‘60 Minutes’ Defies Trump with Explosive Exposé on Legal Retaliation and Corporate Fear

In a defiant broadcast that pulled no punches, 60 Minutes aired one of its most blistering episodes yet on Sunday night, targeting not only former President Donald Trump’s sweeping executive actions against top law firms but also the pressure campaign his administration has allegedly launched against the media itself—including the show’s own parent company.

The segment, hosted by veteran journalist Scott Pelley, functioned as a full-throated rebuke of Trump’s deepening war on the legal profession, the free press, and anyone unwilling to play by his rules.

The episode opened with a spotlight on a disturbing pattern of behavior: Trump’s executive orders targeting legal firms that have been involved in litigation against him or his allies. Pelley admitted it had been “nearly impossible to get anyone on camera” for the segment, citing fear within the legal community of retaliation.

But despite the silence, 60 Minutes managed to land interviews with key players who painted a picture of a presidency increasingly resembling an authoritarian regime rather than a constitutional democracy.

At the center of the storm was Marc Elias, the high-profile election lawyer who led the legal fight against Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election. Elias, who has long been a thorn in Trump’s side, didn’t hold back in his assessment.

“Donald Trump is the walking embodiment of everything that is wrong with the American political system,” Elias said. “And so, when Donald Trump says that I am unethical or that I am undermining his vision of America, I say, ‘Boy, I must be doin’ something right.’”

Elias compared Trump’s executive orders to the tactics of a mob boss, describing the legal profession as being quietly threatened behind closed doors. “The fact is that these law firms are being told, ‘If you don’t play ball with us, maybe somethin’ really bad will happen to you,’” he explained. It’s not speculation either.

Trump’s executive orders have already included provisions such as revoking security clearances for law firms, terminating government contracts, and labeling firms as ethically compromised—all for the crime of challenging his political interests in court.

One of the most prominent firms caught in Trump’s crosshairs is Perkins Coie, Elias’ former firm. Trump’s administration accused the firm of “unlawful or unsavory practices” linked to its past work on investigations and litigation involving Trump and his associates.

But last week, a federal judge permanently blocked one of Trump’s executive orders against the firm, calling it “unconstitutional retaliation.” That ruling hasn’t slowed the administration’s pressure campaign.

The episode revealed that several major law firms, rather than risk being blacklisted by the Trump administration, have quietly agreed to provide massive amounts of pro bono legal work for causes favored by the White House. Nine firms have so far struck such deals, collectively agreeing to provide nearly $1 billion worth of free legal services.

Among them is Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom—one of the largest law firms in the world—which committed to $100 million in pro bono work for the administration in March.

Not everyone inside these firms was willing to go along. Attorney Brenna Frey resigned in protest, accusing her firm of surrendering its independence. “The law firm is tacitly saying, we’ll listen to the administration, we won’t fight in court,” she told 60 Minutes. “If we won’t fight over this, what else won’t we fight over in court against the federal government?”

Her warning echoed a broader concern: that the legal profession is being coerced into silence through financial threats and reputational warfare. High-profile San Francisco attorney John Keker told 60 Minutes that what Trump is doing borders on bribery. “I’m suggesting that he is violating the rule that says, ‘You can’t offer a thing of value in return for an official act,’” Keker said.

“That happens to be the definition of bribery. Anybody else who came to Washington and said, ‘I will give you $100 million of free legal services if you do this for me,’ would be convicted of a bribe.”

But 60 Minutes didn’t just go after Trump’s relationship with the legal world—it turned the lens on itself. In a stunning admission near the end of the broadcast, Pelley revealed that the show has been battling its own internal censorship, a result of growing pressure on Paramount, CBS’s parent company, to bend to Trump’s demands.

Paramount is currently attempting to complete a major corporate merger, and that merger must be approved by the Trump administration. According to Pelley, that reality has changed the way the network handles critical coverage of the president.

“Paramount began to supervise our content in new ways,” Pelley said, noting that longtime 60 Minutes chief Bill Owens recently resigned in protest. “Bill felt he lost the independence that honest journalism requires… No one here is happy about it, but in resigning, Bill proved one thing—he was the right person to lead 60 Minutes all along.”

That confession shook viewers and reinforced what many in the media have quietly feared: Trump’s reach is not only targeting courts and law firms, but is also influencing how media companies tell the story.

Behind the scenes, it appears that Trump’s retribution campaign is bigger than just a few legal memos or executive orders—it’s a sprawling apparatus of political pressure, economic leverage, and personal vendettas.

The chilling effect is already being felt. Executives, lawyers, and journalists alike are weighing the cost of speaking out against a president who has shown a willingness to retaliate swiftly and ruthlessly.

From Truth Social tirades to executive orders that decimate careers, Trump is proving that in his version of America, loyalty isn’t just expected—it’s enforced.

And yet, 60 Minutes refused to go quietly. In airing the segment, the show sent a defiant message that journalism still has a role to play in holding power to account.

It laid bare the extent of Trump’s influence, the complicity of major institutions, and the terrifying possibility that the rule of law itself is being reshaped to suit one man’s personal and political ambitions.

Trump’s defenders will no doubt accuse 60 Minutes of bias, vendetta, or hysteria. But what the broadcast presented was not opinion—it was a meticulous accounting of facts, court rulings, legal analysis, and personal testimony from those brave enough to speak. The picture it painted was not partisan—it was disturbing.

At a time when the line between government and authoritarianism is being tested more aggressively than ever, 60 Minutes offered a rare act of institutional resistance.

It reminded viewers that journalism is not supposed to be polite, compliant, or afraid. It is supposed to question, challenge, and expose. Even when it comes at a cost.