Unedited ‘60 Minutes’ Harris interview reveals ‘word salad’ responses heavily edited by CBS

 The Federal Communications Commission on Wednesday released the full transcript and unedited video of the “60 Minutes” interview with Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris – which revealed the vice president’s “word salad” responses were heavily edited.

The widely-viewed sit-down with “60 Minutes” correspondent Bill Whitaker, aired a month before the election, has led to claims that the CBS News program attempted to make Harris seem more coherent – and a $10 billion lawsuit against the network from President Donald Trump over alleged election interference. 

Trump-appointed FCC chair Brendan Carr got the full the transcript and video on Monday after a tug-of-war with the Tiffany Network, which has defended the editing as a standard practice for “time, space or clarity.” 

But a CBS source told The Post on Wednesday that the “60 Minutes” edit did Harris “a lot of favors and makes her seem more succinct.”

00:00

00:00

“You have to watch the video. A lot of ‘word salad,’” the source said. “Feels like a clean up on Aisle 7. Not a technical foul but one could argue still news distortion.”

Trump and conservative critics have pointed to the vastly different answers given by Harris about the Gaza war that were aired during a promo for the interview on “Face the Nation” and what was shown on “60 Minutes” the following day on Oct. 7, the one-year anniversary of the Hamas-led massacre of more more than 1,200 Israelis.

In a question about what the US can do to stop the war from spinning out of control, Harris provides a rambling 140-word answer, according to the full transcript. 

“Well, let’s start with October 7th. Because obviously, what we do now must be in the context of what has happened. And as I reflect on a year ago, and that 1,200 people were massacred, young people at a festival, at a music festival, 250 hostages were taken, including Americans, women were brutally raped,” Harris began.

“And as I said then, I maintain Israel has a right to defend itself.  We would. And how it does so matters. And as we fast forward into what we have seen in the ensuing weeks and months, far too many innocent Palestinians have been killed. And we know that, and I think most agree, this war has to end. And that has to be our number one imperative, and that has been our number one imperative. How can we get this war to end?”

The version that was broadcast showed a clipped 56-word reply.

“Well, let’s start with October 7th. Twelve hundred people were massacred, 250 hostages were taken, including Americans. Women were brutally raped. And as I said then, I maintain Israel has a right to defend itself.  We would. And how it does so matters. Far too many innocent Palestinians have been killed. This war has to end,” Harris said.

Another question about Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu seemingly “charting his own course” while defying Biden administration calls to moderate the military response was also heavily edited.

The Harris reply that was broadcast was chopped to just 20 words: “The work that we do diplomatically with the leadership of Israel is an ongoing pursuit around making clear our principles.”

However, the full transcript shows Harris giving a long-winded 179-word answer. 

 “Well, let’s start with this. On this subject, the aid that we have given Israel allowed Israel to defend itself against 200 ballistic missiles that were just meant to attack the Israelis, and the people of Israel. And I think that is the most recent example of why what we do to assist in their defense around military aid is important. And when we think about the threat that Hamas, Hezbollah presents Iran, I think that it is without any question our imperative to do what we can to allow Israel to defend itself against those kinds of attacks,” she begins.

“Now, the work that we do diplomatically with the leadership of Israel is an ongoing pursuit around making clear our principles, which include the need for humanitarian aid, the need for this war to end, the need for a deal to be done which would release the hostages, and create a ceasefire. And we’re not going to stop in terms of putting that pressure on Israel, and in the region, including with other leaders in the region, including Arab leaders.”

In a follow-up question, Harris responds in the broadcast: “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.”

In the unedited version, Harris says: “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.  And we’re not going to stop doing that.  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.”

After releasing the transcripts, Carr said the FCC will launch an investigation into CBS over a complaint by the Center for American Rights, a right-leaning activist group, over the alleged deceptive editing.

“The FCC has concluded that establishing a docket and seeking comment on the issues raised in the complaint would serve the public interest. The people will have a chance to weigh in,” Carr said in a post on X.

CBS, which also released the unedited documents to the public on Wednesday, said the transcripts “show – consistent with 60 Minutes’ repeated assurances to the public – that the 60 Minutes broadcast was not doctored or deceitful.”

The FCC is reviewing whether the broadcast violates “news distortion” rules. Though the agency is prohibited from censorship or infringing the First Amendment rights of media, broadcasters cannot intentionally distort the news.

If Carr finds evidence of misleading editing, it could impact regulatory approval of Paramount’s $8 billion merger with Skydance, which was set to close by next month.

That timeframe may be pushed back because the FCC’s public hearings are scheduled for March 7, with a reply slated for March 24, according to a filing by the agency.

Trump and CBS have reportedly begun “very preliminary” settlement talks over his lawsuit — which has drawn the rancor of network staff.

“This puts a ton of pressure on Shari Redstone and Paramount not to pay Trump. If they do it’s simple extortion over the licenses.” another CBS source told The Post.

Redstone, the media heiress who controls Paramount, will reportedly get $1.75 billion as part of the Skydance deal.

https://nypost.com/2025/02/05/media/cbs-releases-unedited-video-of-60-minutes-interview-with-kamala-harris/

Bessent Says He, Trump Are Focusing on 10-Year Yields, Not Fed

 Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said the Trump administration’s focus with regard to bringing down borrowing costs is 10-year Treasury yields, rather than the Federal Reserve’s benchmark short-term interest rate.

“He and I are focused on the 10-year Treasury,” Bessent said in an interview with Fox Business Wednesday when asked about whether President Donald Trump wants lower interest rates. “He is not calling for the Fed to lower rates.”

Bessent repeated his view that, by expanding the supply of energy, that will bring down inflation. In terms of working-class Americans, “the energy component for them is one of the surest indicators for long-term inflation expectations,” he said.

“So if we can get gasoline back down, heating oil back down, then those consumers not only will be saving money, but their optimism for the future will” help them rebuild from the recent years of high inflation, Bessent said.

The former hedge fund manager also said that, with regard to the Fed, “I will only talk about what they’ve done, not what I think they should do from now on.” He said that 10-year Treasury yields climbed after the Fed’s “jumbo rate cut,” referring to the 50 basis-point reduction that Chair Jerome Powell and his colleagues enacted in September.

While the Fed’s short-term benchmark serves as a key reference for money markets, 10-year Treasuries are a benchmark for 30-year mortgage rates along with other key borrowing rates.

After the Fed left its benchmark unchanged last week, Trump blasted the US central bank in a social media post for having “failed to stop the problem they created” with the surge in prices. But he stopped short of the overt policy actions that he pressed the Fed to implement at times during his first administration.

The president believes if energy prices are brought down, the tax-cut extensions the administration is working toward are enacted, and the economy is deregulated, “then rates will take care of themselves, and the dollar will take care of itself,” Bessent said.

Interviewed by Lawrence Kudlow, who served as Trump’s White House National Economic Council director in his first term, Bessent repeated his economic policy mantra of 3-3-3 — referring to getting the fiscal deficit down to 3% of gross domestic product from above 6% in recent years, boosting oil production by 3 million barrels a day, and sustaining economic growth at 3%.

“Now that I’m in the seat, I believe in it more than ever,” Bessent said of the 3-3-3 program. He added that while government spending had boosted the economic expansion under former President Joe Biden, what the new team is aiming for is private-sector led growth, fueled by capital spending and a return of manufacturing jobs from overseas.

Asked about the work of Elon Musk’s DOGE group with respect to the Treasury and its access to the department’s critical payments systems, Bessent reiterated a message the Treasury communicated earlier in the week — that those individuals aren’t making the decision on curtailing any payments.

“At the Treasury, our payments system is not being touched,” he underscored. “There’s a study being done. Can we have more accountability, more accuracy, more traceability, that the money is going where it is,” he said.

The so-called Department of Government Efficiency’s broader effort to address efficiency “is not going to fail,” Bessent said.

Asked about reports that suggested some Republican lawmakers may be eyeing a time-limited extension to Trump’s 2017 tax cuts — much of which are set to expire at the end of this year — Bessent doubled down on his support for making the reductions permanent.

“President Trump has a mandate. He came in to do big things, and one of the big things that this administration wants to do is make the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act permanent,” Bessent said. “That permanency will continue to make the US the No. 1 economy in the world in terms of growth.”

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/bessent-says-trump-focusing-10-221751489.html

A trade war could crash China

 Even though it is Chinese New Year this week, Beijing has wasted no time in hitting back at Trump’s additional 10% tariff on all US imports from China. For now, though, this remains a mere skirmish, yet to escalate into a full-blown trade war — it could yet lead to some sort of negotiation and agreement. We’ve seen this already in Mexico and Canada. The risk, though, is that while these north American countries are neighbours and supposedly America’s allies, China is a strategic adversary. Trade conflict is a symptom of deeper political and economic tensions. The problem for China is that its economy is not well positioned to weather a new major external shock.

For now, a 10% tariff increase would have a minor impact, maybe subtracting about 0.2% from Chinese GDP in 2025 — a fairly trivial amount in an $18 trillion economy. Nonetheless, Beijing can’t be seen to lose face. And so, having previously promised “countermeasures”, and that it would file a complaint with the World Trade Organisation, it will also lift tariffs on 10 February by 10% on American coal and LNG, and levy 15% on crude oil, agricultural equipment and large autos. Even so, these products barely account for $14 billion — or less than 10% — of imports from the US; China can get almost as much oil and gas from Russia to compensate. Because China has fewer American imports on which to act, it is notable that it announced investigations into Google, Intel and Nvidia for possible breach of anti-monopoly laws, along with export controls on tungsten and about two dozen other rare earth minerals.

These initial moves by the US and China are hardly of sufficient gravity to qualify as a trade war. None will have a serious impact on the world’s two largest economies, and any of them could be suspended, or dialled back if there were a sudden willingness to calm down and discuss at least temporary ways of addressing mutal concerns.

If, though, the Trump Administration takes offence and escalates further, China would be bound to respond — by allowing the Renminbi to decline and perhaps with targeted measures on exports of sensitive materials. But any move would be carefully weighed. Beijing would dearly relish it if the President’s attention were to remain focused on his nearer neighbours, along with those who are yet to feel the slap of a tariff, such as Europe and even Britain. One imagines that nothing would please China more than to watch Nato countries in disharmony and distrust over the coercive tariff policies of the US.

Ultimately though, it is the fracturing of Sino-US relations that will be the major axis on which the world will pivot. Everyone would feel the blowback. And even as both tread gingerly for now, it is inevitable that as China and the US both struggle for global dominance, they will throw down the trade and commercial gauntlet from time to time. These tensions are a symptom of their adversarial relationship, and as the world order shifts, it is certain to intensify.

What is more important, though, beyond this spat over tariffs, is a far more consequential trade story which has been playing out over the last few years and which has deep, deleterious roots.

According to the IMF, China’s balance of payments surplus in 2025 is expected to be 1.6% of GDP — or roughly $300 billion. This is most probably a considerable underestimate, since it was in the region of $600-700 billion in 2024, or around 3.5% of GDP. In actual fact, China’s trade surplus probably reached around $1 trillion last year, with Chinese exports growing four times more than the estimated 3% rise in world trade.

This matters because in a properly functioning trade system, countries produce and export what they are good at and import where they have shortcomings. In China’s case, exports are booming, partly because China’s uniquely well-funded industrial policies are the cornerstone of its economic and political strategy, and partly because China produces things the world wants — like EVs, batteries, wind and solar equipment — relatively cheaply. This focus on production and capacity, bolstered by serious industrial policies which stress self-reliance, has contrived to propel exports at breakneck speed, and keep imports subdued. But the consequence of such imbalance is that far from being the main engine of world growth, as is often claimed, China is one of the biggest drags on it. Put another way, countries that sell more to the rest of the world than they buy are forcing other nations to import more which subtracts from growth; while countries that buy more than they sell, like the US or UK, are offering stronger export opportunities for other countries, which adds to growth.

The reason imports are so weak is twofold: China owns the entire supply chain in a large number of goods, so it has no need to import intermediate or component products; more important, though, is the fact that household incomes, and therefore consumer demand, are in the doldrums. And the government has no desire, or finds it hard politically, to recalibrate this economic imbalance.

For now, then, China’s modern, vibrant tech sector is concealing other vulnerabilities. It sits alongside leading firms and brands in clean energy, electric vehicles, batteries, industrial machinery, semiconductors, robotics, life sciences and biotechnology. But it only accounts for about 13% of GDP. And much of that remaining 87% is treading water, with the country’s still outsized real estate and infrastructure sectors facing difficult years ahead as they come to terms with excess supply, shrinking demand, and severe financial problems among heavily indebted provincial governments.

A plethora of measures have been undertaken to stabilise the real estate market, encourage the equity market to rise and banks to lend, as well as restructuring local government debt — but the implementation of market reforms and the redistribution of income, wealth and ownership, entailing a redistribution of political power to private households and entrepreneurs, can’t possibly be contemplated by Beijing. So while the glitzy tech sector prospers, the greater part of the economy suffers from slow growth, troubling unemployment, stagnating productivity, and misallocation of capital.

Almost 20 years ago, Premier Wen Jiabao noted that China’s economy was unbalanced, unstable, uncoordinated and unsustainable. In some important ways, things are much worse now. But its impressive looking tech scene and surging exports are drawing attention away from systemic weaknesses for which they cannot compensate.

China can probably withstand or deflect a trade spat or disturbance, even as its economy struggles. But if serious trade conflict were to break out, with high tariff rates and other restrictions, things could get painful pretty quickly. And not only would Chinese mercantilism be on the hook — the whole world would feel the chill. Trump may be the proximate cause of protectionist tariffs as we look around the world, but unless China is willing to change its economic and political ways, trade conflict and commercial resistance are inevitable.

---

George Magnus an economist and author of Red Flags: Why Xi’s China is in Jeopardy. He is an Associate at the China Centre at Oxford University.

https://unherd.com/2025/02/a-trade-war-could-crash-china/

Solving the Political Problem of Birthright Citizenship

 Edward Erler, John Eastman, Ryan Williams, Michael Anton, and Linda Denno have made powerful constitutional cases for limiting birthright citizenship. However, it is easy to get lost in the legal minutiae and fail to see the larger stakes. Behind the birthright citizenship debate, as with all major constitutional debates, is a fundamental political question: Who should be an American citizen?

The Constitution implicitly answers this question, or at least provides the framework by which we should approach it. The Preamble speaks of securing the blessings of liberty “for ourselves and our posterity.” The future children of citizens will, of course, become citizens themselves—it is part of their inheritance and the natural means by which a regime perpetuates itself. Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution gives Congress the power “[t]o establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization.” Foreigners may also become American citizens—but only under the conditions set by current citizens through their lawmakers.

Ryan Williams has aptly pointed out that the American approach to citizenship and naturalization rests upon the principle of the consent of the governed. The Constitution itself is a social compact: “We the People” agree to form a government and live under its rule. Our posterity will inherit this constitutional arrangement and may adjust it through the amendment process. Any foreigners we invite to join our compact must do so on terms agreeable to us, that is, according to the laws we have created. Gouverneur Morris made this principle clear at the Constitutional Convention when he declared that “every Society from a great nation down to a club had the right of declaring the conditions on which new members should be admitted.”

Modern liberalism takes issue with the moral implications of the social compact. Why should the children of citizens get the privilege of American citizenship while the same privilege is denied to the children of illegal aliens? What gives us the right to exclude foreigners? As Vice President Vance clearly understands, the natural love of one’s own is good, and we should favor our own children, families, and fellow citizens over strangers.

Additionally, there are fundamental political reasons why citizenship should be generally limited to the children of citizens. Writing in response to President Jefferson’s push to reform naturalization requirements in 1801, Alexander Hamilton declared, “The safety of the republic depends essentially on the energy of a common national sentiment; on a uniformity of principles and habits; on the exemption of the citizens from foreign bias, and prejudice; and on that love of country which will almost invariably be found to be closely connected with birth, education, and family.”

Hamilton recognized that republican government is not possible without a basic sense of civic solidarity and common agreement on the nature of justice. Birth, education, and family tie citizens to one another, and to the regime they share. Hamilton believed that the Democratic-Republican Party’s push to loosen naturalization laws was a cynical ploy to gain more votes from newly arriving French and Irish immigrants (one can guess why this little tidbit wasn’t mentioned in Lin-Manuel Miranda’s musical).

Other Founders, including Jefferson himself, believed that immigration and naturalization policy must be prudently crafted because of its regime-level implications.

In Notes on the State of Virginia, Jefferson warned that mass immigration could destroy civic solidarity and open the door to ethnic factions. The United States, he explained, was unique among nations because it combined “the freest principles of the English constitution, with others derived from natural right and natural reason.” Emigrants from alien cultures may not understand or appreciate our peculiar type of regime. If too many unassimilated immigrants flood the nation, they will “transmit” their own “principles” and “language…to their children.” “They will infuse into it their spirit, warp and bias its direction, and render it a heterogeneous, incoherent, distracted mass.” Jefferson feared that without linguistic and cultural unity, the U.S. would lose its distinct character and forfeit its high principles for an ethnic spoils system.

Sound immigration policy also requires uniform enforcement. In his Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, Justice Joseph Story warned that “if aliens might be admitted indiscriminately to enjoy all the rights of citizens at the will of a single state, the Union might itself be endangered by an influx of foreigners, hostile to its institutions, ignorant of its powers, and incapable of a due estimates of its privileges.” When Story wrote of the need for uniform immigration laws in 1833, he had in mind the confusion caused by the lack of national naturalization requirements under the Articles of Confederation. He could not have imagined that an entire political party would wholeheartedly reject the enforcement of immigration laws for the sake of gaining an electoral edge.

In contrast to the clear-thinking and consent-based approach to immigration in the early republic, birthright citizenship incentivizes lawlessness and, by extension, violates the consent of the governed. Foreigners are more likely to illegally emigrate if they know that any children they beget on our soil will become American citizens. Birth tourism turns our inheritance into a commodity. No one voted for these loopholes in immigration law. Bad judicial rulings foisted them on us, which are affronts to our right to determine the qualifications for admitting new citizens. Revoking birthright citizenship is one important and economical means of disincentivizing criminal behavior.

Individual lawlessness is only one part of the problem. Birthright citizenship also provides a political incentive to eschew immigration laws. We must remember why this debate over birthright citizenship is taking place. Millions of illegal aliens have invaded the United States, aided and abetted by the Democratic Party’s failure to enforce the law.

President Trump’s executive order curbing birthright citizenship is a reaction to a decades-long conspiracy by the Left to import millions of new voters and circumvent the foundational principle of the Constitution. Consent of the governed means that the people are supposed to choose the government. But if the Left has its way, the government will choose the people by overwhelming our country with their preferred constituency.

Birthright citizenship is the means by which the Left has skirted the need to secure the consent of the governed. It is thus at odds with the very principle the Constitution is meant to enshrine.

The Democratic Party has operated under the assumption that the demographic shifts caused by mass immigration will secure their long-term electoral dominance. The legacy media openly celebrates the replacement of native citizens—and calls you a racist for noticing! Illegal aliens cannot vote, but the Democratic Party holds out hope that a future blanket amnesty will turn them into loyal electoral clients. Even without amnesty, they are still useful for the Democratic Party’s prospects. Under the birthright citizenship regime, the American-born children of illegal aliens can become a powerful voting bloc.

There is a perverse logic to the Democratic Party’s strategy. Democratic politicians know that their agenda is deeply unpopular with native-born citizens and have decided that it is easier to simply import a more pliant voting population than win over current citizens.

Immigrants vote sharply to the left of the native-born population. This has been the case for over a century. The early 20th-century immigration boom provided the backbone for FDR’s New Deal coalition and dramatically swung American politics to the left. Even socially conservative groups such as New York Italians often voted for radical politicians out of a sense of ethnic solidarity. The children of illegal aliens have even more reason to vote for left-wing politicians who promise amnesty for their parents.

Newcomers may not recognize the dangers of radical change or care for American traditions. By contrast, families that have settled in the United States for several generations are more attached to our distinct traditions, customs, habits, history, principles, and government. Their children, by virtue of birth, education, and family, are more likely to be strongly attached to the American way of life and wary of radical change.

Although the children of illegals born here are technically citizens under the birthright citizenship regime, their cultural allegiance often lies with their parents’ homeland. Their parents often pass down their cultural identity to their children, breaking the natural connection between birth, family, education, and patriotism. The children of illegal aliens thus pose a mounting political problem.

In the two weeks since President Trump took office, protests against immigration enforcement have erupted across the country. At these protests, illegal aliens and their sympathizers gleefully wave foreign flags. Protestors in Phoenix shouted, “Viva la raza! (long live the race)” as they flew Mexican flags.

Two years ago in Canyon County, Idaho—a deep red county in a deep red state—high school students walked out of class in a “Brown Pride” protest, waving Mexican flags and carrying signs with slogans such as “We refuse to lose and let our culture die” written in the colors of the Mexican flag. Canyon County voted overwhelmingly for President Trump in the last three elections, yet Latino street gangs hold more cultural cachet there than traditional symbols of American patriotism. As Jefferson feared would happen, ethnic factions have emerged that threaten the viability of republican government.

Illegal immigration and birthright citizenship also threaten the possibility of national sovereignty. The left-wing media wields the children of illegal immigrants as pawns to sow doubt about the legitimacy of deportations. Inevitably, pictures of crying children will be cynically deployed over the next several months as moral blackmail against Americans who want a sovereign nation that enforces its own laws. This problem will only grow if it is not countered by decisive immigration enforcement coupled with ending the birthright citizenship scheme.

Ending unrestricted birthright citizenship is a moderate, common-sense solution to the Left’s conspiracy against basic constitutional principles.

A majority of nations reject unrestricted birthright citizenship. Of the handful that do not, we alone face a protracted illegal immigration crisis. If President Trump’s executive order becomes law, it will bring our citizenship policies closer to the historic and global norm. It will undercut attempts to sidestep the consent of the governed and open space for the American people to seriously deliberate on what grounds foreigners should qualify for citizenship.

Casey Wheatland is an assistant professor of political science at New College of Florida. He is a 2021 Publius Fellow.

https://americanmind.org/features/the-case-against-birthright-citizenship-2/solving-the-political-problem-of-birthright-citizenship/