cnn

Last week’s settlement of the antitrust lawsuit between state attorneys general and Paramount Skydance over its planned merger with Warner Bros. Discovery marked a clear victory for David Ellison.

If approved by a judge, the settlement would clear the way for the emerging Hollywood mogul to complete the blockbuster $111-billion purchase after months of uncertainty over whether the deal would overcome intense opposition in Hollywood.

What’s more, Ellison achieved the settlement without having to agree to any so-called structural remedies that California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta had been seeking.

But Ellison can hardly rest on his laurels. The Paramount Skydance chief executive will have to work hard to repair badly frayed relations with Hollywood talent who fiercely opposed the consolidation of two historic studios as a bad deal for workers. And the 43-year-old tech scion will be constrained by some of the terms that were imposed in the consent decree negotiated with Bonta and other attorneys general.

“I don’t envy David Ellison. You bought this ship, now you’ve got to sail it. And you’re facing threats on all fronts: bad will, everybody rooting for you to fail and operating a business in an incredibly uncertain, challenging time,” said Gabriel Kahn, a professor at the USC Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism. “At the same time, you are going to have to mortgage everything to make these debt payments.”

As part of the deal, Paramount agreed to a slate of requirements that, if it fails to deliver, could induce financial penalties, litigation and other costs.

For one thing, Paramount would have to pay a penalty and divest the Miramax film studio if it does not distribute 30 or more films a year in theaters.

The studio also pledged to spend $300 million more each year on film production in the U.S. and further boost its film spending if the federal government adopts a film tax credit of at least 20%; it agreed not to sell or close its lot on Melrose or the Warner Bros lot in Burbank and to operate them “in a manner consistent with past practices,” until 2031.

Additionally, Paramount is required to establish a board to ensure editorial independence for CNN and CBS News, though it will be appointed by Paramount directors with the authority to remove its members.

Beyond attempting to smooth the industry’s many ruffled feathers, Hollywood’s newest mogul must now also wrestle down an astonishing $80 billion in debt accrued as a result of this highly leveraged merger.

Ellison’s father, billionaire Larry Ellison, late last year agreed to backstop the $47 billion in equity needed to complete the acquisition. Royal families from Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Abu Dhabi have agreed to contribute another $24 billion for an equity stake by assuming some of Ellison’s financial commitments.

The months-long battle was bitter and hard fought and enmity within the industry has yet to subside.

On Tuesday, the morning after Bonta announced the settlement agreement, protesters converged outside of Paramount Skydance’s Melrose Avenue gate criticizing the deal. Some held fake gravestones that read: “RIP local business,” “RIP crew call” and “RIP creativity.”

Two days later, a coalition of several groups including the Committee for the First Amendment, filed an amicus brief asking the court to reject the consent decree, saying that it failed to address the anti-competitive concerns of the state attorneys general and would not protect jobs or consumers.

The sense of betrayal was acute.

“Hate to say it but we all got played,” wrote actor Mark Ruffalo, a leading organizer in Block the Merger, a grassroots organization made up of 1st Amendment advocates and Hollywood celebrities who aggressively opposed it, in a post on X.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) repudiated the deal, saying in a statement. that it “enables a handful of billionaires to call the shots in the media.”

The entertainment unions struck more cautionary notes.

SAG-AFTRA, the actors union, wrote in a statement that the deal “addresses some of our deep concerns,” but added, “We hope that the process of engaging with the attorneys general has impressed upon them the fact that in addition to collective bargaining, our members rely on the law to help protect our interests. These are the lowest standards that our employers must meet.”

Bonta, who had spearheaded the antitrust suit, gave a tepid endorsement of the consent decree.

“I want to be clear about something right up front: This settlement is not a vote of support for this merger. It is not a blessing,” he said.

During Paramount’s heated and often contentious legal and political wrangling to wrest control of Warner Bros., many in Hollywood became increasingly apprehensive. Combining two legacy studios, opponents feared, would bring even more job losses to an industry already battered by runaway production.

The skepticism hardened as the Ellisons made several controversial moves after Skydance acquired Paramount last summer. They included agreeing to pay $16 million to settle a lawsuit filed by President Trump over a “60 Minutes” interview segment, canceling the “Late Show With Stephen Colbert,” ending diversity, equity and inclusion programs and appointing Bari Weiss as editor in chief of CBS News, who engaged in a wholesale overhaul that led to a revolt at the esteemed “60 Minutes.”

When the newly formed Paramount Skydance announced its intention to swallow up Warner Bros. Discovery just months later, a massive wave of political pressure and public backlash began.

But the Ellisons dug in.

In January — after Netflix threw a surprise wrench into the Ellisons’ designs on Warner Bros. by offering $72 billion, which the studio accepted — Paramount took Warner Bros. to court and launched a hostile takeover bid.

A month later, Netflix walked away from the deal and collected a $2.8-billion termination fee after the Warners’ board agreed to Paramount’s higher all-cash bid.

But many in Hollywood began agitating against the planned merger and pushing for guardrails and protections.

In April, Block the Merger released an open letter declaring their opposition; its list of professionals across the film and television industry eventually swelled to nearly 6,000 names, including Ruffalo, Jane Fonda, Ben Stiller, Sofia Coppola, Trey Parker and Denis Villeneuve.

“The future of free media and a strong entertainment industry in America is at stake here,” said Norm Eisen, co-founder and executive chair of Democracy Defenders Fund, who also helped lead the Block the Merger campaign.

The Writers Guild of America sued to stop the deal, saying it violated antitrust laws. The union last week settled its lawsuit, citing the costs of continuing the litigation, after Paramount agreed not to lay off writers at CBS Broadcast News for years and to pay $17.5 million to the union’s health fund. Nonetheless, the guild said: “We continue to believe the merger will cause damage to writers and the industry at large.”

Some backed the megadeal, including power broker Ari Emanuel.

The WME executive and chairman and CEO of TKO came out swinging, excoriating the antitrust suit, in an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal in July. “They say they are protecting competition. Their actions threaten to destroy it,” he wrote.

The Ellisons’ ongoing ties with Trump — whose administration has clashed with ABC, CNN and other networks — only deepened the suspicions.

Oracle co-founder Larry Ellison has been a Trump supporter and friend. In addition to political donations, he participated in a Nov. 14, 2020, conference call that discussed ways to challenge Trump’s presidential election defeat.

Both Ellison and his son David reportedly promised the president they would make “sweeping” changes at CNN, which is owned by Warner Bros. Discovery.

In June, David Ellison attended the “UFC Freedom 250” event hosted by Trump on the South Lawn of the White House, and last week he was a guest at the White House state dinner honoring Chinese President Xi Jinping.

Amid the high-level public-facing Trump engagements, Paramount had been quietly trying to allay fears about the relationship to industry insiders.

Two individuals in the entertainment industry, who declined to be named for fear of retaliation, said that Paramount sent emissaries to extend a kind of olive branch, explaining their commitment to Hollywood and downplaying the relationship as a necessary step to get the deal done.

In August, Ellison published an op-ed in the New York Times in which he extolled his lifelong love of movies and laid out his case that he could be “trusted as a steward” of the media giant he was amassing, that includes two institutional news organizations (CBS and CNN) and the legacy studios he wished to combine.

However, his seemingly conciliatory message was undercut that same month when he threatened to relocate Paramount’s base to Tennessee or Texas. Ellison built his Skydance production in Santa Monica.

Across the industry, workers viewed the mixed messaging with wariness and anger.

“If Ellison truly wants to be a steward and do the things that he said he can do and wants to do in that article, I think people would welcome it,” said Pamala Buzick Kim, a co-founder of Stay in LA, the 23,000-member grassroots campaign aimed at boosting local film and television production. “They just have no evidence of it.”

Aside from the bad blood, Ellison’s biggest challenge may be financial.

At a time of massive industry upheaval, most observers believe that the company will have to lay off droves of workers to bring its costs down.

“I will honestly say that the biggest work that they have cut out for them is servicing this debt, and that’s going to guide every decision,” said Kahn, the USC professor.

“Now they’re going to have to fire lots of people in order to reduce costs to be able to make this deal pencil out, and they’re going to be skating on the razor’s edge to make sure that they have enough revenue coming in going forward to service this debt. They have almost no room to maneuver.”

But Paramount has one thing working in its favor: leverage. David (as in Ellison), for better or worse, is now the industry’s Goliath.

“I think temper tantrums can be easily forgotten if the work is there,” said Buzick Kim. “I think most people would be happy to leave it behind them — if the work is there.”

Times staff writers Meg James, Stephen Battaglio and Samantha Masunaga contributed to this report.

Sept. 25, 2026 6:59 PM PT

The White House signaled Friday night that CNN would be left off Air Force One for President Trump’s Saturday trip, the latest media restriction from the administration in an ongoing dispute with 1st Amendment implications.

The news organization was replaced by Real America’s Voice News, a conservative outlet.

The news came just after journalists from three news outlets that Trump banned last week from the White House grounds — CNN, MS NOW and Politico — returned to the executive complex with TV cameras, laptops and microphones in hand.

A judge temporarily struck down the ban in an overnight ruling early Thursday, but his decision didn’t directly address White House pool reporters. The networks continued to refrain from covering Trump as part of the pool, even as reporters from all three outlets were allowed back in the White House.

The temporary order from the judge mentioned only the White House grounds and said nothing directly about Air Force One.

Theodore Boutrous Jr., the news outlets’ attorney, did not immediately respond to an email and phone call requesting comment Friday night.

For a while during the day, the U.S. network video pool for the White House was back in operation for the first time since Trump banned the three news outlets in an extraordinary showdown over media access.

At noon on CNN, viewers could see Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping touring the National Archives Museum along with their wives, Melania Trump and Peng Liyuan. The banner along the bottom of the screen read: “Trump and China’s Xi Visit National Archives.” It was a routine report from a state visit — but for the fact that CNN had not aired live video of Trump in several days.

“As of now, all systems are go,” said a person familiar with the pool, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the fluidity of the situation.

The pool consists of five major U.S. broadcast outlets that take turns shooting and sharing video. When the White House banned CNN — which belongs to the pool — from White House grounds, along with MS NOW and Politico, the other four pool providers declined to participate in a show of solidarity.

CNN was not commenting directly earlier Friday, referring instead to its editorial coverage. But Brian Stelter, the network’s media analyst, posted on X that CNN had a pool assignment at the National Archives event and that the White House had approved the network’s credentials.

Golden and Noveck write for the Associated Press.

A federal judge issued a temporary restraining order Thursday that removes President Trump’s ban on three news outlets from White House grounds, a rebuke of the administraton’s most severe attack yet on the Washington press corps.

U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly said in his ruling that the administration’s ban is likely unconstitutional and that the outlets affected — CNN, MS NOW and Politico — were not given due process before the action was taken. Kelly also rejected the White House’s court argument that the ban was motivated by national security concerns. The restraining order will be in effect for 14-days as the litigation proceeds.

Kelly, appointed by Trump during his first term, made a similar ruling in 2018 after the White House tried to ban journalist Jim Acosta, then working for CNN. Acosta’s credentials were restored.

The three outlets jointly filed a lawsuit Monday alleging that the ban violates the 1st Amendment by retaliating against protected newsgathering as punishment for unfavorable coverage, amounting to viewpoint discrimination.

Trump announced the ban Friday in a Truth Social post, describing CNN, MS NOW and Politico as “fake news.” He claimed the outlets have long been unfair to him and that their negative coverage was a danger to the country.

Journalists from the three organizations were barred from White House grounds on Saturday, the day after Trump announced the ban in a Truth Social post.

CNN, MS NOW and Politico all reported Thursday that their access has not been restored despite the judge’s ruling. Politico reported that one of its journalists had a credential confiscated by Secret Service.

Whether the confiscation was a security snafu or a defiance of the court order remains to be seen.

In a emergency court hearing Wednesday, the White House shifted away from Trump’s initial stated reasons for the ban and argued that the three outlets engaged in reporting that threatened national security.

The administration went on to detail letters sent to each outlet that provided examples of such reporting. One was a background briefing set up by the White House, where an official briefed reporters on condition of anonymity under ground rules set by the White House itself.

In response to the ban, ABC, CBS, NBC and Fox News, suspended pool coverage of President Trump this week as he traveled to New York for the General Assembly at the United Nations.

The four networks along with CNN rotate the coverage which is shared with other news organizations. While the networks that aren’t banned have sent reporters to cover President Trump’s activities, they are not shooting video.

Some right wing outlets sympathetic to Trump such as One America News have been providing video coverage, but they lacked the technical capabilities of the larger networks. Another outlet, Real America’s Voice, posted video that showed President Trump’s detail traveling through New York City.

Keven Tripp, the Los Angeles correspondent for NBC News Radio posted on X that the “Press is NEVER supposed to reveal operational aspects of security detail,” calling the move by Real America’s Voice “stupid and unprofessional.”

WASHINGTON — A federal judge early Thursday temporarily blocked President Trump’s move to ban three news outlets from the White House grounds and said CNN, MS NOW and Politico must have their access restored.

It’s the latest development in an escalating showdown between Trump and media outlets whose coverage he dislikes. The president announced he was banning the outlets Sept. 18, assailing what he called “fake news.” More recently, Trump has said negative coverage is dangerous for the country.

The outlets argued that they were singled out because of the content of their coverage — in other words, viewpoint discrimination — and called the ban a “blatant violation” of the 1st Amendment.

In an order posted shortly after midnight Eastern time, U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly said the media outlets had met the legal thresholds needed to obtain a temporary restraining order, which include the likelihood of succeeding on the merits of the case and of suffering irreparable harm without an order.

“This is a high bar, but Plaintiffs have met it,” he wrote.

Kelly — whom Trump nominated in 2017 and who ordered a CNN journalist’s access restored in a similar case in 2018 — heard arguments Wednesday and ended the hearing without ruling.

On Thursday, he issued the temporary restraining order, which will be in effect for 14 days. Such orders are typically designed to preserve the status quo pending a closer review of the case by the court.

During the hearing, Kelly questioned whether the administration had met its legal responsibilities and provided CNN, MS NOW and Politico with adequate due process before banning them.

The rulings in two prior cases over press access, including one that went to the U.S. Supreme Court, made it clear that journalists are entitled to an opportunity to be heard before they have their press passes revoked.

Justice Department attorney Michael Velchik argued that the rulings in the earlier cases were wrong.

The judge noted that his decision would be guided by prior rulings in comparable 1st Amendment cases, even if the government disagrees with them.

California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta’s deal to allow the $111-billion Paramount-Warner Bros. merger to proceed was struck amid political pressure from state leaders and concern from some Democratic attorneys general that concessions from the studio fell short, according to multiple sources familiar with the negotiations.

As recently as this weekend, New York Atty. Gen. Letitia James and Connecticut Atty. Gen. William Tong — who had signed on to the lawsuit — had said they needed more concessions, according to three knowledgeable sources close to the negotiations.

In an interview with The Times on Tuesday, Tong said Bonta was “doing his very best in very difficult circumstances” to steer the coalition to a favorable outcome, but amid “a lot of political pressure” from others in California that “did not help.”

“I’m not going to sugarcoat it. This is ultimately not what I wanted,” Tong said.

Tong said one of his chief concerns — shared by others in the 12-member coalition of states — was with the merger’s consolidation of CNN and CBS News under Paramount Skydance Chief Executive David Ellison, the billionaire media mogul close to President Trump and son of Oracle co-founder and Republican mega-donor Larry Ellison.

Tong raised similar concerns after the announcement of the deal, when he said publicly that his state had “led the fight to the bitter end to protect the editorial independence of CNN and CBS News,” and that he was “deeply disappointed that we could not do more.”

Paramount declined to comment.

With its economy and global reputation heavily intertwined with Hollywood’s allure and ability to survive, California had more at stake in the negotiations.

In exchange for the states lifting their antitrust challenge, Bonta said Monday that the studio had agreed to either produce 30 or more films annually for the first five years of the combined company or divest the Miramax film studio; separately negotiate basic channel agreements for Paramount and Warner Bros. or divest from major cable channels; spend $300 million more each year on film production in the U.S.; maintain its Melrose Avenue and Burbank lots; and establish a board to ensure editorial independence at CNN and CBS News, which also fall under the merger.

Bonta said the deal has “real teeth,” and that he “will hold Paramount accountable” moving forward.

Since then, however, other Democrats have voiced less confidence, and some in the coalition believed they could have held out for better terms as the midterm elections approached.

Some also questioned whether Bonta and other California leaders were swayed by Ellison’s threat to move Paramount out of the state.

Gov. Gavin Newsom, Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass and Xavier Becerra — the front-runner in the race to succeed Newsom as governor — had all urged Bonta to settle the case. In his initial statement on the deal, Ellison thanked the Democratic attorneys general for working through their differences, but also thanked Newsom for “his support throughout this process.”

Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.), the ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Antitrust, Competition Policy and Consumer Rights, said Bonta and the other state attorneys general “took on one of the most powerful media companies in the world, a company backed by the full weight of the White House,” and that Paramount had answered “with what amounted to extortion” by threatening to withdraw from California if the deal was blocked.

Booker claimed the merger remains illegal and questioned the independence of any editorial board picked by and reporting to Ellison — saying it would not stop him from making “sweeping changes at CNN” to please Trump.

“This is what happens when federal enforcers abandon their posts. States are left to carry the fight alone, and even the strongest state enforcers cannot outlast a company willing to say anything and spend anything,” Booker said. “That is not justice. That is a price tag.”

Dissent before the deal

The pace of the negotiations, which had been on-again, off-again for weeks, quickened last week, and Bonta’s office had reached a deal with Paramount by Friday, sources said.

But there was a last-minute hiccup: Some members of the coalition felt the deal fell considerably short of what they had been seeking.

Among other things, James was dismayed that the Writers Guild of America — which had separately sued to block the deal — hadn’t been brought into the negotiations. She pushed to include the WGA and to bolster Paramount’s commitment to the WGA’s health and pension fund.

Over the weekend, Paramount agreed to increase its health fund commitment from $10 million to $17.5 million. Still, the WGA had largely been shut out of the process, and said Monday that it continued to “believe the merger will cause damage to writers and the industry at large.”

One source familiar with the negotiations said the states had four separate votes against settling on Sunday, but the resistance eventually crumbled with word that the WGA was backing out of the fight. Two sources familiar with the matter said some in the coalition were caught off guard by the speed with which Bonta’s “tone” changed and the deal was reached. Some had felt Paramount may be more inclined to grant concessions once it had to start increasing its payout to Warner Bros. investors starting Oct. 1.

On Tuesday, Bonta told The Times that he would not comment on “what specifics led up to” the deal, except to note that all 12 state attorneys general in the coalition signed on to it.

“It was unanimous, and I’ll leave it at that,” he said.

Bonta said there was certainly “a lot of interest” in the case from other elected officials, some of whom made their positions clear, but that “none of it had any influence” on him.

“I need to look at the law and the facts,” he said. “If we’re able to get a solution to our antitrust concerns, we take it.”

Bonta said he could not comment on what effect Ellison’s threats to move Paramount out of California might have had on his decision and that his “focus was on the antitrust concerns” — which he believes the deal substantially addresses.

A source close to the governor’s office said Newsom communicated frequently with Bonta and Ellison, acted as an unofficial mediator and urged them to reach a resolution, but did not try to control the terms of the deal and respects Bonta’s role as the state’s independently elected law enforcement leader. Newsom appointed Bonta as California’s attorney general in 2021 after Becerra, who was serving in that post, accepted a position in President Biden’s cabinet. California voters elected Bonta as attorney general in 2022.

The source said Newsom wanted the two sides to settle the case because he was concerned that the state could face protracted litigation, ultimately lose in court and end up with nothing. Paramount leaving California for Nashville — a destination floated by Ellison — also would have been an economic blow to the state.

Newsom has tried to keep businesses headquartered in the state due to the economic and budgetary impacts of losing companies and their wealthy chief executives to other places, and recently signed legislation to create a new post-production tax credit for studios. Last year, he doubled the state’s existing film and television tax credit in an effort to support the industry.

Mixed reaction

Newsom and many of Bonta’s fellow attorneys general echoed his claims of victory.

James said the deal “will allow the film and television industry to continue to thrive with more movies produced in America and $1.5 billion of new investment in film production.” Oregon Atty. Gen. Dan Rayfield said it “keeps real competition in place, ensures that productions will continue, and ensures journalistic independence.” Arizona Atty. Gen. Kris Mayes said it would protect businesses, including local movie theaters. Colorado Atty. Gen. Phil Weiser said it would protect “moviegoers and producers.”

In a statement, Newsom thanked Bonta for his work to reach the deal, which he called “a practical path forward” that “protects California jobs while putting a safeguard in place to help preserve editorial independence for two of America’s most important news organizations.”

Still, it was clear that others viewed the deal as a partial win at best.

New Mexico Atty. Gen. Raúl Torrez called it a “great first step.” Massachusetts Atty. Gen. Andrea Joy Campbell said the states were “unable to secure every protection we fought for,” and that she “would have liked to see more.” Minnesota Atty. Gen. Keith Ellison stressed that the deal should not be seen as an endorsement of the merger.

“I believe mergers like this are never done with the best interests of consumers, workers and small businesses in mind and are instead designed to help a select few get richer,” he said.

Some outsiders were even more forthright with their skepticism. Rich Greenfield, a longtime media analyst, called the deal a “slam dunk win” for Paramount because it didn’t require the company to sell off any assets. Norm Eisen, co-founder of the Democracy Defenders Action group, said the “so-called independence board” to oversee CNN and CBS News “appears to be sorely lacking in independence.”

Bonta said the deal does set out structural divestment remedies if Paramount does not follow its other terms — including by requiring it to sell off Miramax if it doesn’t produce enough films, and to sell off BET, VH1, Comedy Central and other channels if it doesn’t negotiate cable agreements for Paramount and Warner Bros. separately.

He said that if the state had held out and gone to trial on its antitrust arguments, it would not have been able to negotiate any journalistic oversight for CNN and CBS, whereas the “creativity and flexibility of settlement” allowed them to establish the oversight panel.

“Does that transform our information ecosystem broadly, to make sure that there’s no more misinformation or disinformation? No. Does it make sure that all broadcast news and cable channel news organizations are only telling fair, fact-based, independent, objective news? No. Does it even ensure that happens every single time at CBS News or CNN? No,” Bonta said. “Does it improve the likelihood, vastly, significantly, that that outcome will occur? It does.”

The settlement with 12 state attorneys general that cleared the way for Paramount to move forward with its $111-billion acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery contained a surprise for CNN and CBS News.

The merged company will have an oversight board that will monitor adherence to editorial independence from its owners and shareholders. The editorial board is part of an agreement to end the states’ antitrust fight that threatened to delay the completion of the deal for months.

But the initial reaction among media observers and opponents of the merger was to question how much teeth editorial overseers will have as they will be appointees of Paramount’s board. The board is controlled by Paramount Chief Executive David Ellison’s family and RedBird Capital Partners.

“The so-called independence board appears to be sorely lacking in independence. It’s appointed by and answerable to the board of the combined Ellison-controlled entity, which can also remove the independence board members,” said Norm Eisen, founder of Democracy Defenders Action and one of the leaders of the Block the Merger group.

Agreements on editorial boards or ombudsmen are typically made to assuage regulatory concerns over a change in media ownership.

CBS News installed Kenneth R. Weinstein as an ombudsman ahead of Ellison’s acquisition of Paramount last year. But he has had a scant presence at the network, according to CBS News insiders.

When Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp. took over the Wall Street Journal in 2007, a five-member committee was created to ensure the editorial independence of the newspaper and Dow Jones’ other news services. The Journal has largely been successful in keeping its news-gathering operation separate from its right-leaning opinion pages reflecting the values of its owners.

The oversight board at Paramount adds a new layer of uncertainty as to how the two news divisions will operate in the merged company. CBS News has already seen significant upheaval since Ellison installed Bari Weiss as editor in chief.

Weiss, the founder of the heterodox digital news site the Free Press, has disrupted CBS News with major changes to its signature program “60 Minutes.” Her push to consider more conservative talking points and voices in stories led to accusations that she is tilting the program’s political bent to please President Trump, who has a friendly relationship with the Ellisons.

CNN insiders have been watching the discord at CBS News with concern. Trump and Larry Ellison, the tech mogul and father of David, have reportedly discussed personnel changes at CNN once the takeover of its parent, Warner Bros. Discovery, is complete.

Trump has never been happy with CNN’s coverage, but the hostility intensified last Friday when he banned the organization along with MS NOW and Politico from the White House grounds. The three news organizations are challenging Trump’s ban in federal courts on the grounds that it violates their 1st Amendment rights.

But amid all the turmoil, veteran news executives inside and outside the companies involved were scratching their heads over exactly how an editorial board would operate.

“This was formed up in haste, and the fact that it looks like it’s kind of half-baked is not surprising,” said Tom Bettag, a former network news producer and lecturer at the Philip Merrill College of Journalism at the University of Maryland. “But they were in a hurry to get this merger approved by hook or by crook.”

The agreement says the board will be in charge of “resolving any disputes between CBS News employees, CNN employees, and management of the combined entity regarding alleged reporting bias or failure to meet” agreed upon reporting standards.

Back in June, “60 Minutes” correspondent Scott Pelley angrily questioned Weiss’ decision to fire several of his colleagues. As a result, he was dismissed as well.

It’s unclear whether similar confrontations would be resolved by the new Paramount board and, if so, what that would mean for the authority of the top executives at CBS News and CNN.

Paramount did not respond to requests for comment.

The creation of the editorial board was a compromise brokered among the coalition of state attorneys general. The proposal came about in the final two days of negotiations, according to two people familiar with the matter who were not authorized to comment publicly.

William Tong, the Connecticut attorney general, said in an interview that he agreed to the editorial board after pushing for the divestiture of CNN and CBS News as a condition for approving the merger.

“I’m not going to sugarcoat it. This is ultimately not what I wanted,” Tong told The Times. “However, a week ago, they weren’t willing to do anything.”

He added: “Their view was, ‘We’re buying it. We get to control it.’ … And so, you know, by Friday we had broken them down, and they were willing to do this editorial independence board for both CBS News and CNN. That’s what we were able to secure and it has to be all journalists on this five-person board.”

No Paramount executives, including Weiss, can serve on the board.

Trump later reacted to news of the lawsuit, calling the news organisations “Third Rate Clowns” and “Crooked and Corrupt Press” that “trivialise and demean” his achievements.

“Fake News people and publications that only write negatively, and who violate our National Security by writing false and defamatory stories with unknown ‘sources,’ shouldn’t be allowed access to the most important Office anywhere in the World,” Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform.

He added that “almost without question” his team will file an appeal.

The First Amendment forbids the government from “abridging” the freedom of the press – language that courts have traditionally interpreted as preventing the government from discriminating against the media based on the content of their coverage.

The statement from CNN, Politico and MS NOW said: “Without notice or process, the White House revoked our journalists’ credentials because it objected to our reporting.

“Left unchallenged, this threatens press freedom and the public’s right to independent journalism free from government interference.”

The media organisations filed the lawsuit on Monday in US District Court in Washington, asking a judge to quickly rule Trump’s ban unconstitutional and prevent his aides from enforcing it.

On Monday morning, major US TV networks pulled out of White House pool duties, which sees media organisations share material with each other to save on costs and space when broadcasting presidential events to the American public.

Fox News Washington bureau chief Bryan Boughton, who currently holds a rotating role helping to organise media TV crews covering the White House, wrote in an email seen by the BBC that “effective today, the TV pool will not be covering designated as pool coverage” of President Trump.

The message said the move followed the White House “preventing” CNN from fulfilling its pool duties for Trump’s trip to New York and that “there will be no replacement pool put in place”.

CNN – one of only five US news outlets in the White House press pool for live television – was originally due to cover Trump’s trip to the UN General Assembly in New York on Monday and Tuesday.

But on Monday morning, the five-seat CNN booth in the basement of the White House press area – typically manned throughout the day from the early hours of the morning – was empty and closed. Screens and monitors inside were turned off.

Instead, a CNN crew was outside the secured area of the White House grounds, broadcasting live from a public pavement.

Five TV networks, ABC, CBS, CNN, Fox News and NBC, issued a joint statement: “The public has a vital interest in receiving accurate, independent information about its government.

“No administration should restrict a news organisation because it objects to its reporting.”

Those five networks are considered the only ones with the money and infrastructure to distribute live coverage from the White House and presidential events.

For now, the White House media slot has remained vacant and instead the conservative TV outlet, Real America’s Voice, was listed as “secondary” crew on Trump’s trip to New York, where he will meet Mayor Zohran Mamdani and French President Emmanuel Macron on Monday.

CNN, MS NOW and Politico are headed to court to challenge the constitutionality of President Trump’s order to ban the three news organizations from the White House.

The three outlets announced Monday they are jointly filing a lawsuit in U.S. Federal Court in Washington, D.C. asking for a temporary restraining order that restores their access immediately while the case is heard.

“This morning we notified the government that we are filing a lawsuit today to protect our First Amendment rights and defend the principle that the government does not decide what the press reports and publishes,” CNN, MS NOW and Politico said in a statement. “Without notice or due process, the White House revoked our journalists’ credentials because it objected to our reporting. Left unchallenged this threatens press freedom and the public’s right to indpendent journalism free from government interference.”

The lawsuit against the Trump Administration will allege that the ban violates the 1st Amendment by retaliating against protected newsgathering as punishment for unfavorable coverage, as well as blocking reporters from a “nonpublic forum” for unlawful reasons.

The suit notes precedent is a case from 1977 that ruled the White House cannot arbitrarily restrict press credentials for reporters on grounds that there’s retaliation for viewpoint discrimination.

Trump announced the ban Friday in a Truth Social post, describing CNN, MS NOW and Politico as “fake news.” He did not cite any specific story that prompted the action, claiming the outlets have long been unfair to him and never provide any positive coverage.

Trump was asked Friday how his ban will hold up in court.

“I don’t think a court should allow fake news to be written day after day after day,” he said. “I think that somebody has a right to keep them away if they’re going to write false stories all the time.”

Trump’s asserts that the ban is the result of unhappiness with the coverage he receives from the three outlets. Trump’s statements are likely to be used against him in court.

The ban has already raised questions on how the public will be able to monitor the president’s activities. CNN was scheduled to provide the video feed of Trump’s Monday trip to New York for the United Nations General Assembly. The pool feed, as it’s called, provides video to all other press outlets.

CNN’s assignment does not appear on the press schedule issued Sunday by the White House.

On Saturday, journalists from CNN, MS NOW and Politico were barred from entering White House grounds as they learned their press credentials were no longer valid. Some were asked to hand them over to Secret Service.

Trump has tried twice to deny news organizations White House access. In 2018 during his first term, the White House tried to ban journalist Jim Acosta, then working for CNN, but a court ordered that his press credential be resinstated.

Last year, the Trump White House issued a ban on the Associated Press when the news organization refused to recognize the president’s renaming of the Gulf of Mexico by executive order. A federal judge ordered that the AP’s access to the White House be restored on the grounds that the government cannot punish a journalistic outlet over the content of its speech.

A divided appeals court panel later paused that ruling for the Oval Office, Air Force One and other restricted spaces, allowing the White House to keep the AP out of them while the case proceeds.

Trump has railed against outlets that he considers unfriendly to his administration, calling for the Federal Communications Commission to pull the TV station licenses of the broadcast networks. He has also asked the FCC to take action against individual journalists who irk him, the last being “Meet the Press” moderator Kristen Welker.

FCC Chairman Brendan Carr has tried to act on Trump’s behalf by calling for a review of ABC’s TV licenses, which the Walt Disney Co.-owned network is challenging in court.

“This is about more than the rights of journalists. It is about the right of the American people to receive a full and independent account of the activities, policies and decisions of whoever occupies the nation’s highest office,” Heinrich said in a statement.

Trump has also lashed out at individual reporters in person or over social media, sometimes in strikingly personal terms — insulting them in briefings, or in his recent speech at the White House Correspondents’ Assn. dinner.

Trump’s press attacks have spread to other parts of his administration. The Department of Defense tried to restrict journalist access to the Pentagon.

The department also recently fired three journalists at the military’s newspaper Stars and Stripes for insubordination after they appeared in a CBS News report on how the Trump administration has tried to restrict their reporting.

Tensions flared on the eve of a critical week ahead for Paramount Skydance’s proposed $111-billion acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery, amid new urgency for talks aimed at settling antitrust litigation brought by California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta and 11 other states.

Over the weekend, opposition intensified to a proposed settlement as details trickled out, including a proposal to establish a bipartisan editorial board to monitor cable news channel CNN, one of Warner’s premier properties that Paramount Chief Executive David Ellison would control along with CBS News.

It wasn’t clear Sunday whether a proposed settlement would require Warner to sell off assets — something Bonta repeatedly has insisted upon. Critics of the deal urged Bonta and other state attorneys general to resist pressure to reach a settlement that would allow Ellison’s deal to move forward.

“State Attorneys General, please hang tough against the giant proposed Paramount-Warner Brothers merger,” Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) wrote on social media late Saturday.

“Paramount, run by the Ellisons, should not own both CBS and CNN. California must not cave and take a deal that leaves both under the same owner,” Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Fremont) wrote.

Bonta and Ellison have made progress in the talks in recent days, according to four people familiar with the matter not authorized to speak publicly.

However, New York’s Letitia James and at least two other attorneys general who joined Bonta’s lawsuit in July privately have expressed reservations about the proposed compromises, believing they don’t go far enough to mitigate concerns about the power Paramount-Warner Bros. would wield over the film and TV industries should the merger go through, according to the people familiar with the matter.

James isn’t on board with Bonta’s proposed settlement, two of the people said. A potential split within Bonta’s coalition could be a setback because Bonta needs the other state attorneys general who joined his legal effort to sign off on any deal.

A spokesperson for Bonta did not respond Sunday to a request for comment.

Paramount maintains its deal to bring HBO, CNN, CBS, TBS, Comedy Central and two legendary film and television studios together would create a stronger company that could withstand the fierce competition from tech giants such as Apple, Netflix, Google (which owns YouTube) and Amazon. The two studios, on their own, would not be strong enough on their own to remain viable in the streaming age, the company has said.

On Thursday, Paramount lawyers plan to demand that U.S. District Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín in Oakland require the states and the Writers Guild of America to post a $1.88-billion bond that would cover some of Paramount’s delay-related deal costs should the company eventually prevail.

The states and the WGA, which also sued to block the merger, have balked at the request, which was designed by Paramount to create fissures within the coalition of states, which also include Minnesota, Oregon, Colorado, Connecticut, New Jersey and Massachusetts.

Ellison wants the merger finalized by Oct. 1, when his company will be obligated to make a higher payout to Warner Bros. Discovery shareholders. The company has threatened to move its Hollywood base from its historic Melrose Avenue lot to Tennessee or Texas should the antitrust battle stretch into October.

The prospective loss of an iconic California business — a century-old film studio that helped establish Hollywood — has rattled state and local politicians, who are fearful of losing more jobs at a time when Los Angeles film production levels already are at alarming lows.

Gov. Gavin Newsom, Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass and Xavier Becerra, the Democratic nominee for California governor, have publicly called on Bonta to settle the suit rather than prepare for a trial next spring. City Councilmember Nithya Raman, Bass’ opponent in the L.A. mayor race, has been one of few California politicians in support of Bonta’s fight.

In an opinion essay Sunday, a trio of 1st Amendment and antitrust experts dismissed Paramount’s threat to leave Los Angeles as a ploy that doesn’t make business sense.

“Ellison’s threat is empty, and the AG should call that out — not give into it,” the experts — Fiona Scott Morton, Gene Kimmelman and Norm Eisen — wrote in the Contrarian.

Both Morton, an economics professor at the Yale School of Management, and Kimmelman formerly served in the U.S. Justice Department during Democratic administrations. Eisen, founder of the group Democracy Defenders Action, is helping lead the Block the Merger campaign.

“Paramount [would be] sinking the cost of moving before it knows what businesses it owns and how best to combine and organize them — which makes expensive strategic mistakes inevitable,” the trio wrote. “A company that raises its own costs while leaving behind the most valuable labor in the industry does not threaten California; it threatens itself.”

The group noted Paramount, in its regulatory filings, still lists its Times Square offices in New York as its corporate headquarters — not its Melrose Avenue campus in Hollywood.

“There is also the possibility that Ellison is planning to move Paramount to Tennessee regardless of how the lawsuit resolves,” the group wrote.

Bonta and Paramount have discussed including in any settlement a condition that Paramount would keep its operations in California for a set period, according to people familiar with the proposal but not authorized to comment.

Merger opponents planned a Sunday evening rally outside Bonta’s offices in Oakland to encourage him to stand tough. The group plans subsequent demonstrations this week outside James’ office in New York City and the Paramount lot in Hollywood.

The jockeying comes as President Trump, who favors the Ellison takeover of CNN and Warner Bros., has sought to block several prominent news organizations, including CNN and Politico, from reporting from the White House.

“Trump just locked CNN out of the White House. Now his billionaire allies want to own it,” Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) added in a Sunday post. “State attorneys general: Don’t settle. Hold the line. Block this merger.”

Sept. 19, 2026 Updated 8:37 AM PT

NEW YORK — Journalists from three major news organizations — CNN, MS NOW and Politico — were denied access to the White House on Saturday morning, with reporters from the two cable networks both going live to report they’d been barred following a ban imposed by President Trump.

The actions escalated Trump’s long-running efforts to restrict news coverage by journalists he finds objectionable, and is the latest test of 1st Amendment protections in the United States. Trump said Friday he would ban all three organizations because of their coverage — which he called “fake news.”

Politico said its White House reporter Cheyenne Haslett was denied entry to the White House and had her badge confiscated Saturday. The announcement came shortly after the turning away of MS NOW and CNN journalists.

Editor in chief Jonathan Greenberger said in a statement to the Politico newsroom: “We stand by her and all reporters here covering the White House. … We will vigorously defend our First Amendment rights.”

CNN and MS NOW have issued similar statements.

“We will not be deflected from our duty to hold the government and other public bodies to account,” CNN said. The statement was shown on the air before senior White House reporter Betsy Klein began to report on her ban.

Journalists from three major news organizations — MS NOW, CNN and Politico — were denied access to the White House on Saturday morning.

(Graeme Sloan / Getty Images)

MS NOW said in a statement that it stands behind its journalists. “The White House belongs to the American people and the decisions made inside are funded by our tax dollars,” the network said in a statement Saturday. “MS NOW intends to take any and all steps necessary to defend our First Amendment rights and the essential role of independent journalism in our democracy.”

In his second term, Trump and his administration have upped the ante and punished certain media outlets, both in the courtroom and through regulatory action. Trump has also lashed out at individual reporters in person or over social media, sometimes in strikingly personal terms.

Turned away, badges confiscated

Both CNN White House reporter Betsy Klein and MS NOW reporter Akayla Gardner went on the air to report they’d been banned from entering the White House.

Network correspondents are usually present on the weekends when the president is in Washington or at nearby Camp David. Trump is at the presidential retreat in Maryland this weekend.

Gardner was turned away and her entry badge confiscated, she said. She noted she had walked through two gates successfully, but once she got to where her badge needed to be scanned, an officer told her it was disabled and asked her to hand it over. He said the decision “was above him,” she reported. An MS NOW producer was able to get in, but a photographer’s badge was also disabled, Gardner said.

CNN Senior White House Reporter Betsy Klein, left, walks to the White House, Saturday.

(Jose Luis Magana / Associated Press)

Klein, senior White House reporter at CNN, also said her badge had been deactivated.

CNN media analyst Brian Stelter called the move “a direct threat to press freedom in the United States.”

“It’s so much bigger than CNN,” Stelter said. “This is a free speech test in America.”

Continued attacks on press freedom

The president wrote on his social media site Friday that effective immediately, “I am banning” CNN, MS NOW and Politico “from the White House as a result of their constant ‘reporting’ FAKE NEWS!” Minutes later, speaking at an event in the Oval Office, Trump was asked to explain his statement.

“Because they’re fake news,” he said. “You get so tired of reading and seeing fake news. When you look at CNN, it’s just fake. That’s why their ratings are no good. When you look at MS NOW … , it’s fake news.”

President Donald Trump arrives at the Ellipse before departing the White House on Friday. Trump hosting a MAGA fundraiser at his private club in Sterling, Virginia, before spending the weekend at Camp David.

(Chip Somodevilla / Getty Images)

“And when you look at Politico … the stories they wrote are fake. So there’s a lot of news and there may be others to join them, and maybe they can get better,” he said. “But our country has to have honest news.”

The move follows the president’s decision last year to bar Associated Press reporters from the Oval Office, Air Force One and other events in retaliation for the news outlet’s decision not to follow his lead in changing the name of the Gulf of Mexico, which lies partially in Mexican and other waters. The AP said that it would note when appropriate that Trump had ordered it renamed the “Gulf of America.”

The AP filed suit and the case is ongoing. Since returning to office, Trump has pursued other legal action against a variety of outlets, including the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal and the BBC. His administration is also involved in a long-simmering confrontation involving ABC over renewal of its broadcast licenses.

Noveck writes for the Associated Press.

CNN and MS NOW journalists have been denied access to the White House after US President Donald Trump announced he was banning the outlets.

An MS NOW reporter and a photographer tried entering the White House grounds on Saturday morning, but their badges would not scan and an officer confiscated them, the outlet reported.

CNN also said Saturday morning that one of its reporters was denied access and had her badge seized.

Trump said on Friday he was barring MS NOW, CNN, and Politico – three major US media outlets – from the White House, accusing them of writing “fiction or lies” about his administration. Press freedom advocates called the move “unconstitutional”.

“The officer asked me to hand over my badge. He said that it was disabled,” MS NOW reporter Akayla Gardner said. “I asked why I was not able to get inside. He said it was above him.”

Gardner added that while her and her colleague’s badges were disabled, an MS NOW producer was still able to scan her badge to get in, though she was not given an explanation as to why the producer’s badge still worked.

CNN reporter Betsy Klein said a Secret Service agent told her her badge had been deactivated.

An MS NOW spokesperson said in a statement that the White House “belongs to the American people and the decisions made inside are funded by our tax dollars”.

“MS NOW intends to take any and all steps necessary to defend our First Amendment rights and the essential role of independent journalism in our democracy.”

It was not clear whether Politico reporter were at the White House on Saturday. Following Trump’s ban, all three outlets have spoken out against the decision, accusing Trump of violating their constitutional rights to free speech and freedom of the press.

“We have a right under the US Constitution to do our reporting without hindrance or interference from the government and this ban is an illegal assault on this fundamental right,” CNN said.

In his announcement, Trump did not mention specific stories or reporting from the three outlets that prompted the move, but later said “it’s really just cumulative stories over the last few years”.

Trump added that there “may be others to join them”, but has not given a directive banning additional news outlets. When later asked by a reporter what he meant by others to come, Trump responded: “Others to come in terms of fake news? Well, you know, the New York Times is fake news, the Washington Post is fake news.”

Several groups dedicated to the freedom of the press have called out Trump’s White House ban as illegal and unconstitutional.

A major group that provides legal services to the media – the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press – said it expected Trump’s ban to be struck down quickly by the courts because it was “flatly unconstitutional”.

“The First Amendment is clear that once the White House invites in some journalists, it can’t ban others because it doesn’t like their reporting,” said Bruce Brown, president of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, which provides legal services to the media.

It’s the latest in a series of moves by the administration to target media outlets Trump says are critical of him, including legal action against US and international outlets like The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and the BBC.

Some of the lawsuits have resulted in media organisations agreeing to pay multimillion dollar settlements. Trump’s lawsuit against the BBC is ongoing.

Additional reporting from Bernd Debusmann Jr and Max Matza.

Since returning to office in January 2025, Trump and administration officials have repeatedly clashed with members of the White House press corps. In his second term, Trump has also moved to bring conservative bloggers, influencers and other media into the press room, arguing it is necessary to provide diverse perspectives to the American public.

In February, the White House announced it was taking control of the press pool which has access to Trump and had for more than a century been managed by the White House Correspondents’ Association.

The same month, the administration moved to bar Associated Press (AP) reporters and photographers from spaces where access is limited, such as the Oval Office or Air Force One, because of the outlet’s usage of the term “Gulf of Mexico” instead of “Gulf of America”.

AP swiftly filed a lawsuit and the case remains ongoing.

The president has frequently clashed with reporters in the Oval Office on Air Force One and during White House events, often referring to them as “fake news” and “rude”.

In his first term, Trump also banned CNN correspondent Jim Acosta from the White House, although his credentials were restored after CNN sued.

CNN is one of only five US news outlets that film video for the pool. The pool refers to an outlet or reporter sharing material from a presidential event with other media outlets. The BBC contributes to the White House radio pool.

The announcement was immediately criticised by leading advocacy organisations for freedom of the press.

In a statement on Friday afternoon, the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University said that “with so many courts having ruled against him on exactly this point, you’d think President Trump would have learned this lesson by now”.

“If President Trump means to expel these news organizations from the White House press pool, his action is doubly unconstitutional because the press pool is a ‘public forum’ under the First Amendment, which means the president can’t exclude journalists from it on the basis of their viewpoints,” said the institute’s executive director, Jameel Jaffer.

A major group that provides legal services to the media – the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press – said it expected Trump’s ban to be struck down quickly by the courts because it was “flatly unconstitutional”.

“The First Amendment is clear that once the White House invites in some journalists, it can’t ban others because it doesn’t like their reporting,” said the group’s president Bruce Brown, calling the potential ban “textbook viewpoint discrimination”.

The Freedom of the Press Foundation also said it was illegal, adding: “It’s also hard to imagine a dumber move”.

Trump “has been retaliating against the press for years, but it hasn’t helped him,” it said, saying “these outrageous attacks only demonstrate how scared he is of an informed public”.

Trump has pursued legal action against a number of US and international news outlets, including The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times and the BBC.

Some of the lawsuits have resulted in media organisations agreeing to pay multimillion dollar settlements. Trump’s lawsuit against the BBC is ongoing.

President Trump announced Friday he intends to ban CNN, MS NOW, Politico and other news outlets from covering the White House, his strongest threat yet against a free press.

In a statement on Truth Social, Trump attacked the the reporting of the three outlets which he described as “FAKE NEWS!”

“Media Outlets shouldn’t be able to constantly write or report FICTION and LIES when they’re covering the President of the United States of America,” Trump said.

How a ban would be enacted remains to be seen. In 2018, the White House tried to ban journalist Jim Acosta, then working for CNN, but a court ordered that his press credential be restored.

Trump has stepped up his attacks on the press during his second term. Federal Communications Commissioner Brendan Carr has threatened the broadcast licenses of outlets Trump dislikes. Carr has called for a review of ABC’s TV licenses, which the Walt Disney Co.-owned network is challenging in court.

After the post circulated, Trump held a press briefing from the Oval Office to discuss drug pricing. According to the pool reporter, no journalist was removed from the press room.

Trump was asked about the Truth Social post. He responded by further attacking the three outlets. He did not cite any specific report that led to his call for a ban.

“I dislike dishonest press,” he said.

Trump’s remarks generated an an immediate outcry from press freedom groups.

“It’s difficult to imagine a more blatant violation of the First Amendment than Trump banning news outlets from the People’s House for criticizing the government,” Seth Stern, chief of advocacy at Freedom of the Press Foundation, said in a statement.

“It’s also hard to imagine a dumber move. The historically unpopular president has been retaliating against the press for years, but it hasn’t helped him.”

The US president insists media outlets report ‘fiction and lies’ as he enforces new bans on White House access.

United States President Donald Trump has announced that, effective immediately, CNN, MS NOW and Politico are banned from the White House.

On Friday, Trump posted on social media his displeasure with the media outlets’ coverage of his administration.

“I am proud to announce that, effective immediately, I am banning Fake News CNN, MSNOW … from the White House as a result of their constant “reporting” FAKE NEWS!” Trump wrote.

“Media Outlets shouldn’t be able to constantly write or report FICTION and LIES when they’re covering the President of the United States, the Trump Administration, or the United States of America. Other Fake News Media Outlets to follow.”

Speaking to reporters later on Friday at the White House, Trump said the outlets “purposely write negative news.”

“You get so tired of reading and seeing fake news,” he told reporters in the Oval Office. “They purposely write negative news, and they do that because they want to try and diminish the Republicans and a Republican administration. And honestly, we’ve done a fantastic job.”

Asked why he is taking the action now, Trump said it is because of the news organizations’ “cumulative” coverage.

Al Jazeera’s Alan Fisher reported from Washington that Trump’s ban will likely be challenged soon.

“The United States has the First Amendment [of its Constitution] that says the government cannot restrict access to this sort of thing,” he said.

“Other presidents have been angry at press coverage before. Lyndon B Johnson used to rail about it. Richard Nixon wondered whether or not he could ban certain people from the White House as well,” he said. “At every point, they were told it’s not a good look.”

While in office, Trump has repeatedly criticised the press for what he says is unfair coverage and has even verbally targeted reporters for their reporting.

The Federal Communications Commission on Thursday granted Paramount Skydance’s request to allow Middle Eastern royal families to hold a substantial stake in a merged Paramount-Warner Bros. Discovery.

The sovereign wealth funds of Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Abu Dhabi are slated to indirectly own nearly 50% of the equity in David Ellison’s proposed mega-studio, Paramount-Warner Bros. That will give them a hefty stake in CBS, CNN, Comedy Central, HBO and two historic Hollywood film studios.

Ellison needed FCC approval because the deal will change the ownership structure of CBS.

As part of the Communications Act of 1934, Congress placed restrictions on foreign ownership of broadcast outlets because of concerns about national security. Current rules prevent foreign investors from owning more than 25% of a company that holds a U.S. broadcast license — unless the FCC determines that foreign ownership would serve a public interest.

CBS owns more than two dozen TV stations with FCC licenses, including KCBS-TV Channel 2 and KCAL-TV Channel 9 in Los Angeles.

“Upon review of [Paramount’s] Petition and consideration of the record of this proceeding, we find that the public interest would be served by granting the Petition,” FCC said in its ruling, noting that Paramount has said the proposed ownership changes would “not result in a transfer of control of Paramount.”

Instead, “Ellison family will retain a majority of the voting interests and control of Paramount,” the FCC said.

FCC Chairman Brendan Carr, an appointee of President Trump, has been supportive of Paramount’s takeover of Warner Bros. Trump and his lieutenants, including Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, have been cheering for Ellison to control CNN, a Warner property.

Anna M. Gomez, the lone Democratic FCC commissioner, slammed the agency’s decision, saying it “just let some of the most repressive governments in the world indirectly control nearly all of a combined Paramount-Warner Bros.”

“An investment this large in one of America’s biggest media companies doesn’t just buy equity, it secures influence over what gets said and what gets made,” Gomez said. “That’s why I called for this new and novel issue to go to a full commission vote given what’s at stake. Instead, the FCC snuck this ruling out as a staff-level decision, with no public vote and no accountability for a call of this magnitude.”

Ellison’s billionaire father, Oracle co-founder Larry Ellison, in February agreed to personally guarantee the $47 billion in equity needed to buy out Warner Bros. Discovery’s existing shareholders for $81 billion. Ellison and longtime Skydance investor, RedBird Capital Partners, then entered into agreements to assign some of their purchase rights to the sovereign wealth funds.

The funds plan to invest $24 billion in the Paramount-Warner deal. Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund is set to contribute $10 billion while the Qatar Investment Authority and Abu Dhabi’s L’imad Holding Co. will separately add $7 billion.

Paramount has separately lined up debt financiers to help pull off the leveraged buyout of Warner Bros. Discovery — Hollywood’s biggest merger in decades. The deal has been stalled by an antitrust challenge brought by California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta and 11 other Democratic attorneys general, representing such states as New York, New Jersey, Colorado, Nevada and Oregon.

The foreign ownership rule was adopted nearly a century ago because members of Congress wanted to make sure that hostile foreign players were barred from using U.S. airwaves to spread propaganda, particularly in times of war.

“We appreciate the FCC’s careful review and are pleased that it has granted Paramount’s petition,” Paramount said in a statement, adding the Trump administration’s Committee for the Assessment of Foreign Participation in the United States Telecommunications Services Sector had separately recommended approval of the deal, subject to several conditions to protect the data of the company’s U.S. based consumers.

Paramount said that, once the deal closes, the Ellison family and RedBird would “collectively hold the largest equity stake in the combined company and 100% of the voting shares, with no other equity participant having any governance rights.”

Paramount has two classes of stock — an ownership structure that will be replicated in a merged Paramount-Warner Bros.

The Ellison family owns 77.5% of Paramount’s voting Class A common stock. RedBird indirectly holds the remaining 22.5% of the Class A shares. The Ellison family separately has 40% of the non-voting Class B shares.

“At a time when the media industry faces unprecedented competitive pressure from dominant big tech companies, a combined Paramount-WBD will have the scale and resources necessary to compete, invest, innovate, and deliver premium content to audiences worldwide,” Paramount said in its statement.

Paramount Skydance will meet with California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta’s representatives next month for court-ordered settlement talks that could clear a path for David Ellison’s $111-billion takeover of Warner Bros. Discovery.

The two sides will convene for two days, Oct. 14 and Oct. 15, according to court documents filed this week.

The talks come as both sides look for ways to resolve the pitched battle over Hollywood’s industry-reshaping deal, which would put HBO, CBS, CNN, TBS, Food Network, Comedy Central and the Paramount and Warner Bros. studios under one roof. Bonta and 11 other Democratic state attorneys general sued in July to block it, and Ellison’s team has been stoking political pressure on Bonta to retreat.

Bonta canceled preliminary last month after details of a session on ground rules leaked, accusing Paramount of “playing games” by violating a confidentiality agreement and spreading misinformation.

Bonta’s Paramount case appears to have ruffled the Trump administration. He sued one month after the U.S. Justice Department blessed the merger without demanding concessions — a decision he said showed federal officials were not doing their jobs to enforce antitrust law. This week the department weighed in on Paramount’s side.

“The United States enforces the federal antitrust laws and has a strong interest in their correct application,” the Justice Department said in a Tuesday filing, describing its unique position to bring antitrust actions. Its “statement of interest” argued that the plaintiffs had sued as “private persons,” who must clear higher hurdles than the federal government.

The department also asked the judge to force California, the other states and the Writers Guild of America to post a $1.88-billion bond, covering fees Paramount would owe Warner Bros. Discovery shareholders if the deal isn’t finalized by Oct. 1. Paramount agreed to the so-called ticking fees earlier this year, confident the deal would sail through regulatory review. Bonta’s office said Wednesday it stands by its earlier filings arguing it should not have to post the bond. A hearing is set for Sept. 24.

Paramount’s chief legal officer, Makan Delrahim, has been quarterbacking the campaign for Warner Bros. Discovery. He served as Trump’s antitrust chief in his first administration, when he led an unsuccessful effort to block AT&T’s takeover of the company, then known as Time Warner Inc. That 2018 deal was the first of two acquisitions that saddled Warner Bros. with instability, strategic misfires and a mountain of debt, paving the way for the Paramount bid — which would mark the third time in a decade the storied studio has changed hands.

Trump has been eager for Ellison to shake up CNN, a Warner property, following his reboot of CBS News, which has coincided with diminished ratings at “60 Minutes”.

Ellison’s company has won approvals from more than 65 international regulators, and Paramount expects the Trump-appointed Federal Communications Commission leadership to sign off on a foreign ownership arrangement that would give Middle Eastern royal families a nearly 50% equity stake in the merged company. Bonta’s lawsuit is the remaining obstacle to closing.

WASHINGTON — Gov. Gavin Newsom said he would not run for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2028 if Kamala Harris does so, appearing to offer deference to the former vice president ahead of a race that could draw a historically crowded field of candidates.

“I wouldn’t run if she ran,” Newsom told CNN’s Jake Tapper in an interview posted Monday. “Why would I? I wouldn’t do that to her. … I wouldn’t do it to you, I wouldn’t waste everyone’s time.”

Newsom appeared to acknowledge a desire to avoid the possibly messy fight for California backers that could ensue if both were to run, saying there would be “pure crossover” between Harris’ supporters and his.

The governor’s effective yield to Harris diminishes the possibility of a showdown between two of California’s most powerful political figures in an election whose stakes are viewed by the Democratic Party as existential. The possibility of Harris making a second attempt at the presidency after her loss to President Trump in 2024 has hung as the biggest question over the potential Democratic field.

Both Newsom and Harris have acknowledged they are considering presidential bids in 2028, but Harris has closely held her intentions. She said last week that she had not decided whether to run, telling former soccer player Megan Rapinoe in a podcast interview that she was focused on working full time to help Democrats win the midterms.

A spokesperson for Harris declined to comment. Representatives for Newsom did not immediately respond to a request Monday afternoon.

Harris has appeared as the party front-runner in multiple polls about 2028, including one in July that showed her beating Newsom by double digits. But questions have continually circulated within the party about whether voters who are scarred from the party’s 2024 loss would be enthusiastic about a Harris run.

Several California donors told The Times in May that they did not plan to support Harris or did not want to discuss a possible bid by her; in a few corners, more enthusiasm came through for Newsom.

The dynamics around the 2028 Democratic primary continue to evolve as party hopefuls jockey for the spotlight, and they shifted notably with the selection of South Carolina as the party’s first primary state. That choice could give Harris a boost if South Carolina’s Black voters move in her favor.

Harris and Newsom came up in politics in the same era and have never before run in an election against each other, operating their political careers largely in parallel rather than in competition. In February, Newsom said on CNN that he had “never gotten in the way of her ambition” and he didn’t “imagine I would in the future,” saying “fate” would determine whether they ran against each other.

Newsom swung through South Carolina this month, the type of move generally interpreted as laying the groundwork for a presidential bid. In the CNN interview, Newsom noted that he did not know whether Harris would run and agreed it was a “pretty good case” to make when Tapper raised the argument that Harris had had her chance at the presidency and Newsom had not yet.

The governor suggested that a fight between him and Harris would split their supporters’ vote in a way that would be “a gift from God for everybody else” in the race, saying “it services no greater good” for both of them to run. He also nodded to their overlapping political circles.

“I know her base of supporters, I know her friends. The [Venn] diagram on that is just pure crossover,” Newsom said. “I wouldn’t do that.”

The interview was filmed in Montana, where Newsom’s in-laws own a ranch, as Newsom and Tapper fly-fished together. The full segment was set to air Tuesday.

Newsom said that in order to decide to run, a candidate needs to be able to “meet the moment.”

“You gotta be honest with yourself,” he said. “Do you represent the zeitgeist of the moment or are you wasting everybody’s time?”

Days before California voters receive their mail-in ballots, gubernatorial candidates Xavier Becerra, a Democrat, and Steve Hilton, a Republican, will debate in a nationally televised face-off.

On Sept. 30 at CNN’s Burbank studio, the two candidates hoping to succeed termed-out Gov. Gavin Newson are expected to spar over sharply divergent visions for the future of the state. California’s next leader is expected to face pressing fiscal issues, as well as continued battle with the Trump administration.

Given California’s deep Democratic tilt, there was a question whether the two men would debate.

On Aug. 19, Becerra promised multiple debates with Hilton ahead of the general election.

“We will have debates, and between now and Nov. 3, we will continue to go out there and meet with folks to make sure they have an opportunity to see the candidates,” Becerra told reporters after greeting business owners, community leaders and voters in a walking tour of Little Tokyo in downtown Los Angeles. “Voters need to have good information. We’ll make sure they have it, and there will be debates.”

The following day, Hilton said he was skeptical of Becerra’s promise.

“I don’t believe him unless he commits to an actual debate. Invitations are on the table for dates and places,” Hilton said. “Why can’t he just accept them? I think he’s lying. I don’t think he wants to do debates because he doesn’t want to debate his record.”

September’s hour-long debate, taking place shortly before county elections officials begin mailing ballots to all the state’s registered voters, will be moderated by the cable network’s anchors Dana Bash and Jake Tapper.

It is the most attention a California gubernatorial contest has drawn since 2010, when “Today” show host Matt Lauer and NBC News Political Director Chuck Todd moderated nationally televised clashes.

That is perhaps unsurprising given how sharply the California electorate has swung left, with no Republican winning a statewide contest since 2006. Two did that year.

While there will not be a studio audience, the debate will air on CNN, CNN International, CNN en Español, CNN.com and related TV and mobile apps for subscribers.

Times staff writer Nicole Nixon contributed to this report.

Michael Lomonaco can account for every minute of the morning of Sept. 11, 2001 — including the small decision that saved his life.

Lomonaco, the executive chef who ran Windows on the World on the 106th and 107th floors of the North Tower of the World Trade Center, was on his way up to his office when he stopped at an optometrist shop on the ground level to have his eyeglass frames adjusted.

He was still inside when American Airlines Flight 11 hit the tower above him at 8:46 a.m.

“I felt the buidling shake,” he recalled in the new CNN Films documentary “Top of the World.” “And I thought that can’t be the subway. That’s impossible.”

Lomonaco was evacuated. From the street, he watched employees of his own restaurant wave a white tablecloth from a window more than 100 floors up. Seventy-nine Windows on the World employees and 91 guests died that morning in the gastronomic soul of the Twin Towers — the one part of the complex that belonged to New Yorkers who didn’t work there, and to visitors from everywhere else.

“Top of the World” premieres Monday at 8 p.m. ET/PT on CNN and begins streaming the following day on the network’s subscription streaming platforms. The documentary short arrives on a double anniversary: 25 years since the attacks, and 50 years since Windows on the World opened on April 19, 1976.

It is the work of producer-director team Betsy West and Julie Cohen, who made “RBG,” the Oscar-nominated portrait of the late Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. The film is a production of CNN Films, TIME Studios and Tribeca Studios, in association with Montalto Pictures and Storyville Films, and was inspired by Tom Roston’s book “The Most Spectacular Restaurant in the World.” Actor Denis Leary voices the restaurant’s creator, Joe Baum, drawn from decades of archival recordings.

West and Cohen were reluctant to take it on. Both were working in network television news in 2001.

“There’s like a part of you that doesn’t want to go back there,” Cohen said in a recent interview. “But when we read this book and met some of the amazing people who had worked at Windows over its 25-year history, we realized this was actually a really good way into remembering there was a lot of beautiful stuff in the Twin Towers and like we shouldn’t let that disappear just because it ended so painfully.”

What emerges is a history of how a restaurant transformed the reputation of the monolithic Twin Towers, which received little respect from architecture critics and bafflement from a public that wondered why it was built in the 1970s by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey as the city was fighting off financial collapse.

“This film tells a story of a restaurant that was very special to New York a time when New York was getting kicked in the teeth,” the Brooklyn-born Lomonaco said in a recent interview.

The World Trade Center operators turned to restaurant impresario Joe Baum to create a dining experience that would draw people to the Manhattan neighborhood largely known for its blocks of stores that sold radios and electronic parts. Baum was known for such New York dining landmarks as the Four Seasons and Tavern on the Green, and his new creation became an immediate hit after it opened in 1976, becoming a magnet for tourists and celebrities alike who came for the eye-popping views through the floor-to-ceiling windows.

At the time of the 9/11 attack, the World was the highest-revenue-generating privately owned restaurant in the U.S.

West noted another draw to the story was the stories of the many immigrants who worked at Windows, which proudly called itself “the U.N. of restaurants.” The film’s focus on the contribution of the foreign-born population to the restaurant industry stands in stark contrast to the image of immigrants conveyed by the Trump White House to justify its deportation efforts.

“Immigrants continue to make a contribution to our country and to the economy,” West said. “This was an opportunity to tell that positive story as opposed to what’s going on in our country now.”

Cohen and West scoured the Windows on the World Facebook page to find surviving former employees to help tell the story. Nathalie Tolentino was a hostess whose family came to the U.S. to escape political upheaval in Peru. Sekou Siby was a line cook from the Ivory Coast, who swapped shifts with one of the workers who died during a morning breakfast held in the restaurant on 9/11. Both talk about how the restaurant changed their lives.

Lomonaco is a central character in the “Top of the World,” as his arrival as the executive chef of Windows in 1997 boosted the restaurant’s culinary reputation. A hot chef who oversaw a turnaround at the 21 Club, another legendary New York dining spot, Lomonaco turned Windows into a destination for American cuisine along with the breathtaking views.

Lomonaco arrived after the restaurant was closed for three years following the first terrorist bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993 that killed six people and injured more than 1,000 but left the towers intact.

Once Windows on the World was gone, Lomonaco was offered high-profile restaurant jobs in other parts of the country. But he had unfinished business in New York.

“I didn’t want to abandon my city,” he said.

In the first days after the attacks, Lomonaco said, he read nothing about Windows on the World; coverage centered on the massive loss of life among the first responders and at the financial firms inside the World Trade Center. But over time, he got attention and support for the families of the employees who lost their lives that day.

Lomonaco and the restaurant’s owners formed Windows of Hope, a charitable foundation that raised more than $22 million to pay for healthcare and tuition costs for the children of the victims. “We were giving checks to people to pay their rent before federal funds came through,” he said.

Lomonaco said he still meets patrons who give him a matchbook or coaster from their visit to Windows. “They feel like they have to give me or send me these little artifacts,” he said. “That’s what has touched me the most.”