The $31 million question: Are Trump’s settlements actually changing journalism?

Two major media outlets have paid President Trump tens of millions to settle defamation lawsuits, but the expensive capitulations have produced only minimal changes to newsroom practices — raising questions about whether the legal pressure is reforming journalism or merely forcing corporate surrender.

CBS News and ABC News collectively paid $31 million to settle Trump lawsuits over edited interviews, yet both networks made only narrow policy adjustments that fall short of the sweeping “course correction” Mr. Trump’s legal team promised. The settlements represent a stark evolution from Trump’s first term, when he filed no lawsuits against major media coverage. Since returning to the White House, Mr. Trump has launched nine separate legal actions demanding $65 billion in damages from news organizations.

ABC News agreed to pay $15 million toward Mr. Trump’s presidential library in December 2024 after anchor George Stephanopoulos inaccurately stated on air that a jury found Trump “liable for rape” in the E. Jean Carroll case. The jury found Trump liable for sexual abuse and defamation, but not rape under New York’s narrow statutory definition. ABC posted an editor’s note expressing regret and paid $1 million in legal fees.

Seven months later, Paramount Global agreed to pay $16 million to settle Mr. Trump’s lawsuit over CBS’s “60 Minutes” interview with then-Vice President Kamala Harris. Trump alleged the network deceptively edited Harris’s responses, airing different portions of her answer on “60 Minutes” and “Face the Nation.” The settlement included no apology, only an agreement to release transcripts of future presidential candidate interviews.

CBS’s most significant policy change came not from the settlement, but from a separate controversy involving Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem. After Ms. Noem accused CBS of “shamefully” editing her “Face the Nation” interview to “whitewash the truth” about an illegal immigrant, CBS announced in September 2025 that the program would air only live or live-to-tape interviews — meaning guests’ statements could not be edited.

The two sides frame Mr. Trump’s legal campaign in starkly different terms. Former Assistant U.S. Attorney James Trusty told The Washington Times the lawsuits could “change the trajectory of media tribalism and media bias” because they show “the media is intentionally slanting the message dramatically.” He argued the discovery process — where news organizations must turn over internal communications—could prove “really embarrassing” and force accountability.

---

SEE ALSO: ‘Media tribalism and media bias’: Trump’s flurry of lawsuits changes the game for news outlets

---

Press freedom advocates see something more troubling: a president using litigation to intimidate journalists. Seth Stern, director of advocacy at the Freedom of the Press Foundation, accused Mr. Trump of filing “nonsense lawsuits” to intimidate the press, pointing to Trump’s $10 billion lawsuit against the BBC. “U.S. defamation law is compensatory, not punitive. You don’t get to call out any alleged journalistic blunder and demand $10 billion,” Stern said.

Behind the settlements lies corporate pressure. According to multiple news reports, Paramount believed Mr. Trump’s lawsuit threatened its pending merger with Skydance Media, which required FCC approval. FCC Chairman Brendan Carr, a Trump appointee, had indicated the “60 Minutes” interview would be scrutinized during the review.

Inside CBS News, the settlement sparked anger and resignations. “60 Minutes” executive producer Bill Owens and CBS News President Wendy McMahon both departed. Rome Hartman, a producer of the Harris interview, called it “a cowardly capitulation by the corporate leaders of Paramount, and a fundamental betrayal of ’60 Minutes’ and CBS News.”

Bob Corn-Revere, chief counsel for the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, said the CBS settlement sent a chilling message. “A cold wind just blew through every newsroom this morning,” Mr. Corn-Revere said. “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.”

Five other Trump lawsuits remain pending, including cases against The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal and the Pulitzer Prize board. Defamation cases remain notoriously difficult for public figures to win — plaintiffs must prove statements were false, caused reputational damage, and were made with “actual malice.”

Yet the settlements suggest media companies may prefer writing checks to fighting in court. Jameel Jaffer of the Knight First Amendment Institute told NPR that Paramount would have prevailed at trial, calling the settlement “a sad day for press freedoms.”

Whether the lawsuits ultimately produce media accountability or simply leverage corporate fear of an administration willing to use regulatory power against its critics remains unclear. With seven lawsuits still pending and Trump indicating more are coming, the answer may arrive soon enough.