In a renewed escalation of his feud with CBS News, President Trump has accused the network of unlawfully manipulating an interview with former Vice President Harris, intensifying the ongoing legal battle between them.
Trump ramps up criticism of ’60 Minutes’ Harris interview amid lawsuit

Key Takeaways:
- President Trump renews criticism of CBS News and “60 Minutes”.
- Alleges unlawful manipulation of Harris interview by CBS.
- Ongoing litigation between Trump and CBS over the segment.
- Trump voiced his accusations on Truth Social.
- The disputed interview aired last fall.
Trump Renews Criticism of CBS News
President Trump has issued fresh accusations against CBS News and its flagship program “60 Minutes,” alleging that an interview with former Vice President Harris was unlawfully altered. This marks a new chapter in the ongoing dispute between the former president and the media network.
Allegations of Manipulation
On Wednesday, Trump took to Truth Social to express his grievances. He wrote that the Harris interview was “unlawfully fixed, manipulated, and doctored throughout by CBS.” These strong allegations suggest that the network intentionally edited the interview to misrepresent the conversation.
Ongoing Legal Battle
The relationship between Trump and CBS News has been strained, culminating in litigation over the segment featuring Harris that aired last fall. The legal proceedings center on claims that the network engaged in unethical editing practices, which Trump asserts violated legal standards.
Impact on Media Relations
This development intensifies the already contentious dynamic between President Trump and mainstream media outlets. Throughout his political career, Trump has frequently criticized major news organizations, accusing them of bias and unfair treatment. The current allegations against CBS are a testament to the enduring tensions.
Conclusion
As the litigation unfolds, the dispute between President Trump and CBS News underscores the complex relationship between public figures and the media. The outcome of this legal battle may have significant implications for journalism and political discourse in the future.