settlement

The Fox Sports hairstylist who alleged that longtime sports talk show host Skip Bayless made unwanted sexual advances toward her has attempted to have her lawsuit in Los Angeles Superior Court dismissed, only to be rebuffed by the court.

The request is an indication the parties have reached a settlement, said Edson McClellan, a lawyer with Rutan & Tucker who specializes in high-stakes civil and employment litigation. In addition to Bayless, defendants include Fox Corp. and two additional high-profile former employees at Fox Sports — commentator Joy Taylor and executive Charlie Dixon.

McClellan said the filing for dismissal by plaintiff Noushin Faraji “is a strong indication that a settlement has been reached.”

The court rejected the request for dismissal because, in addition to Faraji alleging sexual battery, retaliation and wrongful termination, the lawsuit added a class action complaint alleging that Fox engaged in “unfair, unlawful, or fraudulent business practices” by failing to pay minimum wages, reimburse business expenses and pay severance to other employees as well.

For the settlement with Faraji to take place, her lawyers must either refile the lawsuit without the class action complaint or file a declaration explaining why the individual complaint should be dismissed while the class action complaint continues to move forward, according to Alexander R. Wheeler, a partner with the Parris Law Firm.

“The judge sits in an advisory, almost fiduciary relationship with those who stand to benefit from the class action,” Wheeler said. “If the case was settled to the single plaintiff, the judge might say, ‘Hold on, what’s the deal with the class action?’ Judges do not want plaintiffs using the threat of class action to extract a better settlement.”

Faraji’s allegations in the 42-page lawsuit in January had serious consequences for Bayless, Taylor and Dixon. All three were fired, although Taylor and a lawyer for Dixon said their employment with Fox ended for reasons other than the lawsuit.

“For over a decade at Fox, Faraji was forced to endure a misogynistic, racist, and ableist workplace where executives and talent were allowed to physically and verbally abuse workers with impunity,” the lawsuit alleged.

Faraji accused Bayless, 73, of offering her $1.5 million to have sex with him. Bayless worked at Fox Sports from 2016 until 2024, when his show “Undisputed” was canceled after a dip in ratings coincided with the departure of his co-host, former NFL star Shannon Sharpe.

In a separate case, Sharpe in July reached a multimillion-dollar settlement with a woman who accused the Hall of Fame tight end of sexual assault and battery. Sharpe was fired as a commentator on ESPN’s “First Take” after the settlement was completed.

Faraji’s lawsuit alleges that Dixon made an unwanted pass at her during a birthday party for Taylor at a Hollywood restaurant in 2017. Faraji told Taylor about the episode, but Taylor responded by saying, “Get over it,” pointing out that “she herself only had her job because of Mr. Dixon and that Ms. Faraji only had her job because Ms. Taylor requested her,” and “she warned that Mr. Dixon could take both away,” according to the lawsuit.

The lawsuit also details an alleged ongoing affair between Taylor and Dixon as well as a romantic relationship between Taylor and another Fox co-host, Emmanuel Acho.

On the “Hot Mics With Billy Bush” podcast a few days ago, Taylor said the allegations weren’t the reason she was let go by Fox.

“I will say that that situation and that suit had nothing to do with the changes that happened at FS1,” she said. “I mean, I think from a logical standpoint, everyone can just look at it and see what the changes were and that there were three shows that were cut.”

In a court filing denying Faraji’s allegations, Taylor’s attorney wrote that her client “welcomes the opportunity to publicly prove that her inclusion in this action is improper.”

Faraji accused Dixon, the FS1 executive producer of content, of sexual harassment. Former network anchor and reporter Julie Stewart-Binks also accused him in a separate lawsuit.

An attorney for Dixon said in a statement emailed to The Times in April that his client had been told by Fox Sports “that he was being let go for violating company policy” in a matter that had nothing to do with the lawsuits.

“According to the network, Mr. Dixon did not disclose to human resources or the legal department that a third-party production company had hired his wife as a temporary freelancer,” attorney John Ly wrote.

Bayless denied “each and every allegation” made by Faraji in a court filing in February, asserting that he “acted with a good faith belief that he had good cause to act as he did” and none of his actions “were in bad faith, spiteful, malicious, or otherwise motivated by any ill-will or illegal intent.”

Faraji alleged that Bayless made repeated unwanted advances toward her during and after she gave him weekly haircuts, and he offered to pay her for sex.

“Mr. Bayless began finding excuses to touch Ms. Faraji,” the lawsuit states. “He would give her lingering hugs after each haircut, putting his body against her own, pressing against her breasts. He then began to kiss her on her cheeks. Ms. Faraji was uncomfortable by the physical contact and would make excuses to leave right after the haircuts.”

In July 2021, the lawsuit states, Faraji explained to Bayless that she was undergoing biopsies to determine whether she had cancer. “Mr. Bayless then grabbed her hands, began kissing them, and offered her $1.5 million to have sex,” according to the lawsuit. “Approximately one week later, Mr. Bayless made another advance at Ms. Faraji. Ms. Faraji responded: ‘Skip, stop, you have a wife.’”

Lawyers for Fox and the defendants went through mediation in March but could not resolve the case, according to a court filing in April. Faraji’s lawyers wrote that “while the parties did not resolve at mediation, they are continuing to engage in settlement discussions with the mediator.”

Laurie L. Levenson, a professor at Loyola Law School and former federal prosecutor, said a settlement likely would be imminent once the class action portion of the lawsuit is addressed to the judge’s satisfaction and the individual complaint is dismissed. Non-disclosure agreements could keep the details from being made public.

“We don’t know who is paying what,” she said. “Were admissions involved? So many cases like this involve non-disclosures. But having gone through mediation, it sounds like they went a long way toward reaching a settlement, and they are at that stage now.”

Newsmax will pay $67 million to settle a defamation suit filed by Dominion Voting Systems over false claims about voter fraud in the 2020 election that aired on the right wing news channel.

The network announced the settlement with the voting equipment maker Monday, but did not apologize for its reporting.

“Newsmax believed it was critically important for the American people to hear both sides of the election disputes that arose in 2020,” the company said in a statement. “We stand by our coverage as fair, balanced, and conducted within professional standards of journalism.”

Earlier this year, Delaware Court Judge Eric Davis ruled that Newsmax made defamatory statements about Dominion in its reporting on President Trump’s allegations that the company was involved in rigging the 2020 presidential election to favor Joe Biden.

He was ready to send the case to a jury that would have determined if Newsmax acted with malice and whether any damages should be awarded to Dominion.

Newsmax was among the channels presenting false claims by President Trump’s allies and supporters that Dominion, a provider of vote-counting machines and software, was created in Venezuela to rig elections for leader Hugo Chavez and that it has the ability to switch votes.

“We are pleased to have settled this matter,” a Dominion representative said in a statement.

Fox News settled a similar case with Dominiion in April 2023 for $787.5 million after it aired incorrect election claims.

Newsmax previously settled a defamation suit filed by Smartmatic, another voting equipment company that has sued right wing outlets over their reporting on Trump’s false claims. The terms of the settlement were confidential.

In that case, Davis also ruled that false statements were made, but ruled that Smartmatic had to prove the actual financial damage of Newsmax’s actions.

Smartmatic is in litigation with Fox News, looking for $2.7 billion in damages. If the case isn’t settled, it will go trial in New York next year.

Fox News has argued that there is no evidence Smartmatic has lost any business due to its reporting. The network argued that reporting on Trump’s false claims was newsworthy and protected under the 1st amendment.

Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich announced that he will move forward with the construction of 3,401 new settlement units in Area E1, located between Jerusalem and the Ma’ale Adumim settlement.

The decision comes despite international pressure against construction in the area beyond the Green Line and after a 20-year pause.

Smotrich’s plan aims to link Ma’ale Adumim with Jerusalem, cutting off Palestinian movement between Ramallah and Bethlehem. The area is considered strategic and could undermine any future political settlement.

Smotrich said: “Construction plans in the E1 area cancel the idea of a Palestinian state and continue the many steps we are taking on the ground as part of the de facto sovereignty plan we started with the formation of the government.”

He added: “After decades of international pressure and freezes, we are breaking agreements and linking Ma’ale Adumim with Jerusalem.”

READ: US House Speaker claims West Bank “rightful property of Jewish People”

Aug. 14 (UPI) — Israel announced plans Thursday to revive a shelved a 3,400-home development in the West Bank that would seal it off from East Jerusalem and partition the occupied territory, effectively sinking the possiblilty of a Palestinian state.

Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, a far-right cabinet member who is under international sanctions and investigation by the International Criminal Court over the expansion of illegal Israeli settlements, said the so-called E1 project would “bury the idea of a Palestinian state.”

The proposed development between East Jerusalem and Ma’ale Adumim, another Israeli settlement, has been on ice for more than a decade due to the international community’s opposition to the settlements, which are illegal under international law, and in particular E1 because of the risk to efforts to find a solution to the Palestinian question.

“After decades of international pressure and freezes, we are breaking conventions and connecting Ma’ale Adumim to Jerusalem. This is Zionism at its best — building, settling and strengthening our sovereignty in the Land of Israel,” Smotrich said.

Speaking at a news conference with settler leaders, Smotrich said the land in question was the rightful property of the Jewish people because it had been given to them by God.

The announcement came three days after Australia joined France, Canada, Britain, Portugal and Malta in pledging to recognize Palestinian statehood in September with Smotrich telling the BBC the nation they backed would never happen “because there is nothing to recognize and no one to recognize.”

Smotrich’s move drew on an identical playbook he and Defense Minister Israel Katz used in May when they signed off on 22 Jewish settlements, the most significant expansion of the Israeli presence in the occupied West Bank in decades.

The two ministers said the step granted the unofficial settlements with legal recognition from the government, with Katz saying it would “prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state that would endanger Israel.”

The May 29 move came hours after the governments of Ireland, Norway, Slovenia and Spain issued a joint communique reaffirming their commitment to the implementation of a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian dispute.

Israel’s far-right finance minister has approved plans for thousands of illegal homes in the occupied West Bank — saying it ‘buries the idea of a Palestinian state’. Bezalel Smotrich announced 3,401 illegal housing units will be built in the controversial E1 settlement project.

The far-right minister said he will approve 3,000 new homes in the controversial E1 area project, hailing it as ‘Zionism at its best’.

Israel’s far-right Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich has announced he will approve thousands of housing units in a highly controversial and long-delayed illegal settlement project in the occupied West Bank, saying the move “buries the idea of a Palestinian state”.

In a statement on Wednesday, Smotrich announced his intention to approve tenders to build more than 3,000 homes in the E1 area settlement project that would connect Jerusalem and the existing Israeli settlement of Maale Adumim, located several kilometres to the east.

“Approval of construction plans in E1 buries the idea of a Palestinian state and continues the many steps we are taking on the ground as part of the de facto sovereignty plan that we began implementing with the establishment of the government,” he said.

Smotrich, who is also a minister in Israel’s Ministry of Defence with broad responsibility for approving settlements in the occupied West Bank, hailed the project as “Zionism at its best”.

“After decades of international pressure and freezes, we are breaking conventions and connecting Maale Adumim to Jerusalem,” Smotrich added.

Israel Gantz, chairman of the Yesha Council – an umbrella organisation of illegal settlements in the West Bank – and head of the Binyamin Regional Council, also praised the “tremendous and historic achievement for the settlement movement”, according to Israel National News.

Gantz said it was a “true revolution in strengthening the settlement enterprise”, the outlet said.

Development of the E1 settlement – which is illegal under international law – has been frozen for decades.

Observers believe that its location will hinder the realisation of a future Palestinian state.

The planned settlement would effectively divide the occupied West Bank into northern and southern regions, preventing the establishment of a contiguous Palestinian territory connecting occupied East Jerusalem to major cities such as Bethlehem and Ramallah.

Israel postponed the plan in 2022 following US pressure. But in recent months, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s far-right government has approved road-widening projects in the area and begun restricting Palestinian access.

Maale Adumim mayor Guy Yifrach praised the new settlement, saying it will “connect Maale Adumim to Jerusalem and serve as a Zionist response of settlement and nation-building”.

“The Palestinians aimed to establish a stranglehold through illegal construction – this project will thwart that effort,” he said, according to Israel National News.

On Wednesday, Israeli anti-settlement watchdog Peace Now said a total of 4,030 new housing units had been approved in the occupied West Bank.

Some 730 are west of the existing Israeli settlement of Ariel, while 3,300 had been approved in a new Maale Adumim neighbourhood that will connect it “with the industrial zone to its east”.

“The 3,300 housing units in Maale Adumim represent an increase of about 33 percent in the settlement’s housing stock – an enormous expansion for a settlement whose population has been stagnant at around 38,000 for the past decade,” it said.

It added that the Maale Adumim extension raised “serious questions about the need for the E1 plan”.

Comedy Central’s “South Park” continues to target President Trump, and viewers appear to be loving it.

Ratings for the 27th season of the irreverent and often ribald animated series have surged, according to data from Nielsen and Comedy Central. The second episode, which premiered Aug. 6, scored 6.2 million viewers across the cable network and Paramount+, now the exclusive streaming home for the series, over the first three days.

The figure is 49% higher than the first three days for the season premiere, which debuted on July 23. The second episode scored 1.56 million viewers on Comedy Central, making it the highest rated episode since 2018, with nearly all of them in the 18 to 49 age group coveted by advertisers.

The new season of “South Park” launched amid the tensions between Comedy Central’s parent Paramount and the Trump White House. It also arrived after the show’s co-creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone scored a massive $1.5-billion five-year deal with Paramount for the streaming rights, which previously belonged to HBO Max.

Paramount paid $16 million to settle a lawsuit over Trump’s claim that “60 Minutes” deceptively edited an interview with former Vice President Kamala Harris to aid her in the 2024 Election. First Amendment experts said the suit had no merit. But the settlement was seen as necessary for Skydance Media to get federal regulatory approval of its $8-billion acquisition of Paramount, which closed on Aug. 7.

“Late Show” host Stephen Colbert joked that the settlement was a bribe. Days later he was told by CBS that his program was being canceled at the end of the 2025-26 season due to financial losses.

But “South Park” has not held anything back in its comedic takes on Trump, presenting him naked and in bed with the devil. Trump’s boast that Paramount is giving him $20 million in public service announcements as part of the “60 Minutes” settlement was also lampooned. (The company has not confirmed that such a deal was made for free ad time).

Cartman the podcaster in Comedy Central’s “South Park.”

(Comedy Central)

The second episode showed the president dressed in a white “Fantasy Island”-style suit with Vice President J.D. Vance as his diminutive sidekick. U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem was portrayed with a melting face and a trigger-happy response to puppy dogs. Both were were running gags throughout the espisode.

“South Park” regular Cartman became a conservative podcaster in the second episode and was seen sporting a hairstyle similar to that of right-wing activist Charlie Kirk.

Parker and Stone will take a break this week as Comedy Central will air the very first “South Park” episode — 1997’s “Cartman Gets an Anal Probe” — on Wednesday as part of a marathon for the series.

Aug. 9 (UPI) — The U.S. Justice Department is asking for $1 billion from the University of California, Los Angeles in exchange for re-starting federal funding to the public land-grant research institution, school officials confirmed.

“The University of California just received a document from the Department of Justice and is reviewing it,” University of California President James Milliken said in a statement this week.

“As a public university, we are stewards of taxpayer resources and a payment of this scale would completely devastate our country’s greatest public university system as well as inflict great harm on our students and all Californians.”

Earlier this week, UCLA announced it had lost millions in federal research funding after the Justice Department accused it of failing to protect Jewish students during on-campus pro-Palestinian protests. The school at the time did not specify a dollar amount, but that figure is now believed to be around $500 million.

“The UC Board of Regents and the UC Office of the President are providing counsel as we actively evaluate our best course of action. I will continue to be in constant communication with you on key decisions and update you on any developments,” UCLA Chancellor Julio Frenk said following Milliken’s statement.

The deal offered by President Donald Trump‘s administration to the 106-year-old academic institution would involve the school making a $1 billion payment. It would also pay an additional $172 million which would go to a larger fund to compensate victims of civil rights violations, the New York Times reported, citing a draft of the proposal.

Gov. Gavin Newsom, D-Calif., said the state would push back against the proposed settlement.

“We’ll sue,” Newsom told reporters at a news conference Friday when asked about the news. Newsom had been discussing California’s involvement with Texas lawmakers who are trying to block a Republican redistricting plan in the Lone Star state.

“[Trump] is trying to silence academic freedom,” Newsom said, “attacking one of the most important public institutions in the United States of America.”

Columbia University last month agreed to pay $221 million in fines to settle similar accusations against the private New York City university.

At the time, Trump said he also expected to reach a settlement with Harvard University.

The proposed settlement is the highest yet, as Trump continues pressure universities to submit to wide-ranging demands.

The administration of United States President Donald Trump has requested that the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), submit to a $1bn settlement to resolve accusations stemming from the school’s handling of pro-Palestine protests.

A White House official and the University of California system both confirmed the proposed settlement to news agencies on Friday.

The settlement proposal is notable for the massive sum requested, as the Trump administration seeks to pressure top schools into compliance with its policies.

The $1bn price tag would far exceed the payouts inked in previous agreements reached with Columbia University and Brown University last month. Columbia agreed to pay a fine of about $221m, and Brown confirmed it would pay $50m to a state workforce development programme.

“The University of California just received a document from the Department of Justice and is reviewing it,” University of California President James Milliken said in a statement.

He added that the institution had offered to have talks with the government earlier this week.

UCLA, which boasts the largest student body in the University of California system, had also announced this week that the Trump administration suspended $584m in federal grants to the school.

The Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division explained that the funding would be frozen as a result of civil rights violations connected to pro-Palestinian protests since 2023. The school had acted “with deliberate indifference in creating a hostile educational environment for Jewish and Israeli students”, it said.

Free-speech advocates, however, have accused the Trump administration of willfully conflating pro-Palestine and antiwar advocacy with anti-Semitism in order to silence protesters.

Last month, UCLA reached a $6m settlement with three Jewish students and a Jewish professor who claimed their civil rights were violated by pro-Palestinian protesters blocking their access to class and other areas on campus during a 2024 protest encampment.

It was not immediately clear why the $1bn settlement sought by the Trump administration was so high.

UCLA is also the first publicly funded university to face a potential grant freeze from the Trump administration. In his statement, Milliken said the payment would have wide-ranging consequences.

“As a public university, we are stewards of taxpayer resources, and a payment of this scale would completely devastate our country’s greatest public university system as well as inflict great harm on our students and all Californians,” he said.

Civil liberties organisations have also underscored that students at publicly funded universities are typically afforded wider constitutional protections while on campus.

That stands in contrast to private institutions, where students are generally subject to whatever restrictions on speech are outlined by administrators in their enrollment agreement.

The First Amendment of the US Constitution restricts the government’s ability to limit free speech. Any future agreement between the University of California system and the Trump administration might face a legal challenge, should it be perceived to trample on free-speech rights.

Speaking on Thursday, California Governor Gavin Newsom, who has been one of Trump’s most vocal Democratic opponents, urged the state’s university officials not to kowtow to the administration’s demands.

“We’re not Brown, we’re not Columbia, and I’m not going to be governor if we act like that,” Newsom said, according to the Los Angeles Times. “Period. Full stop. I will fight like hell to make sure that doesn’t happen.”

David Ellison finally clinched his prize Thursday, completing Skydance Media’s $8-billion takeover of the historic Paramount.

But the tech scion immediately faced questions about President Trump’s boast that he expects $20 million in free advertising and programming as part of a settlement to end Trump’s lawsuit over CBS “60 Minutes” edits. The settlement cleared the way for Skydance’s takeover of the company that, in addition to CBS, includes MTV, Comedy Central and the storied Paramount Pictures.

Last month, Paramount paid $16 million to settle the lawsuit, which 1st Amendment experts said had no merit. Three weeks later, Ellison’s acquisition of Paramount was approved by federal regulators.

If Skydance participated in such a deal to give free public service announcements to Trump to settle his “60 Minutes” lawsuit, viewers are going to have to watch CBS to find out.

The first question Ellison, the newly minted chairman and chief executive of Paramount, fielded from reporters during a news briefing Thursday was about the purported PSAs. Ellison would not directly answer it.

“We are not going to politicize anything today,” Ellison said at the event held at Paramount headquarters in Times Square in New York.

Paramount Global handled the settlement and Skydance was not involved “in any way,” Ellison said. But Trump — who has a friendly relationship with Ellison’s father, Larry — has proclaimed numerous times that he’s been promised $20 million in free air time for public service announcements that promote causes favored by the White House. Trump’s former agent Ari Emanuel also helped Ellison make its case to the president to allow the deal to go forward.

Ellison and the other top executives stated their support for the news division at the news conference. Ellison said CBS News and “60 Minutes” were among the first stops on his tour of the company’s offices after the deal was closed.

As for the news ombudsman that Skydance agreed to as part of the terms to get approval, Paramount’s new president, Jeff Shell, said the position should not be viewed as a censor.

“The ombudsman is meant to be a transparency vehicle, not an oversight vehicle,” Shell said. “We do believe in transparency.”

Asked how Skydance will handle the ongoing attacks on mainstream media that continue to come from the White House, Ellison said the company will stand its ground.

“We’re obviously going to be fierce defenders of our talent,” Ellison said. “We always have been.”

Before the news conference, Ellison put out a mission statement for the merged company, promising to combine the company’s storied movie and TV properties with technological prowess. Paramount is also the home of several iconic but aging cable brand names, including MTV, Nickelodeon and Comedy Central.

“Moving forward, we will work with conviction and optimism to transform Paramount into a tech-forward company that blends the creative heart of Hollywood with the innovative spirit of Silicon Valley,” Ellison wrote.

The immediate challenge facing Skydance will be building the scale of Paramount+, which, despite a decent number of popular shows, has lagged in the streaming competition led by Netflix and Amazon Prime.

Ellison promised the direct-to-consumer offering can be “a leading global streaming service.”

The mogul is taking over the most-watched television network in CBS, but like the rest of the legacy media industry, it’s fighting the migration of viewers to streaming.

Ellison’s note made a point of praising “60 Minutes,” saying it has “a long tradition of impactful reporting led by seasoned journalists committed to accuracy, integrity, and public trust” and expressed thanks to the news division for continuing to toil through the controversy.

“We take immense pride in CBS News’ legacy of impactful journalism and look forward to continuing to foster a newsroom culture where journalists are empowered, trusted, and equipped to do their best work,” Ellison wrote.

The new company is now called Paramount, a Skydance Corp, with its stock trades under the PSKY ticker. Shares were trading down about 3%, to $11.25, in midday trading.

According to Ellison and his private equity Paramount investors, RedBird Capital Partners, the company will soon be positioned to reach new heights.

Ellison’s play for the studio began nearly two years ago during Hollywood’s summer of labor unrest, when then-controlling shareholder Shari Redstone’s family enterprise, National Amusements, found itself in a cash crunch after Paramount halted its dividend to its investors.

In December 2023, Redstone turned to Paramount’s board to approve the Skydance transaction. That triggered another fraught process as board members agonized over the structure of a deal that would reward rank-and-file shareholders — not just the Redstones.

The deal was finally signed July 7, 2024. As part of the Skydance buyout, the Redstones’ National Amusements Inc. was paid $2.4 billion. After the firm’s considerable debts are paid, the family should come away with about $1.75 billion.

Paramount shareholders will receive $4.5 billion. Skydance and RedBird Capital Partners also agreed to inject $1.5 billion into Paramount’s balance sheet to help pay down debt.

“Our investment in Paramount and long-term partnership with the Ellison family reflects our deep conviction in the value of world-class intellectual property and the potential to unlock substantial growth,” RedBird founder Gerry Cardinale said in a statement.

Mike Johnson, the top legislator in the United States Congress, has visited an illegal settlement in the occupied West Bank, drawing condemnation from Palestinians.

The Palestinian Foreign Ministry called the trip by the speaker of the US House of Representatives on Monday a “blatant violation of international law”.

Johnson, who is next in line for the US presidency after the president and vice president, is the highest-ranking US official to visit a West Bank Israeli settlement.

His trip comes amid escalating settler violence against Palestinian communities that killed two US citizens in July.

The Israeli military has also been intensifying its deadly raids, home demolitions and displacement campaigns in the West Bank as it carries out its brutal assault and blockade on Gaza.

Johnson’s visit contradicts Arab and US efforts to “end the cycle of violence” as well as Washington’s public stance against settlers’ “aggressions”, the Palestinian Foreign Ministry said.

“The ministry affirms that all settlement activity is invalid and illegal and undermines the opportunity to implement the two-state solution and achieve peace,” it added.

According to Israeli media reports, Johnson visited the settlement of Ariel, north of Ramallah, on Monday.

“Judea and Samaria are the front lines of the state of Israel and must remain an integral part of it,” Johnson was quoted as saying by the Jerusalem Post newspaper, using a biblical name for the West Bank.

“Even if the world thinks otherwise, we stand with you.”

The House speaker’s comments appear to be in reference to recent moves by some Western countries – including close allies of the US and Israel – to recognise a Palestinian state.

‘Illegal under international law’

Israeli settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem are illegal under international law. The International Court of Justice, the top United Nations tribunal, reaffirmed that position last year, saying that Israel’s presence in the occupied Palestinian territories is unlawful and must end “as rapidly as possible”.

Asked about Johnson’s visit, UN spokesperson Farhan Haq told reporters on Monday: “Our standpoint on the settlements, as you know, is that they are illegal under international law.”

Israel captured the West Bank and East Jerusalem in 1967, and annexed the entire holy city in 1980.

Successive Israeli governments have been building Jewish-only settlements in the West Bank on land that would be the home of a Palestinian state if a two-state solution were to materialise.

Hundreds of thousands of Israeli settlers now live in the occupied West Bank.

The Fourth Geneva Convention, to which Israel is a signatory, bans the occupying power from transferring “parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies”.

While the Oslo Accords granted the Palestinian Authority some municipal powers over parts of the West Bank, the entire area remains under full Israeli security control.

Israel also controls the airspace and ports of entry in the territory.

Israeli settlers in the West Bank have full citizenship rights, while Palestinians live under Israel’s military rule, where they can be detained indefinitely without charges.

Leading rights groups have accused Israel of imposing a system of apartheid on Palestinians.

‘It’s a matter of faith for us’

For decades, the US has publicly rejected West Bank settlements and called for a two-state solution despite providing Israel with billions of dollars in military aid.

However, US President Donald Trump has taken US policy further in favour of Israel, refusing to criticise settlement expansion or commit to backing a Palestinian state.

Many Republicans, meanwhile, have long expressed support for Israel from a theological perspective, arguing that it is a Christian religious duty to back the US ally.

“Our prayer is that America will always stand with Israel. We pray for the preservation and the peace of Jerusalem. That’s what scripture tells us to do. It’s a matter of faith for us,” Johnson said on Sunday during a visit to the Western Wall.

In a social media post, Marc Zell, chair of the US Republicans Overseas Israel, cited Johnson as saying on Monday that the mountains of the West Bank are “the rightful property of the Jewish People”.

July 24 (UPI) — Columbia University announced on Wednesday it will pay $221 million for the New York City private school to settle its dispute with the Trump administration and restore funding.

Under terms of the deal, Columbia won’t admit to violating anti-discrimination laws and will pay $200 million to the federal government over three years and a one-time $21 million to settle investigations by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

In return, “a vast majority of the federal grants which were terminated or paused in March 2025 — will be reinstated and Columbia’s access to billions of dollars in current and future grants will be restored,” the Ivy League school said in a news release.

This includes funding from the National Institutes of Health and the Department of Health and Human Services.

In March, the federal government revoked $400 million in federal funding over campus protests by pro-Palestinian activists.

Also, the majority of the school’s future $1.3 billion in funding had been put on hold, including science research.

Policies already were implemented on March 21 regarding restrictions on demonstrations, new disciplinary procedures and a review of the Middle East curriculum. An independent monitor will oversee the agreement implementation.

The university also agreed to provide the federal government with “all relevant data and information to rigorously assess compliance with its commitment to merit-based hiring and admissions,” a senior White House official told CNN.

And Columbia will review its admission procedures and “strengthen oversight of international students,” the official said.

“While Columbia does not admit to wrongdoing with this resolution agreement, the institution’s leaders have recognized, repeatedly, that Jewish students and faculty have experienced painful, unacceptable incidents, and that reform was and is needed,” the university said.

University President Claire Shipman said she was pleased with the settlement.

“The settlement was carefully crafted to protect the values that define us and allow our essential research partnership with the federal government to get back on track,” Shipman said in a statement. “Importantly, it safeguards our independence, a critical condition for academic excellence and scholarly exploration, work that is vital to the public interest.”

Shipman also separately addressed the Columbia community, writing “as I have discussed on many occasions with our community, we carefully explored all options open to us. We might have achieved short-term litigation victories, but not without incurring deeper long-term damage — the likely loss of future federal funding, the possibility of losing accreditation, and the potential revocation of visa status of thousands of international students.”

Education Secretary Linda McMahon also touted the settlement.

“The Trump Administration’s deal with Columbia University is a seismic shift in our nation’s fight to hold institutions that accept American taxpayer dollars accountable for antisemitic discrimination and harassment,” she said in a statement.

“For decades, the American public has watched in horror as our elite campuses have been overrun by anti-western teachings and a leftist groupthink that restricts speech and debate to push a one-sided view of our nation and the world. These dangerous trends fueled the outbreak of violent antisemitism that paralyzed campuses after the October 7th massacre and was previously unthinkable in the United States of America.”

The announcement came a day after Columbia said it had disciplined dozens of pro-Palestine protesters who had participated in protests in May.

Other elite schools, including Harvard, have been under pressure to adhere to the Trump administration’s policies, including cracking down on anti-Semitism and ending Diversity, Equity and Inclusion initiatives.

“Columbia’s reforms are a roadmap for elite universities that wish to regain the confidence of the American public by renewing their commitment to truth-seeking, merit, and civil debate,” McMahon said. “I believe they will ripple across the higher education sector and change the course of campus culture for years to come.”

Harvard has implemented some changes but sued the federal government over a loss of $2.2 billion in grants and $60 million in contracts.

Trump told CNN earlier this month: “I think we’re going to probably settle with Harvard. We’re going to probably settle with Columbia. They want to settle very badly. There’s no rush.”

Shipman had been concerned about the effects on research.

“Columbia’s top scientists are facing the decimation of decades of research,” Shipman said in a letter on June 12. “Graduate students, postdocs, mid-career researchers, and established, celebrated scientists, have all had their breakthroughs lauded by the world one minute and defunded the next. We’re in danger of reaching a tipping point in terms of preserving our research excellence and the work we do for humanity.”

The university had a total enrollment of 26,272 graduate students and 9,111 undergrads in the 2024-2025 academic year. Tuition is $70,000-pus each year with about 90% getting student aid.

About 40% of the student body are international students, Politico reported.

Jewish students comprise 19% undergraduates and 15.9% graduate students, according to Hillel International.

“This announcement is an important recognition of what Jewish students and their families have expressed with increasing urgency: antisemitism at Columbia is real, and it has had a tangible impact on Jewish students’ sense of safety and belonging and, in turn, their civil rights,” Brian Cohen, executive director of Columbia/Barnard Hillel, posted on X. “Acknowledging this fact is essential, and along with the new path laid out by the President and Trustees, I am hopeful that today’s agreement marks the beginning of real, sustained change.”

The state of New York has agreed to pay $450,000 to settle a lawsuit from an ex-aide to former Gov. Andrew Cuomo who alleged he sexually harassed and groped her while he was in office.

The former aide, Brittany Commisso, had sued Cuomo and the state, alleging sexual harassment from the then-governor and retaliation against her after reporting the incidents. The allegations were part of a barrage of similar misconduct claims that forced Cuomo to resign as governor in 2021.

Commisso’s lawyers said that the settlement announced Friday “is a complete vindication of her claims” and that she is “glad to be able to move forward with her life.”

The settlement came as Cuomo is in the midst of a so-far bruising political comeback with a run for mayor of New York City. Cuomo lost the Democratic primary to Zohran Mamdani by more than 12 percentage points, and this week he relaunched his campaign to run in the general election as an independent candidate, beginning a potentially uphill battle in a heavily Democratic city where support is coalescing behind Mamdani.

Cuomo, who has denied wrongdoing, has been dogged by the scandal during his campaign for mayor.

“The settlement is not a vindication, it is capitulation to avoid the truth,” Cuomo’s lawyers said Friday in a statement in which they called Commisso’s allegations false.

The attorneys, Rita Glavin and Theresa Trzaskoma, added that they “oppose the dismissal of Ms. Commisso’s lawsuit.”

“Until the truth is revealed, the lawsuit should not be dismissed,” they said in the statement.

Cuomo resigned as governor after a report from the state attorney general determined that he had sexually harassed at least 11 women, with some alleging unwanted kissing and touching, as well as remarks about their appearances and sex lives.

Commisso filed her lawsuit in late 2023, just before the expiration of the Adult Survivors Act, a special law that created a yearlong suspension of the usual time limit to sue over an alleged sexual assault.

She later filed a criminal complaint accusing Cuomo of groping her but a local district attorney declined to prosecute, citing lack of sufficient evidence.

The Associated Press doesn’t identify people who say they have been sexually assaulted unless they decide to tell their stories publicly, as Commisso has done.

Anthony Hogrebe, a spokesperson for current Gov. Kathy Hochul, said Friday that the state “is pleased to have settled this matter in a way that allows us to minimize further costs to taxpayers.”

Izaguirre writes for the Associated Press.

Jon Stewart took aim at his network’s parent firm Paramount Global for paying $16 million to settle President Trump’s lawsuit against CBS News, calling the move a payoff for approval of a pending merger.

On the Monday edition of Comedy Central’s “The Daily Show,” Stewart and guest and former “60 Minutes” correspondent Steve Kroft laid out the details of the legal skirmish, which they agreed felt like an organized crime shakedown.

“I’m obviously not a lawyer, but I did watch ‘Goodfellas,’” Stewart said. “That sounds illegal.”

Last week, Paramount Global agreed to pay $16 million to settle the legal volley from Trump, who claimed “60 Minutes” edited an interview with his 2024 election opponent, then-Vice President Kamala Harris, to make her look better and bolster her chances in the election. CBS denied the claims, saying the edits were routine.

But the suit — described as frivolous by 1st Amendment experts — was seen as an obstacle to Paramount Global’s proposed $8-billion merger with David Ellison’s Skydance Media. The deal requires approval from the Federal Communications Commission, led by Trump acolyte Brendan Carr.

Stewart rhetorically asked Kroft if this settlement was “just a payment so this merger can go through and not be challenged by Trump’s FCC?”

Kroft, who noted that Paramount Global majority shareholder Shari Redstone wants the sale to go through, confirmed Stewart’s assessment.

Kroft noted that “60 Minutes” never said it screwed up, “they just paid the money.”

“So just flat-out protection money,” Stewart said.

“Yeah, it was a shakedown,” Kroft said.

Comedy Central, the cable network that serves as the home of “The Daily Show,” will be included in the Skydance deal. But Stewart remained relentless throughout the segment.

“It doesn’t feel like scrutiny on news networks — it feels like fealty,” Stewart said. “They are being held to a standard that will never be satisfactory to Donald Trump. No one can ever kiss his ass enough.”

Stewart has always spoken his mind on “The Daily Show,” delivering mostly harsh assessments of Trump. It remains to be seen if he’ll have that freedom when Skydance, led by Trump supporter Larry Ellison and his son David, eventually takes over.

Stewart returned to Comedy Central after parting ways with Apple TV in 2023. His last program, “The Problem With Jon Stewart,” ended after Apple executives reportedly expressed concerns over the comedian’s handling of potential show topics related to China and artificial intelligence.

Apple has deep ties to China and has launched an artificial intelligence product incorporated into its operating systems.

Stewart demonstrated the shakiness of the Trump lawsuit’s claims with an edited Fox News interview with Trump from last year.

Trump appeared to give a simple yes when asked on “Fox & Friends Weekend,” if he would de-classify government files on convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein. However, Trump equivocated in a longer version of the answer that aired later on the network.

With the Harris interview, CBS News split an answer on Israel that she gave to “60 Minutes” presenting one portion on its Sunday round table program on “Face the Nation.” A different portion aired on the actual program, which led Trump supporters to cry foul.

“I would like to know why the ’60 Minutes’ edit was worthy of a $16-million acquiescence of what is considered the Tiffany news, gold standard network … when very clearly, Fox just did what seems to me a more egregious edit,” Stewart said.

A representative for Paramount Global had no comment on Stewart’s remarks.

Kroft said the the mood is bleak at “60 Minutes” in the aftermath of the settlement.

“I think there is a lot of fear over there,” he said. “Fear of losing their jobs. Fear of losing their country. Fear of losing the 1st Amendment.”

By early spring, Paramount Global was in crisis. President Trump wouldn’t budge from his demand for an eye-popping sum of money and an apology from the company to settle his lawsuit over a CBS News “60 Minutes” interview with Kamala Harris. Journalists at the storied broadcaster were in revolt against the parent company.

Meanwhile, Paramount’s board faced withering pressure, with a settlement widely seen as a prerequisite for getting government approval for the company’s $8-billion sale to David Ellison’s Skydance Media, or the deal would collapse.

Then a new emergency erupted.

On May 4, CBS aired a hard-hitting “60 Minutes” segment that took aim at Trump’s targeting of law firms. Correspondent Scott Pelley anchored the report, which relied heavily on an interview with a leading Trump irritant — former top Hillary Clinton advisor Marc Elias.

Trump was furious. He threatened Paramount with an additional lawsuit alleging defamation, according to people close to the situation who were not authorized to comment.

The behind-the-scenes drama eventually would culminate with Paramount agreeing to pay $16 million to end the president’s battle over edits to October’s Harris interview, which Trump alleged was manipulated to boost the then-vice president’s election chances. Trump’s suit had demanded $20 billion in damages.

The deal resulted from months of back-and-forth among a constellation of power players with competing interests: the president, mogul Shari Redstone, tech billionaire Larry Ellison and his son David, Hollywood super agent Ari Emanuel, CBS News’ ousted leader Wendy McMahon and Jeff Shell, a former NBCUniversal chief now with RedBird Capital Partners, which backs Ellison’s Skydance.

The settlement, which the president approved late Tuesday, included a commitment by Trump to drop his claims and not sue over the May “60 Minutes” broadcast, according to sources and a Paramount statement.

Paramount said it agreed to pay Trump’s legal fees. The remainder of the $16-million settlement will go toward his future presidential library.

But the beleaguered company behind “Mission: Impossible” and “Yellowstone” mustered victories, withstanding the Trump team’s earlier demand for a $100-million payout, the knowledgeable sources said.

The company also refused to apologize for CBS’ reporting or edits, a stance to protect its journalistic ethics and 1st Amendment rights.

“This settlement allows Paramount to focus on its prospective sale, and CBS can maintain its principles,” said C. Kerry Fields, a business law professor at the USC Marshall School. “But principle has its price, and there certainly was one set here.”

The eight-month skirmish with Trump shined a harsh light on Paramount’s vulnerabilities — and deep divisions within the company and its prospective new owners.

Paramount had a narrow window to reach a truce. The company wanted to finalize the settlement before Wednesday, when Paramount held its annual shareholder meeting and three new members joined the board.

“This [settlement] was all about survival — it was that dark,” Fields said. “Paramount has to execute the sale to Skydance in order to survive.”

At first, Paramount’s sale to the Ellison family seemed like a sure bet. Larry Ellison, co-founder of Oracle Corp., is close to Trump and is also a possible buyer for TikTok, another deal of interest to the president. The landmark Paramount-Skydance deal, struck a year ago, could reshape one of Hollywood’s original studios and the entertainment landscape.

Redstone and her family agreed to part with their entertainment holdings, National Amusements Inc., and controlling Paramount shares. The family’s shaky finances were a catalyst for the sale. Redstone has borrowed heavily to meet debt obligations, including a $186-million term loan from Larry Ellison last year. The family is waiting for the cash from the sale of Paramount and National Amusements to the Ellisons and RedBird, a private equity firm.

But an unexpected blunder altered the deal’s course.

Last fall, “60 Minutes” invited Trump and Harris to participate in preelection interviews. Trump agreed, then backed out. CBS News went forward with a Harris sit-down.

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

(CBS News)

Correspondent Bill Whitaker asked Harris about the Biden administration’s rocky relations with Israel’s prime minister. Producers used different portions of her answer on two programs: a convoluted response on CBS’ Sunday morning show “Face the Nation,” and a more succinct part on “60 Minutes.”

Trump and his supporters zeroed in on the discrepancy. They accused CBS of doctoring the interview. CBS News denied the allegation, saying the edits were routine.

Days before the election, Trump sued in Amarillo, Texas, ensuring the case would be overseen by a Trump-appointed judge.

His lawsuit alleged the “60 Minutes” edits amounted to election interference — “malicious, deceptive, and substantial news distortion calculated to confuse, deceive, and mislead the public,” in the suit’s words.

President Donald Trump in the Oval Office.

(Bloomberg)

1st Amendment experts said the case had no merit; some figured it was a campaign stunt.

Days later, Shell, the RedBird executive who will become Paramount’s president should Skydance take over, held a conference call with top CBS executives. Shell suggested “60 Minutes” release the full Harris interview transcript in a bid for transparency, according to people familiar with the matter.

News executives refused, drawing a clear division between some high-level Paramount executives and Ellison’s team.

Those Paramount executives have bristled over Shell’s involvement, including a comment he reportedly made to McMahon late last year, stating the company eventually would have to settle. Skydance has said it has an agreement with Paramount that gives Ellison and Shell the ability to give input on key business issues — even before acquiring Paramount.

A spokesperson for Shell declined to comment.

The role of Shell, ousted from his previous role running NBCUniversal after acknowledging an inappropriate relationship with an underling, has been controversial. Representatives for the creators of “South Park” have accused him of overstepping his authority and meddling with a protracted negotiation over their overall deal and streaming rights to the long-running cartoon. A representative for Shell denied that accusation.

Trump had scored previous victories over media organizations. In December, the Walt Disney Co. agreed to pay him $16 million, including $1 million for his attorney fees, to end a dispute stemming from ABC anchor George Stephanopoulos’ inaccurate description of Trump’s liability in a civil court case. Press advocates howled.

Paramount held firm. But it failed to get Trump’s case dismissed or moved to a court in New York, where CBS and “60 Minutes” are based.

So the company was in a box. Its sale to Skydance requires the approval of the Federal Communications Commission to transfer CBS TV station licenses to the Ellisons, and that consent has been elusive.

In one of his first moves as FCC chairman, Trump appointee Brendan Carr launched an inquiry into whether CBS’ edits of the Harris interview rose to the level of news distortion — the crux of Trump’s lawsuit.

In February, Carr demanded CBS release a raw transcript of the Harris interview and the unedited footage. CBS complied; the material showed Harris had been accurately quoted.

The Texas judge ordered Paramount and Trump’s lawyers into mediation. Talks began April 30.

That weekend, “60 Minutes” ran its report on Trump and the law firms, riling Redstone and others. The Trump team and Paramount were already far apart, the sources said.

Soon, CBS News and Stations President Wendy McMahon was forced out. Knowledgeable sources attributed her departure to months of strife and persistent criticism from Redstone, who serves as Paramount’s chair. McMahon also made missteps, including overseeing an unsuccessful reboot of “CBS Evening News.”

Her exit followed that of Bill Owens, the longtime executive producer of “60 Minutes,” who fought efforts to settle.

The day McMahon was ousted, left-leaning U.S. Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) lobbed a salvo at Redstone. In a May 19 letter, they warned that Paramount board members risked possible bribery charges if they paid Trump to settle the lawsuit as a way to win FCC approval for the Skydance deal.

By early June, Redstone and the Ellison team were getting restless.

Emanuel, the agent, stepped in to help get the dealmaking back on track, people familiar with the matter said. Emanuel is Trump’s former talent agent and one of Ellison’s closest allies.

On June 7, Ellison met briefly with Trump at a UFC event in New Jersey. Emanuel is executive chairman of the WME Group and chief executive of UFC’s parent company, TKO.

According to a source, Emanuel associate Dana White, the Trump-supporting UFC chief executive, helped facilitate the Ellison meeting with the president, which occurred steps away from the fighters’ octagon.

People close to Ellison and Emanuel declined to discuss Ellison’s interactions with the president. Representatives of Skydance, Redstone and Emanuel declined to comment for this story.

Finally, a breakthrough came when Trump offered support for Ellison and the Skydance deal, though he continued to blast Harris and CBS News.

“Ellison is great,” Trump said from the White House lawn on June 18. “He’ll do a great job with it.”

Meanwhile, the clock was ticking. Redstone and others wanted the board to handle the settlement before the shareholder meeting, when one director stepped down, and three new members joined the board.

Redstone recused herself from voting but made her wishes known.

The settlement was finally reached about 10 hours before the Paramount board switched.

One person close to the legal effort said the agreement “got over the finish line” due to a sweetener for Trump. His team anticipates that Paramount networks eventually will run millions of dollars worth of free commercials, or public service announcements, in support of Trump causes, including combating antisemitism and increasing border security.

Paramount denied this.

“Paramount’s settlement with President Trump does not include PSAs,” the company said in a statement. “Paramount has no knowledge of any promises or commitments made to President Trump other than those set forth in the settlement proposed by the mediator and accepted by the parties.”

Skydance declined to comment. Emanuel did not respond to messages.

The settlement does contain another provision championed by Trump.“60 Minutes” will release transcripts of interviews with eligible U.S. presidential candidates after those interviews air, “subject to redactions as required for legal or national security concerns,” Paramount said.

1st Amendment advocates were discouraged by the deal. So were Trump’s enemies, including the senators who had vowed to investigate the deal for bribery.

Paramount’s move to “settle a bogus lawsuit with President Trump over a 60 Minutes report he did not like is an extremely dangerous precedent,” Sanders, the U.S. senator, said in a statement. “Paramount’s decision will only embolden Trump to continue attacking, suing and intimidating the media.”

For months, CBS News has been roiled with trepidation that parent company Paramount Global would write a big check to make President Trump’s $20 billion lawsuit go away.

On Tuesday night, those fears came true.

Paramount Global agreed to pay $16 million to settle Trump’s legal salvo against “60 Minutes” over the editing of an interview with his 2024 opponent, then-Vice President Kamala Harris.

Within the news organization, there was anger over what is widely seen as a capitulation to Trump in order to clear a path for Paramount’s $8-billion merger with David Ellison’s Skydance Media. The case was labeled as frivolous by 1st Amendment experts.

But among some CBS News veterans, tempers were calmed by a sobering reality: that the outcome could have been worse.

The biggest concern inside the news division since Trump’s complaint was that the media company would be strong-armed into making an apology or statement of regret over a case that they believed had no merit. Amid the internal anger over the settlement, there is relief that that did not happen.

“Everybody knew that was a line in the sand,” said a relieved CBS News veteran not authorized to comment publicly on the matter.

Another journalist at the network, speaking on the same condition, said the thinking among many was that any financial payment of less than $20 million without an apology would count as a partial win.

As the negotiations to end the suit lingered, it became more apparent that corporate interests overrode any concerns about the appearance of caving to Trump’s demands.

Trump filed suit in October, claiming “60 Minutes” edited an interview with Harris to make her look smarter and bolster her chances in the election, which Trump won decisively. CBS denied the claims, saying the edits were routine.

“If there wasn’t a merger pending and they took this to court they would have won,” the journalist said of Trump’s case. “I think they understood that if they made an apology they would have an internal rebellion and they would have because there was nothing to apologize for.”

Some say that the departures of former “60 Minutes” executive producer Bill Owens and CBS News and stations head Wendy McMahon were enough to satisfy the Trump camp‘s desire for an apology. Both executives were adamant that CBS News did nothing improper in the handling of the Harris of interview.

Trump’s legal team claimed victory.

“President Donald J. Trump delivers another win for the American people as he, once again, holds the Fake News media accountable for their wrongdoing and deceit,” a spokesman said in a statement.

But while “60 Minutes” avoided the humiliation that would have come with a statement of contrition, the program that is the foundation of the news division now has to move forward in an era of media mistrust on the political right and disappointment on the left by those who believe courage is in short supply.

According to several CBS News insiders who spoke to The Times, no one is expected to depart “60 Minutes” in protest of the settlement decision.

Andrew Heyward, a former CBS News president who is now a consultant, said it will be up to the new owners of CBS to maintain the program’s journalistic independence. “If that’s jeopardized in the future, that would be unfortunate for CBS News and the country,” he said.

Though there is anger, many feared a bleak future for the news organization and the rest of the network if Paramount Global couldn’t close the Skydance deal. The lawsuit was seen as an obstacle to the deal, which needs approval from the Federal Communications Commission, run by Trump appointee Brendan Carr.

“We can get outraged all we want, but the fact is we were in a really precarious situation,” said one of the journalists not authorized to speak publicly. “If that merger went dead, I don’t know if anyone would have come along and bought the whole company.”

While ownership change usually generates fear and uncertainty through media organizations, insiders at CBS News say they will be happy to see Paramount Global’s controlling shareholder Shari Redstone in their rearview mirror once the Skydance deal is done.

The feelings inside the news division regarding Skydance range from hope for new investment from deep-pocketed Ellison to resignation that “it can’t get any worse.”

As for any damage to its reputation, CBS News is taking some comfort in the fact that ABC News hasn’t noticeably suffered from its own $16 million settlement over anchor George Stephanopoulos mistakenly saying Trump was convicted of rape rather than sexual abuse in the civil suit brought by E. Jean Carroll. Stephanopoulos signed a new contract at the network amid the controversy and his program “Good Morning America” hasn’t suffered a ratings loss since.

Viewers have high expectations for “60 Minutes,” which after 57 seasons still ranks as the most-watched news program on television (it’s also the most profitable show on CBS). If the program is allowed to maintain the same standard of deep reporting it’s known for, the audience will get past a bad corporate decision, according to Heyward.

“People on the right will say it’s another example of mainstream media getting what it deserves,” Heyward said. “People on the left will say it’s another example of a corporation caving to President Trump for its own selfish interests. And most people will go back to watching ’60 Minutes’ and expect strong independent reporting without fear or favor — that’s what really matters.”

Critics blasted Paramount Global’s decision to pay $16 million to settle President Trump’s lawsuit over “60 Minutes” edits, calling the move a “spineless capitulation” that erodes U.S. press freedoms.

Paramount late Tuesday agreed to a landmark settlement with Trump to end his $20-billion broadside against CBS News. The president will not be paid directly, or indirectly, as part of the deal, Paramount said. Instead, the money will go to cover Trump’s legal fees and help finance his future presidential library.

Paramount’s leaders hope the settlement will help clear a path for Trump-appointed regulators to bless the company’s $8-billion sale to David Ellison’s Skydance Media. They wanted to tamp down tensions with the president.

But journalists and others on Wednesday said the payoff will embolden attacks by Trump and his allies on news outlets. Some called the settlement a stain on the proud legacy of CBS News, the one-time home of such fearless journalists as Edward R. Murrow, Walter Cronkite and Mike Wallace.

“This is a shameful decision by Paramount,” Clayton Weimers, executive director of Reporters Without Borders USA, said in a statement. “Shari Redstone and Paramount’s board should have stood by CBS journalists and the integrity of press freedom. Instead, they chose to reward Donald Trump for his petty legal assault.”

Trump’s legal team quickly celebrated the settlement, saying: “President Donald J. Trump delivers another win for the American people as he, once again, holds the Fake News media accountable for their wrongdoing and deceit.”

Bob Corn-Revere, chief counsel for the non-profit 1st Amendment advocacy organization Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, took an opposing view, saying wider repercussions would result.

“A cold wind just blew through every newsroom,” Corn-Revere said in a statement. “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.”

Federal Communications Commissioner Anna M. Gomez, the lone Democrat on the panel, said the settlement was “a desperate move [by Paramount] to appease the Administration and secure regulatory approval of a major transaction currently pending before the FCC.”

“This moment marks a dangerous precedent for the 1st Amendment, and it should alarm anyone who values a free and independent press,” Gomez said.

For months, Paramount executives have been torn over how to handle Trump’s $20-billion lawsuit. The dispute helped prompt the departure of two senior CBS News executives who tried to hold their ground, particularly as “60 Minutes” continued airing stories that took a hard look at Trump’s policies and actions.

Journalists were horrified by the board’s willingness to settle the case rather than defend 1st Amendment freedoms.

CBS News staffers feared the company would be forced to apologize when they said they did nothing wrong. (The settlement, negotiated through a mediator, did not require an apology.)

The legal wrangling began in October when CBS broadcast different portions of an answer given by then-Vice President Kamala Harris to a question about the Biden administration’s waning clout with Israel’s prime minister.

CBS’ “Face the Nation” program ran a clip of Harris giving a muddled response to the question. A day later, “60 Minutes” aired a different portion of her answer. This one was forceful and succinct.

CBS has acknowledged editing Harris’ answer.

Trump and fellow conservatives seized on the edits, claiming CBS had manipulated Harris’ answer to make her appear more authoritative to enhance her standing with voters. He called the edits an example of election interference.

Trump and fellow conservatives seized on CBS’ edits to Harris’ answer, calling them an example of election interference.

(Kevin Dietsch / Getty Images)

CBS has long denied such claims.

Paramount Co-Chief Executive George Cheeks said during the company’s shareholder meeting Wednesday that settlements are designed for companies to avoid “being mired in uncertainty and distraction.”

“Companies often settle litigation to avoid the high and somewhat unpredictable costs of legal defense, the risk of an adverse judgment that could result in significant financial or reputational damage, and the disruption to business operations that prolonged legal battles can cause,” Cheeks said.

That rationale did little to mollify detractors who alleged that Trump’s complaints were thin.

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

(CBS News)

Paramount’s settlement “will be remembered as one of the most shameful capitulations by the press to a president in history,” said Seth Stern, director of advocacy for the Freedom of the Press Foundation.

Paramount said the agreement with Trump included a release from threatened defamation claims.

But it’s not clear that Paramount’s headaches will go away.

Three left-leaning U.S. Senators — Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) want to take a closer look at Paramount’s decision-making.

In May, the senators sent a strongly worded letter to Paramount’s controlling shareholder, Redstone. They cautioned that a settlement could be viewed as bribing an elected official to win favorable regulatory treatment with regard to the Skydance merger.

“This could be bribery in plain sight,” Warren said in a statement Wednesday. “I’m calling for a full investigation into whether or not any anti-bribery laws were broken.”

“When Democrats retake power, I’ll be first in line calling for federal charges,” Wyden separately wrote in a post on the Bluesky social media site. “In the meantime, state prosecutors should make the corporate execs who sold out our democracy answer in court.”

Some journalists said they feared the settlement could have a chilling effect, particularly among news organizations that lack deep pockets or have unrelated business pending before the federal government.

“CBS News may weather the financial hit, but smaller newsrooms facing similar legal threats could be pushed to the brink,” Tim Richardson, journalism and disinformation program director at the nonprofit PEN America, said in a statement.

“The danger is clear,” Richardson said, calling the settlement a “spineless capitulation.”

“Emboldened politicians and powerful actors will feel more free than ever to weaponize lawsuits and bring regulatory pressure to bear to silence and censor independent journalism.”

July 2 (UPI) — Paramount has reached a settlement with Donald Trump, who sued CBS News for $20 billion over the editing of a 60 Minutes interview with his Democratic opponent, Kamala Harris.

The move is expected to further raise concerns with press freedom and democracy advocates who have characterized Trump’s lawsuit as frivolous, a attack on the free press and unprecedented, while some Democrats have warned that it may violate bribery laws.

The announcement comes a day after both sides of the lawsuit asked the court to stay ongoing proceedings in the case “because the parties are engaged in good faith, advanced, settlement negotiations,” which the court agreed to on Tuesday.

On Tuesday night, Paramount said it agreed to pay $16 million, excluding legal fees, to Trump’s future presidential library to settle the lawsuit, The New York Times reported.

No apology was included in the settlement, Paramount said it agreed to release written transcripts of future 60 Minutes interviews with presidential candidates.

UPI has contacted Paramount for confirmation and comment.

60 Minutes is a program on CBS News, whose parent company is Paramount.

Trump filed the lawsuit against CBS News in October as he was running for president, taking issue with the editing of a 60 Minutes interview with Harris, which Trump described as being deceptively doctored.

The lawsuit focuses on an answer Harris gave to a question about Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. In a preview of the interview that ran on Oct. 5, Harris was edited giving one answer. Then during the 60 Minutes episode that aired the next night, she was seen giving another answer. A transcript of the entire interview later published by CBS News shows that both responses came from the same, longer answer that Harris gave to the question.

Trump and his legal team accused CBS News in the lawsuit of “substantial news distortion calculated to (a) confuse, deceive and mislead the public, and (b) attempt to tip the scales in favor of the Democratic Party.”

While many in the legal community believed that Trump’s lawsuit would fail, as nothing factually incorrect was reported during the interview, it came as Paramount was seeking a multibillion-dollar merger with Skydance Media and the deal has been pending review by the Federal Communications Commission.

In May, amid speculation that Paramount was seeking to settle with Trump, Democratic Sens. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, and Ron Wyden of Oregon, along with independent Sen. Bernie Sanders, sent Shari Redstone, chairwoman of Paramount, a letter warning her that under the federal bribery statute, it is illegal to corruptly give anything of value to public officials to influence their official acts.

“Because the merger will involve the transfer of ownership of CBS broadcast licenses, the Trump administration’s Federal Communications Commission (FCC) must review the deal and has an opportunity to block it. Paramount appears to be attempting to appease the administration in order to secure merger approval,” the senators said.

“Paramount’s apparent capitulation to President Trump is a sharp contrast from its earlier position that it would ‘vigorously defend’ against the lawsuit.”

Ahead of Paramount’s announcement, the Freedom of the Press Foundation issued a petition urging CBS to not settle.

“Freedom of the Press Foundation has announced plans to file a shareholder derivative suit against Paramount’s directors and officers if they settle,” it said.

Trump is known as litigious, bringing lawsuits against those he feels have done him wrong, including news organizations.

In December, ABC News agreed to pay Trump $15 million in a defamation suit against the network after George Stephanopoulos repeatedly said in an interview that Trump was found “liable for rape” when a jury had found the president liable for sexual abuse.

He has also filed a $49 million lawsuit against journalist Bob Woodward over allegedly unauthorized use of audio recordings.

Paramount Global has agreed to pay President Trump $16 million to end his lawsuit over edits to a “60 Minutes” interview — a legal tussle that roiled CBS News, spurred high-level departures and threatened to derail the company’s hoped-for sale.

The money will be allocated to Trump’s future presidential library. As part of the deal, Paramount did not offer an apology or express regret for CBS News’ reporting or edits.

“No amount will be paid directly or indirectly to President Trump,” Paramount said in a statement. “The settlement will include a release of all claims regarding any CBS reporting through the date of the settlement, including the Texas action and the threatened defamation action.”

Paramount decided to buy peace with the president rather than wage a costly fight to defend “60 Minutes” and its journalists in court. The move prompted an outcry by 1st Amendment experts who denounced the lawsuit as frivolous and the talks to reach Tuesday’s settlement as a shake-down.

The company’s leaders hope the settlement will clear a path for the company’s sale to David Ellison’s Skydance Media — a deal that needs the blessing of the Federal Communications Commission.

Instead of fast-tracking the review of the proposed Paramount-Skydance merger, the Trump-appointed FCC chairman opened an inquiry into whether edits of the October “60 Minutes” interview with then-Vice President Kamala Harris rose to the level of news distortion.

“The Company has agreed that in the future, ’60 Minutes’ will release transcripts of interviews with eligible U.S. presidential candidates after such interviews have aired, subject to redactions as required for legal or national security concerns,” Paramount said.

The two sides have participated in mediation sessions for the past two months. Paramount said the terms of the settlement were proposed by the mediator. Paramount’s $16 million payment will include Trump’s attorneys fees.

Trump has long maintained last fall’s “60 Minutes” interview was edited to make Harris look smarter to boost her November election chances. CBS denied the allegations, saying the edits were routine.

The unedited footage confirmed that Harris was accurately quoted.

But Trump’s team said the edits caused Trump “mental anguish.” After returning to the White House this year, Trump doubled his lawsuit damages demand to $20 billion.

“Her answer was horrendous,” Trump told reporters last month on the White House lawn. “I would say election-threatening. … Her answer was election-threatening it was so incompetent.”

Trump’s lawsuit called the edits “malicious, deceptive, and substantial news distortion calculated to confuse, deceive, and mislead the public.” The trims, the suit alleged, were “partisan and unlawful acts of election and voter interference.”

CBS has acknowledged editing the interview, which is routine in the news business. Longstanding 1st Amendment interpretations give news producers wide latitude to decide what material to broadcast as long as they don’t distort the information presented to viewers.

Paramount’s controlling shareholder Shari Redstone pushed for a settlement. The Redstone family’s investment firm, which holds the controlling Paramount shares, is juggling more than $400 million in debt and she wanted to facilitate the sale of Paramount, as well as her family’s holding firm, to Skydance.

Family members are counting on their portion of the Paramount sale proceeds. A representative has said Redstone recused herself from decisions dealing with Trump’s lawsuit but the mogul had made clear her desire for a settlement.

The Redstone family controls 77% of Paramount voting shares.

Skydance executives and their private equity partners also agitated for Paramount to end the bickering with Trump to resolve a key headache before the new owners take over.

Paramount, in a statement, said it has treated Trump’s lawsuit “completely separate from, and unrelated to, the Skydance transaction and the FCC approval process.”

It’s been nearly a year since Redstone and fellow Paramount directors approved Skydance’s two-phased $8-billion deal that would hand the company to tech billionaire Larry Ellison and his family.

His son David Ellison is eager to run the company that boasts the legendary Melrose Avenue film studio, Paramount+ streaming service, CBS and cable channels including Comedy Central, Nickelodeon and BET.

Skydance operations and personnel are expected to be folded into Paramount in the second phase of the transaction.

Paramount Pictures studio lot on Melrose Avenue in Hollywood.

(Brian van der Brug/Los Angeles Times)

The deal faces one last regulatory hurdle. Paramount must win FCC Chairman Brendan Carr’s consent to transfer more than two dozen CBS station licenses to the Ellisons. FCC approval has been held up for months.

Skydance and Paramount face an October deadline to finalize the deal or risk its collapse.

Redstone would then have to come up with hundreds of millions of dollars to satisfy her creditors, including Larry Ellison, giving her another reason to favor a settlement.

Her willingness to set aside free speech values prompted push-back from journalists. The nonprofit Freedom of the Press Foundation decried Paramount’s decision to cede 1st Amendment freedoms in an effort to advance the Skydance deal. It vowed to sue Paramount if it settled.

But the deal’s months-long delay was wearing.

Redstone separately disclosed in early June that she was being treated for thyroid cancer.

The saga began last fall when CBS News invited both Harris and Trump to sit down with “60 Minutes,” a campaign season tradition. After initially agreeing, Trump backed out.

CBS went forward with the Harris piece but got into hot water after the network broadcast two portions of her response to a question by CBS correspondent Bill Whitaker. When he challenged Harris about the Biden Administration’s struggles dealing with Israel’s prime minister, Harris gave a three-sentence answer.

CBS’ Sunday morning show, “Face the Nation” aired her first sentence, which was convoluted. The following night, “60 Minutes” ran the second part of her answer, which was forceful and succinct.

Trump and his supporters cried foul, pointing to the discrepancies.

The showdown accelerated a week before the election when Trump filed his lawsuit in Amarillo, Texas. He accused CBS of trying to cover up Harris’ “word salad” to manipulate the results of what was expected to be a tight election.

Trump won decisively, and CBS sought to have the case dismissed.

The network’s lawyers said its journalists were protected by the 1st Amendment. It also argued that the case should be moved from west Texas, where it was heard by a Trump-appointed federal judge. The lawyers sought to get the case moved to a New York court, where CBS and “60 Minutes” is based.

The interview in question didn’t even mention Texas. In February, Trump added U.S. Rep. Ronny Jackson, his former doctor, to the lawsuit as an additional plaintiff. Jackson is a Texas resident.

Tuesday night’s settlement stipulated that Jackson would not receive any money.

Earlier this year, the Texas judge ordered the two sides to present their cases to a mediator. A retired judge who handles complex litigation began hearing the matter April 30.

The controversy stabbed at the heart of CBS News and its legacy of fearless broadcast journalism.

CBS News producers have long maintained they did nothing wrong. Journalists refused to sign any apology, which was long seen as a key demand from Trump and his team.

Inside the company, a pitched battle raged for months.

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

(CBS News)

In late April, the executive producer of “60 Minutes,” Bill Owens, quit. That prompted longtime CBS newsman Scott Pelley to inform “60 Minutes” viewers the show had faced increased corporate oversight because of Paramount’s desire to win the Trump administration’s approval of the Skydance deal.

“None of our stories has been blocked,” Pelley told viewers. “But Bill felt he lost the independence that honest journalism requires.”

Some corporate executives were furious over Pelley’s public statements, insiders have said.

The Trump dispute also contributed to the departure of Wendy McMahon, the president of CBS News and Stations. She stepped down under pressure in May.

There were other sore points. Redstone, who also serves as the chair of the Paramount board, had also expressed dissatisfaction with CBS News’ coverage of the Israel-Hamas war.

Fallout from the settlement could prompt additional headaches.

Three Democrat U.S. senators warned Redstone that Paramount could face allegations of bribery if it wrote a big check to mollify Trump in an effort to facilitate the FCC’s review of the Skydance deal.

The Wall Street Journal reported that Paramount offered Trump $15 million to make the lawsuit go away, but he declined.

The issue became an unexpected pain point in Skydance’s pursuit of FCC approval to take over the CBS licenses.

Early this year, the FCC’s Carr opened an inquiry into whether the “60 Minutes” edits constituted “news bias” despite a longstanding acknowledgment by the FCC that it had little authority to act on complaints about accuracy or bias of reporters and news networks.

“The agency is prohibited by law from engaging in censorship or infringing on First Amendment rights of the press,” FCC said in guidelines posted on its website. “Those protected rights include, but are not limited to, a broadcaster’s selection and presentation of news or commentary.”

Carr ordered CBS to release the raw footage.

Video of the unedited interview confirmed the network’s account. But the footage also revealed that Harris’ jumbled answer was clipped to its most cogent sentence.

“It is troubling anytime a news organization settles a suit that was plainly winnable,” RonNell Andersen Jones, a 1st Amendment expert and law professor at the University of Utah, said in an interview earlier this year. “It represents lost 1st Amendment ground that didn’t have to be ceded.”

Paramount becomes the latest media company to settle, rather than risk incurring the president’s wrath or face an ugly courtroom confrontation.

Walt Disney Co.’s ABC News in December settled a Trump suit against ABC News and anchor George Stephanopoulos by agreeing to pay $1 million for legal fees and donating another $15 million for Trump’s future presidential library.

The resolution came after Stephanopoulos asserted during an on-air interview that a jury had found Trump “liable for rape” in a civil case. Jurors had actually determined Trump was liable for “sexual abuse.”

ABC News anchor George Stephanopoulos.

(Myung J. Chun/Los Angeles Times)

Some news outlets have fought back, including the Associated Press, which has vigorously defended its reporters’ ability of to cover the president.

Gannett’s Des Moines Register and independent pollster J. Ann Selzer also have battled Trump’s legal challenges to an Iowa poll that overstated Harris’s support. The poll was published just days before the election, suggesting Harris was leading in the Hawkeye state but she lost convincingly.

This week, Trump and his fellow plaintiffs moved to have their federal case dismissed.

The president revised his claims — that the poll’s publication amounted to election interference and violated Iowa’s Consumer Fraud Act — with a new lawsuit in state court.

In a high-stakes gamble, Wall Street hedge funds are offering to buy claims that insurers may have against Southern California Edison if the utility is found liable for causing the devastating Eaton fire in Altadena.

The solicitations are legal, but have alarmed California state officials — who loathe the idea of investors profiting from a disaster that claimed 18 lives and destroyed more than 9,400 homes and other structures.

“I think everyone in this room looks at a catastrophe, like what happened in Southern California, and our natural instincts are to say, ‘What can we do to help?’” Tom Welsh, the chief executive of the California Earthquake Authority, which manages the state’s wildfire fund, said at a recent public meeting. “There are other actors in the environment who look at that situation in Southern California and ask instead, “What can I do to profit?’”

The investors are aiming to buy so-called subrogation claims from insurance companies. These are claims that insurers would file against Edison seeking reimbursement for the money they paid to their policyholders for fire damages if it’s determined the utility’s equipment triggered the wildfire that began Jan. 7.

For the insurers, selling the claims — even at a steep discount — allows them to get at least some reimbursement for the money they’ve paid out. For the hedge funds buying the claims, it’s a gamble that could pay big if Edison is found liable and they can cash in those claims for much more than they paid.

More than $17 billion in insurance claims for the Eaton and Palisades fires has been paid out so far, according to the California Department of Insurance.

State officials say California has a stake in the trading of fire-related subrogation claims, which was previously reported by Bloomberg, because of the potential effect on the state’s wildfire fund.

That fund, which currently has about $21 billion, would be used to cover most of the costs of damage claims should Edison be found liable for starting the Eaton blaze. While the cause is still under investigation, a leading theory is that a decommissioned transmission line in Eaton Canyon was reenergized and sparked the blaze, Edison has said.

The wildfire fund is managed by a state board called the Catastrophe Response Council. At its last meeting in May, Welsh told the board that solicitations from New York brokers and investment firms began landing in his email inbox in March.

Ronald Ryder at Oppenheimer & Co., a New York investment firm, told Welsh in an email on April 15 that his company was currently trading the subrogation claims. Ryder wrote that there had already been 10 transactions worth more than $1 billion in recovery rights for the Eaton fire as well as the Palisades fire in Pacific Palisades, where the city of Los Angeles faces potential liability.

In another email, Ryder told Welsh that investors were bidding 47 cents on the dollar for the claims related to the Eaton fire. For the Palisades fire, the bidding was 5 cents on the dollar, Ryder wrote.

Welsh warned the council that “speculative investors” might hold onto the Eaton claims and “really try to get outsized profits by demanding settlements from Edison of 75, 80, 85 cents on the dollar.”

If that were to happen, the wildfire fund could pay out “hundreds of millions, if not billions of dollars” more than if the claims were settled directly by the insurers, he said.

“That would really, very negatively impact the durability of the wildfire fund,” Welsh said.

Oppenheimer declined to comment, and Ryder didn’t respond to messages.

Under a 2019 state law, the state wildfire fund would be expected to reimburse Edison for most of the insurers’ payments to policyholders if its electrical equipment is found to have started the Eaton fire. The Palisades fire, which occurred in territory serviced by the L.A. Department of Water and Power, isn’t covered by the state fund.

California lawmakers created the wildfire fund in 2019 to protect the state’s three biggest for-profit utilities — Edison, Pacific Gas & Electric and San Diego Gas & Electric — from bankruptcy if their equipment sparks catastrophic wildfires.

The possibility of large settlements paid out by the wildfire fund has led to dozens of lawsuits against Edison, even before the cause of the fire has been determined.

If found responsible for the fire, Edison would negotiate settlements with the insurers, as well as with homeowners and others who have filed lawsuits, saying they’ve been harmed. The utility would then ask the state wildfire fund to cover those amounts.

If the insurers have sold their claims, however, the investors who bought them would reap the returns. Attorneys who handle the complex transactions would also get a cut and “generally take a very high percentage off the top,” Paul Rosenstiel, a catastrophe council member, said at last month’s meeting.

Already, Gov. Gavin Newsom and other state leaders are worried that the $21-billion wildfire fund could be depleted by damage claims from the Eaton fire.

Welsh recounted how a hedge fund had profited in 2019 by buying insurers’ subrogation claims against PG&E after its transmission line was found to have started the 2018 Camp fire that killed 85 people and destroyed much of the town of Paradise. Bloomberg reported at the time that hedge fund Baupost Group made a profit of hundreds of millions of dollars by buying the claims at 35 cents on the dollar and later getting a settlement valued at much more.

To stop hedge funds from profiting on the claims, Welsh said, the earthquake authority is now considering changing its claim administration procedures to make the settlements less lucrative for those investors.

One possible change being discussed, according to authority staff, would require a utility that ignited a wildfire to prioritize settling the claims of victims and insurers who have not sold their subrogation rights before those claims owned by hedge funds.