media Interference in 2024 Election

Trump Sues CBS and 60 Minutes Over Kamala Harris Interview Claims Media Interference in 2024 Election

From the White House, a Legal Offensive with Global Stakes

President Donald J. Trump launched a blistering attack on CBS and its flagship program "60 Minutes," accusing them of corrupting the 2024 election through fraudulent reporting. In a charged Truth Social post, Trump announced sweeping lawsuits against CBS News, "60 Minutes," and parent company Paramount Global, alleging deliberate manipulation of an interview with Kamala Harris that, he claims, served to sabotage his reelection opponent and mislead the American public.

But Trump did not stop at media malpractice. He also invoked the war in Ukraine, declaring it "a war that would never have happened if the 2020 Election had not been RIGGED," and doubled down on his ambitions to acquire Greenland—a long-dismissed policy now reemerging under his administration as a strategic imperative. From litigation to geopolitics, this is not just a media spat. It is a presidency on the offensive.

Election Narratives and the Battle for Media Control

The President’s central claim is that "60 Minutes" deliberately altered Kamala Harris’s interview in 2024 to shield her from scrutiny and swing the election in her favor. Trump, who returned to the presidency after that fiercely contested race, now frames the broadcast as not just biased, but actively subversive.

"They are not a 'News Show,' but a dishonest Political Operative," Trump wrote, accusing CBS of editing interview responses to falsely depict Harris in a favorable light and himself in the opposite. Legal filings from the administration's legal team call the broadcast "electoral interference through narrative manipulation."

Legal scholars have already weighed in, with most describing the case as legally thin but politically potent. "Editing interviews for time or tone is not new, and it’s protected speech," said one constitutional law expert. "But when a sitting president files lawsuits and calls for license revocations, it raises the temperature in a dangerous way."

CBS has publicly defended its editorial decisions, stating that no content was altered deceptively. The network explained that the same Harris answer was used in both "60 Minutes" and "Face the Nation," with different segments selected for clarity and time constraints.

Corporate Tensions Escalate: Paramount in the Crosshairs

The lawsuit lands at a delicate moment for CBS’s parent company, Paramount Global, which is currently navigating merger discussions with Skydance Media. Investors now face an uncertain landscape. Will regulatory scrutiny intensify? Will the FCC act on Trump’s demands? Will the merger stall under the weight of political heat?

Executives at Paramount are internally and informally discussing what a potential settlement might look like, Deadline has confirmed. Although CBS’s legal team has filed a motion to dismiss the suit, the federal judge has given Trump until January 24 to respond. Behind closed doors, company leaders are weighing whether concessions—either financial or operational—might ease regulatory pressure and push the merger through.

"This isn’t just legal theater anymore. There’s real capital at stake," said a media analyst at a hedge fund with holdings in both companies. Already, market jitters are evident, with Paramount stock experiencing heightened volatility as analysts downgrade on regulatory concerns.

A Wall Street Journal report indicates that executives have floated internal ideas including adding oversight to CBS News editorial workflows and potentially releasing the full Harris interview transcript—something the company has thus far declined to do.

A Tense Regulatory Dance: FCC as Political Instrument

Trump has specifically called on FCC Chairman Brendan Carr to strip CBS of its license, calling the network "out of control." This thrusts Carr and the FCC into an extraordinary spotlight. Media regulators are rarely asked to weigh in on political content disputes at the presidential level.

The situation is further complicated by the ongoing Skydance merger, which requires the transfer of broadcast licenses—transactions subject to FCC approval. Carr has already stated the commission will take a closer look, noting that "editorial fairness" may be a factor.

Meanwhile, conservative groups like the Center for American Rights have filed formal complaints objecting to the license transfers, citing CBS’s "track record of ideological bias and news manipulation." Paramount responded with sharp legal language, calling the filings "procedurally defective" and constitutionally dubious.

Departing FCC Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel delivered a pointed rebuke of the political targeting in her final public remarks: "The FCC should not be the President’s speech police. The FCC should not be journalism’s censor-in-chief."

A Renewed Bid for Greenland and a Rewritten History of War

Beyond media criticism, Trump’s post revisits two of his signature foreign policy flashpoints. First, he resurrects the idea of acquiring Greenland—a 2019 initiative that was once the subject of global satire but is now being repositioned as a serious strategic move under his renewed leadership.

Trump accuses CBS of mocking and misrepresenting his Greenland ambitions in a recent "60 Minutes" segment, framing it as yet another instance of narrative sabotage. He has signaled new diplomatic engagement with Denmark and security assessments underway, aiming to make the Arctic territory a centerpiece of U.S. national security and resource policy.

Second, Trump links the war in Ukraine directly to the outcome of the 2020 election, saying the conflict would never have occurred had he remained in office. The claim forms part of a broader narrative to recast recent history and emphasize what he portrays as the global cost of his political opponents' victory.

Litigation as Leverage: Legal Strategy or Political Doctrine?

Though the legal merits of Trump’s case remain widely questioned, its strategic calculus cannot be ignored. This lawsuit is as much about retribution and redefinition as it is about legal resolution. By taking on one of the most recognizable names in broadcast journalism, Trump is cementing his image as a disruptor willing to take on institutional power—even from within the highest office.

The legal challenge also creates a feedback loop with his base. Every legal filing, every regulatory call-to-action, reinforces the narrative of a president under siege by elites and fighting back with the tools of government. It is litigation as performance, as populist theater, and as a rallying cry.

"Whether he wins in court is irrelevant to the political payoff," said one strategist. "The process is the message."

Trump’s legal strategy has already seen results elsewhere. Disney’s ABC recently settled a separate libel case, agreeing to pay $15 million to Trump’s presidential foundation and $1 million in legal fees. For many executives in media and tech, the winds appear to be shifting, and quiet capitulations may soon become a pattern.

A Volatile New Normal for Media and Markets

Trump’s lawsuit is a signal: media institutions that broadcast narratives counter to his administration’s message may find themselves not just criticized but litigated. It changes the stakes for journalism, for media business models, and for investors with exposure to politically sensitive content platforms.

"There’s a reason media companies are now underperforming broader indices," said a senior equity analyst. "It’s not just cord-cutting anymore. It’s political risk baked into EBITDA."

Activist investors, regulators, and boardrooms are likely to respond by reinforcing internal controls, reconsidering political coverage strategies, and even spinning off controversial properties to limit exposure. A bifurcation may occur: one group of media firms doubling down on editorial independence, the other retreating to regulatory compliance.

Beyond the Lawsuit, a Clash of Power and Narrative

President Trump’s legal action against CBS is more than a lawsuit. It is a declaration of ideological war from the Oval Office against a media landscape he views as hostile and illegitimate. Whether courts reject the case or not, the ripple effects are real: markets are shifting, regulators are bracing, and journalism faces yet another recalibration of its role in the age of power-driven narrative warfare.

In this environment, there are no safe harbors—only adaptive strategies. And in the clash between free press and executive power, the next move will shape not just headlines, but history.