SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
bernie sanders
Critics Doubt CBS Claim That Finances—Not Politics—Are Behind 'Late Show' Cancellation
The network announced the cancellation three days after host Stephen Colbert lambasted its parent company for a $16 million legal settlement with President Donald Trump.
Jul 18, 2025
U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren was among those calling into question the official story behind CBS' cancellation of "The Late Show with Stephen Colbert" on Thursday—suggesting that the decision to end the show's 32-year run wasn't driven by finances but by "political reasons."
The announcement from CBS executives came just three days after Colbert spoke out on his show about a recent $16 million settlement reached by CBS parent company Paramount over an interview that "60 Minutes" aired with former Vice President Kamala Harris ahead of the 2024 election, in which Harris ran against President Donald Trump.
Colbert had told his audience that the settlement appeared to be a "big fat bribe" to end a "nuisance lawsuit."
"This all comes as Paramount's owners are trying to the get the Trump administration to approve the sale of our network to a new owner," said Colbert, referring to a pending $8.4 billion merger with the entertainment company Skydance—whose billionaire founder, David Ellison, has been spotted with Trump in recent months.
Warren (D-Mass.) said Thursday that the public "deserves to know if [Colbert's] show was canceled for political reasons."
Trump's lawsuit against Paramount claimed the Harris interview was deceptively edited and amounted to "partisan and unlawful acts of election and voter interference," allegations that legal experts and First Amendment scholars denounced as "ridiculous" and "dangerous."
After the settlement was announced earlier this month, with Paramount pledging to release transcripts of future "60 Minutes" interviews with presidential candidates, one press freedom group condemned the company for "capitulating" to the president's demands.
CBS executives appeared to preemptively respond to expected allegations that they were canceling Colbert's show due to his criticism of the settlement—and his frequent rebukes of the president—saying the decision, effective in May 2026, was "purely a financial" one.
"It is not related in any way to the show's performance, content, or other matters happening at Paramount," they said.
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) expressed doubt that the end of Colbert's show, days after he spoke out against his parent company's legal decision, was "a coincidence."
Media critics joined lawmakers including Sanders and Warren in expressing skepticism.
"'The Late Show' isn't dying because people stopped watching late-night TV," wrote Parker Molloy at The New Republic. "It's being murdered because Stephen Colbert spent the last decade being one of Trump's most persistent critics on network television, and the billionaires about to take over CBS need Trump's approval for their merger."
Anonymous "Late Show" staffers also told The Independent they believed the cancellation of the show was "part and parcel of the Trump shakedown settlement."
Political scientist Norman Ornstein called the impending end of "The Late Show," considering the surrounding circumstances, "a terrible sign for democracy."
"There's only one reason to do this, and we know what it is," said Ornstein. "The same reason that this disgraceful excuse for a network succumbed to blackmail from Trump over the '60 Minutes' interview."
Trump, whose Federal Communications Commission is still deciding on approval of the merger, weighed in on Friday regarding the show's cancellation, saying in a social media post, "I absolutely love that Colbert got fired," and criticizing other late-night comedians who have taken aim at him.
As Status News reported after the Paramount settlement was announced, speculation has increased that comedian Jon Stewart, who co-hosts "The Daily Show"—where Colbert spent several years—could also "soon be silenced" after publicly criticizing the settlement. That show airs on Comedy Central, which is owned by the CBS parent company.
"Inside 'The Daily Show,' I'm told staffers have taken pride that Stewart showed once again he is willing to stand up to powerful interests, even if it potentially risks his future employment," wrote Oliver Darcy. "And while they may not yet know it, inside certain power circles, there is an open question: How much longer will Stewart have this platform?"
MSNBC anchor Chris Hayes said Friday that it is not "an overstatement to say that the test of a free society is whether or not comedians can make fun of the country's leader on TV without repurcussions."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Sanders Proposes 'Pensions for All' as Trump Aims to Open 401(k)s to Private Equity Vultures
"We can no longer tolerate a rigged retirement system that allows the CEOs of large corporations to receive massive golden parachutes for themselves, while denying workers a pension after a lifetime of work," said Sen. Bernie Sanders.
Jul 17, 2025
U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders introduced legislation Thursday aimed at addressing the nation's retirement security crisis as President Donald Trump reportedly prepared an executive order that would give private equity vultures easier access to the 401(k) plans that have overtaken traditional pensions.
Sanders' (I-Vt.) Pensions for All Act would require big corporations to either provide their workers with a pension plan that is at least as generous as the one enjoyed by members of Congress or "pay into the federal retirement system at a level that ensures all of their workers receive the same amount of retirement benefits" as lawmakers.
The senator characterized the new bill as a supplement to his proposal to expand Social Security benefits.
"We can no longer tolerate a rigged retirement system that allows the CEOs of large corporations to receive massive golden parachutes for themselves, while denying workers a pension after a lifetime of work," Sanders said in a statement. "If we are serious about addressing the retirement crisis in America, corporations must be required to offer all of their workers a traditional pension plan that guarantees a monthly income in retirement."
"And if corporations refuse to offer a decent retirement plan, their workers must be allowed to receive the same type of pension that every member of Congress receives," the senator added. "If we can guarantee a defined-benefit pension plan for members of Congress, we can and we must provide that same level of retirement security to every worker in America."
"Every member of Congress has a guaranteed pension—for life. If it's good enough for them, it's good enough for the people who build this country."
Sanders introduced his bill after The Wall Street Journal reported that Trump is expected to sign an executive order in the coming days "designed to help make private-market investments more available to U.S. retirement plans"—a move that one critic called "a dangerous scheme to fleece savers."
"The retirement system is supposed to serve workers, not Wall Street," wrote Oscar Valdés Viera, a policy analyst with the advocacy group Americans for Financial Reform. "We need policies that strengthen retirement security and allow people to retire with dignity—not policies that invite hidden fees, reduced transparency, and elevated risk. Allowing predatory private equity and private credit funds to infiltrate 401(k)s would result in a massive transfer of wealth from small investors and workers to the richest men on Wall Street."
Supporters of Sanders' legislation similarly argued for retirement system reforms that benefit workers, not Wall Street and corporate executives.
Shawn Fain, president of the United Auto Workers—which has pushed the so-called Big Three automakers to restore traditional pension plans—said Thursday that "the billionaire class gutted pensions in pursuit of profit, and Washington let it happen."
"CEOs walk away with golden parachutes while working people walk into retirement with nothing," said Fain. "Meanwhile, every member of Congress has a guaranteed pension—for life. If it's good enough for them, it's good enough for the people who build this country. The retirement crisis is real, and it's time for Congress to act."
In a summary of the new legislation, Sanders' office observed that just 9% of private-sector workers in the U.S. currently have access to traditional defined-benefit pension plans—down from 44% in 1975.
"The results for workers have been tragic," Sanders' team continued, noting that "in our country today, nearly half of older workers between the ages of 55 and 64 have no savings at all and no idea how they will be able to retire with any shred of dignity or respect."
"If Congress can provide over $1 trillion in tax breaks for the top 1% and over $900 billion in tax breaks for large corporations," Sanders said Thursday, "please do not tell me that we cannot afford to make sure that every worker in America can retire with the dignity and the respect they deserve."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Critics Urge Senate to Reject Trump's Deadly Rescission Package, Regardless of AIDS Funding
One humanitarian leader pointed out that the bill contains $1.3 billion in cuts to initiatives "every bit as lifesaving" as the AIDS prevention program that Republicans spared amid public pressure.
Jul 15, 2025
Progressives and public health advocates on Tuesday were among those urging U.S. senators to vote against Republican legislation that would let President Donald Trump claw back billions of dollars already appropriated by Congress, even as GOP lawmakers ditched plans to cut funding for an HIV-AIDS prevention program that has saved tens of millions of lives in Africa.
Politico reported that Senate Republicans will remove $400 million in funding cuts to the President's Emergency Plan For AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), an initiative of former President George W. Bush credited with saving more than 25 million lives in Africa since its implementation in 2003.
However, the rescission package—a version of which was passed last month by the House of Representatives—still includes $1.3 billion in cuts to humanitarian aid programs that Jeremy Konyndyk, president of the advocacy group Refugees International, called "every bit as lifesaving as PEPFAR."
These include programs to fund public health, emergency food and shelter assistance, peacekeeping, economic development, and other essential aid that helps stabilize war- and disaster-stricken populations in the Global South.
"Even though the Senate has removed $400 million in PEPFAR funding from the rescissions package, another $500 million in global health funding could still be cut," Think Global Health managing editor Nsikan Akpan noted Tuesday.
Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought said Tuesday that the White House has agreed to an exemption for PEPFAR funding via a substitute amendment.
"It's substantially the same package and the Senate has to work its will and we've appreciated the work along the way to get to a place where they've got the votes," he explained.
Jacob Leibenluft and Devin O'Connor, respectively senior adviser and senior fellow at the Washington, D.C.-based Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, noted that in addition to cuts to critical programs, the rescission package, combined with the Trump administration's wider campaign of unlawfully impounding funds, "could also make it far more difficult for Congress to fund the government in a bipartisan way in the future."
As the pair explained:
Most of the funds in the rescission package were enacted in March legislation that was passed by Congress—including on a bipartisan basis in the Senate—and signed into law by the president to fund the government for the rest of fiscal year 2025. To provide the 60 votes required to avoid a Senate filibuster, at least eight Democratic senators needed to join with 52 Republican senators to invoke cloture on the funding bill.
But presidential rescission requests operate under different rules and require only 51 votes to pass the Senate, so no Democratic votes are needed. If the Senate approves the package (which passed the House on a party-line vote), this would show that Republicans could quickly revise on a partisan basis, with merely 51 votes in the Senate, a bipartisan funding agreement reached only a few months earlier that required support from no fewer than 60 senators.
"Senators should keep those consequences in mind as they consider the president's current rescission request," Leibenluft and O'Connor advised.
The consumer advocacy group Public Citizen cited both PEPFAR and the billions of dollars in other cuts to foreign aid contained in the package as reasons to oppose it.
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) took aim at the bill's $1.1 billion in cuts to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), which funds PBS and NPR.
"Like all authoritarians, Trump doesn't like criticism or objective reporting. He just wants flattery," the senator said on social media. "That's why he wants to defund NPR and PBS. We need media in this country that is not owned by billionaires and corporate interests. I will vote to support public broadcasting."
The chairs of the Congressional Tri-Caucus—Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus Chair Grace Meng (D-N.Y.), Congressional Black Caucus Chair Yvette Clarke (D-N.Y.), and Congressional Hispanic Caucus Chair Adriano Espaillat (D-N.Y.)—on Tuesday led a letter urging senators to reject the rescissions bill due to CPB cuts.
"CPB's elimination would decimate public media infrastructure, as the vast majority of its funding goes directly to local stations, many of which rely on it for over half their operating budgets," the lawmakers wrote. "In rural and tribal areas, this would shut down stations that serve as lifelines for public safety, education, and culturally relevant programming. Eighty percent of Native American and Alaska Native communities are rural or remote, and public television is often the only station reaching them consistently."
Polling published Tuesday by Data for Progress revealed that the proposed cuts in the rescission package are deeply unpopular, with a majority of respondents saying that funding for global health programs, public broadcasting, and developmental aid should be maintained at current levels or increased.
NEW: As Senate Republicans approach the Friday deadline to pass Trump’s rescissions package, voters reject the proposed billions of dollars in cuts to global aid and public broadcasting.We find that less than 30% of voters want cuts to these programs.www.dataforprogress.org/datasets/pol...
[image or embed]
— Data for Progress (@dataforprogress.org) July 15, 2025 at 6:54 AM
GOP senators—who are under pressure, as the proposed cuts must be approved by Friday under the Impoundment Control Act (ICA) of 1974, the law they are using to skirt a Democratic filibuster—say they hope to pass the entire package before next month's summer recess.
On Monday, a coalition of 24 states and the District of Columbia sued the Trump administration, alleging it violated the ICA and demanding the release of $6.8 billion in approved education funds that the suit argues have been illegally withheld.
"Courts across the country have made it clear to Donald Trump that he and his administration do not have the authority to unilaterally block funding that Congress has already approved," Democratic Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel said in a statement. "These education grants are designed to help Michigan students thrive. By freezing them, the Trump White House is not just breaking the law but jeopardizing our kids' future."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular