The Federal Communications Fee demanded that CBS present the unedited transcript of a 60 Minutes interview with Kamala Harris that’s the topic of a grievance to the FCC and a lawsuit filed by President Donald Trump.

CBS Information on Wednesday acquired a letter of inquiry wherein the FCC requested “the complete, unedited transcript and digicam feeds” of the Harris interview, The New York Instances reported at this time. “We’re working to adjust to that inquiry as we’re legally compelled to do,” a CBS Information spokesperson informed media shops.

FCC Chairman Brendan Carr repeatedly echoed Trump’s complaints about alleged media bias earlier than the election and has taken steps to punish information broadcasters since Trump promoted him to the chairmanship. Complaints in opposition to CBS, ABC, and NBC stations have been dismissed beneath former Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel, however Carr reversed those dismissals in his first week as chair. Carr additionally ordered investigations into NPR and CBS.

FCC Commissioner Anna Gomez, a Democrat, criticized what she known as Carr’s “newest motion to weaponize our broadcast licensing authority.”

“It is a retaliatory transfer by the federal government in opposition to broadcasters whose content material or protection is perceived to be unfavorable,” Gomez mentioned at this time. “It’s designed to instill concern in broadcast stations and affect a community’s editorial selections. The Communications Act clearly prohibits the Fee from censoring broadcasters and the First Modification protects journalistic selections in opposition to authorities intimidation. We should respect the rule of legislation, uphold the Structure, and safeguard public belief in our oversight of broadcasters.”

CBS considers settling Trump lawsuit

Trump sued CBS over the Harris interview, and executives at CBS proprietor Paramount World have held settlement talks with Trump representatives. “A settlement can be a unprecedented concession by a serious U.S. media firm to a sitting president, particularly in a case wherein there isn’t a proof that the community received information mistaken or broken the plaintiff’s status,” The New York Instances wrote.