The Billionaire’s Editor: How Larry Ellison and Bari Weiss Aligned CBS News With Trump’s Political Interests
By Brian Allen — Investigative Analysis
A completed 60 Minutes investigation examining the deportation of Venezuelan migrants to El Salvador’s CECOT megaprison was pulled hours before broadcast. The network says the report required additional context. The timing of the decision, the prior approvals, the political environment surrounding CBS’s ownership, and the fact that the segment nonetheless aired briefly in Canada point to a deeper issue.
This article examines how editorial authority at CBS News is now shaped by ownership, political pressure, and distribution realities, and why that matters for accountability journalism.
The event that triggered scrutiny
On December 21, CBS removed a fully produced 60 Minutes segment titled “Inside CECOT” from its scheduled broadcast. The report focused on Venezuelan migrants deported from the United States and transferred to El Salvador’s Terrorism Confinement Center, a maximum-security prison built to house alleged gang members.
The segment had been promoted publicly, edited, fact-checked, reviewed by CBS Standards and Practices, and approved by senior editorial leadership earlier that week. According to multiple outlets, including The Washington Post and TheWrap, the correspondent, producers, and the executive producer of 60 Minutes had signed off on the piece before it was pulled.
CBS issued a brief statement saying the report would air at a later date after further reporting.
Why ‘60 Minutes’ Pulled a Completed Report on Trump’s El Salvador Deportations Just Hours Before Air
On Sunday evening, viewers tuning in to 60 Minutes expected a report examining one of the most opaque and consequential episodes of the Trump administration’s immigration policy: the transfer of Venezuelan deportees from U.S. custody to El Salvador, where they were held inside the country’s sprawling, high-security megaprison known as CECOT.
The fracture between explanation and record
The official explanation rests on editorial discretion. Networks routinely delay or revise stories. What distinguishes this case is timing and process.
The decision came hours before air, after the segment had cleared internal review. No factual error was identified. No retraction was issued. No correction was required. The stated concern was the absence of an on-camera interview with Trump administration officials, despite the fact that the Department of Homeland Security had declined interview requests.
This creates a fracture between the justification offered and the record of how investigative journalism typically functions. Reporting does not require cooperation from subjects to be publishable. Requiring consent from the government being scrutinized effectively gives that government veto power over coverage.
