The "60 Minutes" Edit: Why Megyn Kelly Is Ripping CBS Over Netanyahu's 'Anti-American' Remarks
TL;DR: Conservative commentator Megyn Kelly has accused CBS News and its editor-in-chief, Bari Weiss, of deliberately cutting crucial comments from a "60 Minutes" interview with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The removed remarks reportedly included Netanyahu labeling Americans who question Israel's actions as "anti-American" and blaming foreign "bot farms" for eroding U.S. support. This isn't just about a few trimmed seconds; it's a debate reignited about editorial independence, perceived foreign policy bias, and who truly controls the narrative at one of America's most iconic news institutions.
A recent "60 Minutes" interview with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu became the subject of intense controversy not for what aired, but for what was left on the cutting room floor. Megyn Kelly, never one to shy from a media dust-up, publicly slammed CBS News, accusing the network and its editor-in-chief, Bari Weiss, of a deliberate edit to protect the Israeli leader. It's a significant charge, raising questions about journalistic integrity and potential bias at a moment of extreme geopolitical tension.
What "60 Minutes" Cut — And Why It's a Big Deal
The interview, conducted by "60 Minutes" correspondent Major Garrett, aired on Sunday, May 10, 2026. While a high-profile segment with a sitting foreign leader, the broadcast version viewers saw wasn't the full picture.
Kelly's analysis, later corroborated by the unedited version CBS itself posted on YouTube (a crucial detail, because otherwise, we'd never know), revealed several key omissions. Specifically, Netanyahu's remarks about the decline in American support for Israel were heavily edited. He had told Garrett, on camera, that "the deterioration of support for Israel in the United States I would say correlates almost 100% with the geometric rise of social media." He went on to describe:
- Foreign-orchestrated campaigns: Netanyahu cited "bot farms, fake addresses, and coordinated messaging" originating from what he called hostile foreign governments.
- Manufactured sentiment: He claimed that seemingly "red-blooded Texan" anti-Israel sentiment could be traced to, in his words, "some basement in Pakistan."
- The "Anti-American" label: Kelly alleges that Netanyahu's characterization of Americans opposing the war and disagreeing with Israel's conduct as "anti-American" was also cut.
Instead of this deeper dive into foreign influence and implied criticism of American citizens, the TV version pivoted. It largely let Netanyahu attribute eroding American sympathy to abstract social media trends, rather than pressing him to address Israel's actual conduct in Gaza. Honestly, that's a pretty convenient sidestep for a prime minister facing tough questions.
The difference between the broadcast and the full YouTube version is stark. It’s the kind of edit that makes you wonder about intent, especially when a powerful figure's comments about "anti-American" sentiment are quietly removed.
Megyn Kelly's Accusation: Bari Weiss and the Ellison Influence
Kelly didn't mince words on "The Megyn Kelly Show." Her target wasn't just the network; it was Bari Weiss, the Free Press founder who'd recently become CBS News's editor-in-chief, and the Ellison family, whose investment had helped reshape CBS News's leadership.
"Could it be the Ellisons and their handmaiden Bari Weiss, who runs CBS now, who's huge on Israel?" Kelly asked her audience. "It's truly her favorite issue."
Kelly went further, characterizing Weiss as someone who has "been on a cancellation crusade for a long time against anybody who she thinks is too critical of Israel." The implication? That Weiss's strong ideological stance, particularly her open support for Israel, was now directly influencing editorial decisions at a major American broadcast network. This charge carries significant weight, especially considering Weiss built her public profile as a vocal defender of free speech and open debate — so the allegation that she's now running interference for a foreign leader feels particularly ironic.
"There's a level of protection being run now on a foreign leader that's just obvious," Kelly stated, pointing out what she sees as a clear pattern. "It's as plain as the nose on your face, and you have to ask yourself why and whether we're allowing this."
Not an Isolated Incident? The Hegseth Interview Precedent
This isn't the first time Kelly has flagged questionable edits by "60 Minutes." According to Mediaite, she raised similar concerns in March 2026 regarding an interview with then-Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth.
In that earlier instance, Kelly claimed CBS replaced the original question posed to Hegseth about "America First" foreign policy with a voiceover. This reframed his answer, making it appear as a defense of Netanyahu's role in U.S.-Israeli strikes on Iran. Kelly called that specific edit "bullshit," and it certainly generated substantial online backlash.
Two separate interviews, two instances of editing that, when compared to unedited footage, seem to favor a specific political and geopolitical narrative. This pattern forms the core of Kelly's argument: it's not a single bad call, but a systemic editorial slant. Hard to say if that case is airtight, but the pattern is tough to ignore.
Editorial Power & Accountability: What's at Stake
This controversy isn't just about one interview; it's about the broader implications of editorial control at a major news outlet. When significant comments are removed, it shapes how millions of viewers understand complex international issues. It shapes the narrative.
What Kelly's critique underscores is the crucial difference between a full, unedited conversation and the highly curated product that airs on national television. The fact that CBS did publish the raw material on YouTube complicates any claim of outright suppression — but the distinction between what "60 Minutes" broadcasts to its millions of Sunday-night viewers and what quietly lives on a YouTube page is a substantial one.
Major Garrett, the veteran correspondent who conducted the Netanyahu interview, has a long and respected career. His role, however, doesn't clarify who made the final call on these specific cuts — that accountability tends to sit higher up the editorial chain.
This kind of media scrutiny, coming from a figure like Kelly, forces us to question the gatekeepers of information. Who decides what's important enough to air? And what are their motivations?
Global Impact: How Indian Audiences Access the "60 Minutes" Debate
For viewers in India, this controversy provides a unique lens on how Western media narratives about the Israel-Gaza conflict are shaped and filtered. Indian audiences, especially those consuming international news through platforms like YouTube, streaming services, and English-language digital media, have had ready access to the full, unedited CBS interview precisely because it was posted online.
While major Indian streaming platforms like Netflix India, Amazon Prime Video India, JioCinema, and SonyLIV don't typically carry "60 Minutes" as a regular catalog item, CBS News content frequently appears on YouTube — one of India's most-used video platforms. "The Megyn Kelly Show" is also easily accessible via podcast platforms and YouTube, making this entire debate widely available to English-speaking audiences across South Asia.
Movie OTT's streaming tracker currently doesn't list "60 Minutes" on any major Indian OTT platform. However, individual interview clips and full episodes often circulate via CBS's own globally accessible YouTube channel. For Indian viewers interested in media criticism and the mechanics of editorial decisions in American news, both the full Netanyahu interview and Kelly's sharp response are watchable without regional restrictions. This accessibility highlights how global digital platforms bypass traditional broadcast gatekeepers, letting audiences compare and contrast.
What Happens Next? The Unanswered Questions
As of this writing, CBS News has not issued a public response to Megyn Kelly's specific allegations about the Netanyahu edits. That silence itself has become part of the story. Advocacy groups on various sides of the Israel debate have taken notice, and clips of Kelly's segment have circulated widely enough that the network can't plausibly claim the criticism hasn't reached them.
Keep an eye out for whether Major Garrett addresses the editorial process in any public forum. And will Weiss, who has never been shy about defending her positions, choose to engage? The full Netanyahu interview remains on YouTube for anyone wanting to compare the versions themselves. The key word here isn't just "editing"—it's accountability. And on that front, this story is far from over.
For real-time updates on where related media content is streaming across regions and to track developments in media controversies, Movie OTT provides coverage.
Watch the official trailer:
