The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is now officially investigating CBS News over its controversial editing of a 2024 “60 Minutes” interview with then-Vice President Kamala Harris—an interview that critics say was deliberately altered to protect her from public ridicule just days before the presidential election.
FCC Chairman Brendan Carr blasted CBS, noting the glaring double standard in how the network handled Harris’ interview versus a recent interview with Vice President JD Vance.
“CBS’s conduct is hard to explain,” Carr told Fox News Digital. “On the one hand, CBS immediately released the unredacted transcript of a recent interview with Vice President Vance. Yet for months, they refused to release the one with Vice President Harris.”
The FCC is now accepting public comments as it reviews a formal “news distortion” complaint—a rarely used but serious charge that could have major implications for CBS and its corporate parent, Paramount Global.
The controversy erupted when CBS News was caught airing two different versions of Harris’ response to a question about Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu allegedly ignoring the Biden administration.
In the preview clip aired on Face the Nation, Harris rambled for nearly 30 seconds, offering one of her signature “word salad” responses:
“Well, Bill, the work that we have done has resulted in a number of movements in that region by Israel that were very much prompted by, or a result of many things, including our advocacy for what needs to happen in the region.”
That version of her answer was mocked relentlessly online, with conservatives pointing out Harris’ chronic inability to deliver coherent statements on foreign policy.
But when “60 Minutes” aired the next night, something suspicious happened:
“We are not going to stop pursuing what is necessary for the United States to be clear about where we stand on the need for this war to end.”
The muddled, embarrassing portion was cut out completely, leaving Harris with a more focused, polished answer—one that just so happened to shield her from further public backlash.
After months of refusing to release the full transcript, CBS finally gave in following FCC pressure. The network denied any wrongdoing, insisting that selective editing is normal and that the cuts were made simply for time constraints.
“In making these edits, ‘60 Minutes’ is always guided by the truth and what we believe will be most informative to the viewing public,” CBS said in a statement.
But here’s the problem:
- If CBS simply edited for time, why did they air the full-length version of Harris’ response in the preview clip—but cut it out in the primetime special?
- If CBS truly values transparency, why refuse to release the raw transcript for months while immediately releasing JD Vance’s unedited interview?
- Why did the edits just so happen to remove the most embarrassing portion of Harris’ response—the very portion that was already being mocked and criticized online?
This FCC probe comes as Donald Trump’s legal team continues its $10 billion lawsuit against CBS News, alleging election interference through “malicious, deceptive, and substantial news distortion.”
The lawsuit states:
“To paper over Kamala’s ‘word salad’ weakness, CBS used its national platform on ‘60 Minutes’ to cross the line from the exercise of judgment in reporting to deceitful, deceptive manipulation of news.”
Trump’s lawyers argue that CBS knowingly doctored Harris’ interview to protect the Democratic Party in the final weeks before the election.
“CBS’ partisan and unlawful acts of election and voter interference through malicious, deceptive, and substantial news distortion were calculated to confuse, deceive, and mislead the public,” the lawsuit claims.
CBS’ parent company, Paramount Global, is now reportedly considering settling the lawsuit, fearing potential FCC retribution that could jeopardize its planned multibillion-dollar merger with Skydance Media.
According to sources, Shari Redstone, Paramount’s controlling shareholder, is leaning toward settling with Trump rather than risk the FCC blocking the merger under his administration.
If the lawsuit moves forward, it could set a precedent for holding legacy media accountable for politically motivated edits—something that mainstream news outlets have long been accused of doing but rarely been forced to answer for.
