CBS News is facing mounting internal criticism after abruptly shelving a fully produced 60 Minutes segment detailing the experiences of Venezuelan men deported by the Trump administration to a notorious maximum-security prison in El Salvador, a decision that staffers say has shaken confidence in the network’s editorial independence.
According to multiple reports and internal communications, the segment—titled “Inside CECOT”—was pulled at the last minute despite having undergone extensive fact-checking, legal review, and multiple editorial screenings.
The move has prompted at least one senior correspondent to accuse the network of corporate censorship and has led some employees to consider resigning.
Veteran 60 Minutes correspondent Sharyn Alfonsi, who reported the story, warned in an internal memo that the decision to shelve the piece would be widely perceived by the public as politically motivated.
“The public will correctly identify this as corporate censorship,” Alfonsi wrote, adding that the reporting had met every journalistic and legal standard required by CBS News.
The controversy centers on the role of CBS News editor-in-chief Bari Weiss, who, according to Alfonsi and two CBS sources who spoke anonymously, raised concerns about the story after it had already been promoted publicly by the network. One of the primary issues cited was the lack of an on-camera response from the Trump administration.
Alfonsi countered that her team had requested interviews or responses from the Department of Homeland Security, the White House, and the State Department, but received no engagement. In her memo, she argued that allowing government silence to halt publication would amount to granting officials veto power over investigative reporting.
“If the administration’s refusal to participate becomes a valid reason to spike a story, we have effectively handed them a ‘kill switch’ for any reporting they find inconvenient,” Alfonsi wrote.
Weiss, responding publicly to The New York Times, defended the decision, saying that holding stories for further reporting or context is a routine newsroom practice.
“I look forward to airing this important piece when it’s ready,” she said. CBS News also issued a statement saying the segment required additional reporting, a claim Alfonsi strongly disputed.
Sources familiar with the process noted that 60 Minutes segments are typically screened several times before broadcast, but said the five screenings this piece received were unusually high, reinforcing staff concerns that the decision to pull it was not editorial but political.
The dispute unfolds against the backdrop of major corporate and political shifts at CBS’s parent company, Paramount. In late 2024, then-presidential candidate Donald Trump sued CBS over allegations that 60 Minutes deceptively edited an interview with Vice President Kamala Harris. While many legal experts described the lawsuit as weak, it became entangled in Paramount’s merger talks with Skydance Media, led by David Ellison and backed by his father, Oracle co-founder Larry Ellison.
Paramount ultimately settled Trump’s lawsuit, and after the merger, David Ellison took control of the company. He later acquired Weiss’s media startup, The Free Press, for $150 million and installed her as editor-in-chief of CBS News—moves that intensified newsroom skepticism about editorial independence and management experience.
Trump has continued to publicly attack 60 Minutes, even under the new ownership, while also offering contradictory praise for CBS executives. The timing of his most recent criticism coincided with the internal turmoil over the shelved deportation story.
In her memo, Alfonsi emphasized the ethical stakes of the decision, noting that the deported men interviewed for the segment risked retaliation and personal harm by speaking out. “We have a moral and professional obligation to the sources who entrusted us with their stories,” she wrote. “Abandoning them now is a betrayal of the most basic tenet of journalism: giving voice to the voiceless.”
As tensions simmer inside CBS News, the episode has reignited broader concerns within the media industry about corporate influence, political pressure, and the future credibility of legacy news institutions in an increasingly polarized environment.
