'60 Minutes' segment on Trump's deportations, CEGOT mega-prison leaks after being pulled by CBS

CBS has yet to confirm the validity of the early stream and reposts. The program announced on social media, three hours before airtime, that the report “Inside CECOT” would be shown in a future broadcast.

CBS said in an internal email Sunday that the segment needed further reporting. Correspondent Sharyn Alfonsi told colleagues in a note that the decision was “political,” according to a CBS News employee who confirmed the message’s contents on condition of anonymity. Alfonsi wrote that the story had cleared multiple legal and standards reviews and was, in her view, factually sound.

Alfonsi's full statement to colleagues reads as follows:

"Thank you for the notes and texts. I apologize for not reaching out earlier.

I learned on Saturday that Bari Weiss spiked our story, INSIDE CECOT, which was supposed to air tonight. We (Ori and I) asked for a call to discuss her decision. She did not afford us that courtesy/opportunity.

Our story was screened five times and cleared by both CBS attorneys and Standards and Practices. It is factually correct. In my view, pulling it now—after every rigorous internal check has been met—is not an editorial decision, it is a political one.

We requested responses to questions and/or interviews with DHS, the White House, and the State Department. Government silence is a statement, not a VETO. Their refusal to be interviewed is a tactical maneuver designed to kill the story.

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 that inconveniences them.

If the standard for airing a story becomes “the government must agree to be interviewed,” then the government effectively gains control over the 60 Minutes broadcast. We go from an investigative powerhouse to a stenographer for the state.

These men risked their lives to speak with us. We have a moral and professional obligation to the sources who entrusted us with their stories. Abandoning them now is a betrayal of the most basic tenet of journalism: giving voice to the voiceless.

CBS spiked the Jeffrey Wigand interview due to legal concerns, nearly destroying the credibility of this broadcast. It took years to recover from that “low point.” By pulling this story to shield an administration, we are repeating that history, but for political optics rather than legal ones.

We have been promoting this story on social media for days. Our viewers are expecting it. When it fails to air without a credible explanation, the public will correctly identify this as corporate censorship. We are trading 50 years of “Gold Standard” reputation for a single week of political quiet.

I care too much about this broadcast to watch it be dismantled without a fight.

Sharyn"

CECOT, a vast prison complex in El Salvador, has held hundreds of mostly Venezuelan men deported from the United States without trial, according to the segment’s description. Human rights groups have condemned the facility’s harsh conditions.

CBS removed the “Inside CECOT” webpage on Sunday. A Paramount Plus listing earlier that day showed a 7:30 p.m. ET slot and said Alfonsi would speak with recently released deportees about “brutal and torturous” conditions.

According to reports online, Weiss's full internal email read:

"Hi all,

I’m writing with specific guidance on what I’d like for us to do to advance the CECOT story. I know you’d all like to see this run as soon as possible; I feel the same way. But if we run the piece as is, we’d be doing our viewers a disservice.

• Last month many outlets, most notably The New York Times, exposed the horrific conditions at CECOT. Our story presents more of these powerful testimonies—and putting those accounts into the public record is valuable in and of itself. But if we’re going to run another story about a topic that has by now been much-covered, we need to advance it. Among the ways to do so: does anyone in the administration or anyone prominent who defended the use of the Alien Enemies Act now regret it in light of what these Venezuelans endured at CECOT? That’s a question I’d like to see asked and answered.

• At present, we do not present the administration’s argument for why it sent 252 Venezuelans to CECOT. What we show is Kristi Noem on that trip, but we don’t explain why that trip was, or what she saw there, or if she had or has concerns about the treatment of detainees like the ones in our piece. I also think that the ensuing analysis from the Berkeley students is strange. The pictures are alarming; we should include them. But what does the analysis add?

• We need to do a better job of explaining the legal rationale by which the administration detained and deported these 252 Venezuelans to CECOT. It’s not as simple as Trump invoking the Alien Enemies Act and being able to deport them immediately. And that isn’t the administration’s argument. The admin has argued in court that detainees are due “judicial review”—and we should explain this, with a voice arguing that Trump is exceeding his authority under the relevant statute, and another arguing that he’s operating within the bounds of his authority. There’s a genuine debate here. If we cut down Kristi Noem analysis we’d have the time.

My general view here is that we do our viewers the best service by presenting them with the full context they need to assess the story. In other words, I believe we need to do more reporting here.

I am eager and available to help. I tracked down cell numbers for Homan and Miller and sent those along. Please let me know how I can support you.

In her note, Alfonsi said her team sought comment from the White House, the State Department, and the Department of Homeland Security, warning that allowing non-responses to derail reporting would hand the administration a de facto “kill switch.”