POLITICS

A Questionable Deal: $16M from CBS to Trump's Library

USATue Jul 08 2025
In a move that has raised eyebrows, CBS has agreed to hand over $16 million to Donald Trump's library. This payment comes as CBS seeks approval from the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) to transfer a broadcast license. The situation has sparked discussions about corruption and the influence of money in politics. The lawsuit filed by Trump doesn't explicitly state that CBS is paying a bribe. Instead, it accuses CBS of unfair trade practices for a small edit that Trump claims made Kamala Harris look favorable. CBS, on the other hand, maintains that the settlement is to protect its reputation and save on legal costs. However, the timing and context of the payment are hard to ignore. The FCC, currently led by Trump loyalist Brendan Carr, is responsible for approving the license transfer. Carr has been involved in a complaint similar to Trump's lawsuit. It's no secret that CBS wants the approval, and Trump wants the money. The question is, was there an implicit agreement between them? The legal and ethical implications of this deal are significant. If a politician can sue a media outlet for making an opponent look good, where do we draw the line? This case sets a dangerous precedent. It's important to note that CBS likely wouldn't have made this payment if Trump had lost the election. This fact alone raises suspicions about the true nature of the settlement. Corruption in government is nothing new, but the scale of Trump's dealings is unprecedented. From tariff cuts to expensive gifts, the list of questionable transactions is long. The CBS payment is just another addition to this list. It's time for accountability. The courts, legal ethics boards, and Congress need to step in and ensure that such shady dealings have consequences.

questions

    What are the potential long-term implications for freedom of speech if politicians can successfully sue media outlets for portraying opponents favorably?
    What legal precedents exist that could challenge the notion that this settlement is a form of bribery?
    Could the settlement be a smokescreen for a more extensive deal involving other regulatory approvals or favors?

actions