deal

What a surprise. David Ellison has decided to name the Frankenstudio media company created by the merger of Paramount Skydance and Warner Bros. Discovery simply Skydance.

And why not? “Massive Debt Funding Media” doesn’t really roll off the tongue (though “Ultra Leveraged” has a nice ring); “Ellison and Dad” is a bit too on the nose; and “Skydance” is, after all, the name he chose for the one company out of those four that he built rather than bought.

Skydance is a poetic term with some definite “Star Wars” overtones and perhaps unintentional symbolism. Before the aviation-loving Ellison claimed it, “sky dance” referred to the aerial mating of certain birds, most famously the American woodcock, also known as the timberdoodle or (I’m not making this up) the bogsucker.

(“Timberdoodle Media,” now that’s a splendid name, and “Bogsucker Productions” could work as well.)

In his attempts to acquire Warner Bros. Discovery, Ellison has certainly engaged in some high-flying … well, courtship might not be the right term for the dizzying mix of cajoling and threats he has employed to get the deal done, and it certainly does not seem fair to the American woodcock. I’m no expert, but I don’t think their mating rituals involve using the New York Times to plead their case or, when that doesn’t work, threatening to move en masse to Tennessee.

For those inexplicably hoping for ParaBros, Skydance seems a bit of a letdown, especially considering all the trouble Ellison went to. It’s been quite a show, the various razzle-dazzle versus strong arm tactics (not to mention the Middle Eastern money) he mobilized to turn two of Hollywood’s preeminent founding studios into ingredients in sub-brand stew that also includes CNN, HBO Max, CBS, DC Comics, Nickelodeon, MTV and Food Network.

Overseeing such a diverse mix is obviously too big a job for one person so Ellison added yet another flavor by drafting Ynon Kreiz as co-chief executive. Kreiz was previously chairman and chief executive of Mattel, where he facilitated the toy company’s big Hollywood push with “Barbie,” “Masters of the Universe” and the upcoming Hot Wheels movie. (Polly Pocket, now in development at Reese Witherspoon’s Sunshine Productions, should be preparing for her close-up.)

By sticking with Skydance, Ellison is not just making a large swath of Hollywood indisputably his own, he’s showing remarkable confidence in a name that first came to many people’s attention in 2019 when he hired John Lasseter.

Six months after Walt Disney Co. ended its relationship with the then-chief creative officer of Pixar and Disney Animation Studios following an investigation into multiple accusations of sexual harassment and workplace misconduct, Ellison hired him to oversee Skydance Animation.

Unsurprisingly, this led to all manner of protest, within and outside the company. When Emma Thompson learned of Lasseter joining Skydance, she withdrew from its highly anticipated upcoming animated film “Luck.” In a stinging letter she sent to the company at the time (and allowed The Times to make public), she wrote: “It feels very odd to me that you and your company would consider hiring someone with Mr. Lasseter’s pattern of misconduct given the present climate in which people with the kind of power that you have can reasonably be expected to step up to the plate.”

Lasseter was not Skydance’s only controversial hire. After merging with Paramount, the company made deals with or hired multiple men, including Brett Ratner, Max Landis and Jeff Shell, who had been accused of sexual harassment and/or misconduct.

Shell was made president of Paramount less than three years after losing his job as NBCUniversal chief executive following the disclosure of an “inappropriate relationship” with an NBC employee. He stepped down from Paramount in April after a monthslong legal battle with a Las Vegas gambler and self-described “fixer” who claimed that Shell had reneged on a deal to develop a series in exchange for free crisis control.

Now, of course, all of that is ancient history. Now Paramount is merely a sub-brand and Hollywood is less concerned with who Skydance hired as it is with who, and how many, Skydance will fire.

Also how exactly the CNN/CBS oversight committee Ellison agreed to create as part of the settlement with 12 states is going to work. And what will happen if Skydance does not release 30 new films each year, which Ellison has promised to do as part of the settlement deal. And how expensive the new Skydance streaming bundles are going to be. And if, perhaps, in some language Skydance translates to “the end of the entertainment industry as we know it.”

Most important, is it too late for the American woodcock to sue?

The Ducks have signed promising young defenseman Tristan Luneau to a six-year contract extension worth $43.2 million after just 14 NHL appearances.

The Ducks announced the deal Thursday with the 22-year-old Luneau, whose promising career has been slowed by injury. Now healthy and ready for a full-time NHL role, he inked a long-term deal with the team that drafted him in the second round in 2022.

Luneau was the Quebec major junior league’s top defenseman in the 2022-23 season and he made the Ducks’ roster out of training camp the next fall. But Luneau came down with a viral infection that winter while practicing with Canada’s national junior team, forcing him to miss the rest of the year.

Anaheim took a deliberate approach with Luneau’s health for the past two seasons, keeping him with its AHL affiliate in San Diego for most of that time. But the Ducks never wavered in their belief that Luneau will be an above-average defenseman, and they proved it with a long-term contract for a player who suited up in just one game for the NHL club last season.

Luneau will be expected to play a significant role this season for the Ducks, who lost four veteran defensemen — Jacob Trouba, captain Radko Gudas, John Carlson and Olen Zellweger — from last season’s already mediocre blue line group over the summer.

Ducks general manager Pat Verbeek moved aggressively to lock up Luneau after being burned repeatedly in restricted free agency over the offseason.

Verbeek spent months failing to reach a deal with center Leo Carlsson, who then signed a $90-million offer sheet with Philadelphia that briefly made him the NHL’s highest-paid player before Anaheim matched it. Carlsson is among the best young centers in hockey, but his deal is worth much more than he was expected to get as a restricted free agent — as is the five-year, $36 million deal given to Pavel Mintyukov by Verbeek after other teams began to sniff around the Russian defenseman in the wake of Carlsson’s massive offer sheet.

Verbeek then signed high-scoring forward Cutter Gauthier to a six-year, $81 million extension last month, but the resulting salary cap constraints from Verbeek’s summer of misadventure effectively forced the Ducks to waive 22-goal scorer Chris Kreider, damaging their depth.

Luneau will join Jackson LaCombe and Mintyukov as the new core of the Ducks’ defense. Rising star LaCombe agreed to an eight-year, $72-million extension a year ago.

Anaheim ended a seven-year playoff drought last spring, advancing to the second round under coach Joel Quenneville. The Ducks open the regular season Friday at Vegas before their home opener Sunday against Florida.

Beacham writes for the Associated Press.

Pointe aux Sables, Mauritius – “At one funeral, we scattered sand from Chagos into an elder’s tomb to honour his unfulfilled wish to breathe his last in his homeland,” says Olivier Bancoult of the Chagos Refugees Group.

For elderly Chagossians displaced from their Indian Ocean homeland decades ago, delays to a treaty allowing their return are raising fears that they may never see the islands again.

The agreement, signed by Britain and Mauritius in May 2025, would allow resettlement on islands other than Diego Garcia, which would remain a military base. But it has yet to enter into force amid opposition from US President Donald Trump.

“We remain unshaken by Trump’s interference in the Chagos deal,” Bancoult says.

“The 2019 ICJ advisory opinion in favour of the archipelago’s return to Mauritius has restored our dignity and faith in our rights as native Chagossians.”

The Chagos archipelago, a group of islands in the Indian Ocean, was separated from Mauritius by Britain in 1965, three years before Mauritius gained independence. Britain later established a military base with the US on Diego Garcia, the largest island in the group.

Between 1968 and 1973, Britain removed an estimated 1,400 to 1,700 Chagossians from the islands. Many were resettled in Mauritius and the Seychelles, with others later moving to the United Kingdom. British authorities also made it illegal to remain on or return to the islands without permission.

“If Trump wants to meddle in this matter, well, let him,” Bancoult says. “We’ve had the 2019 ICJ [International Court of Justice] advisory opinion, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea’s 2021 judgement, and the 2025 UK-Mauritius treaty providing for Mauritius to exercise sovereignty over the archipelago. International law is squarely on our side.”

Signed on May 22, 2025, the treaty provides for Mauritius to exercise sovereignty over the Chagos archipelago, while allowing the UK to exercise rights over the Diego Garcia military base for an initial 99-year period. It also allows Mauritius to arrange for the resettlement of Chagossians on islands other than Diego Garcia. The treaty has not yet entered into force.

In April, the UK government told Parliament that the legislation needed to implement the agreement could not complete its passage during the 2024–26 parliamentary session. The session ended on April 29, meaning the bill made no further progress.

In January, Trump criticised the agreement, calling it an “act of great stupidity ” and questioning whether it adequately protected the Diego Garcia military base.

The issue returned to the diplomatic agenda in September. On September 21, British Prime Minister Andy Burnham said the UK would work with Mauritius and the US on a way forward that secures the operation of Diego Garcia and protects UK national security.

On September 26, Mauritian Prime Minister Navin Ramgoolam travelled to the UK for talks with British National Security Adviser Jonathan Powell and other officials on the Chagos issue. He remains in London, with the Mauritian government saying the discussions would cover recent developments concerning the archipelago.

For Bancoult, the central question is whether elderly Chagossians will live long enough to see the treaty’s promises fulfilled.

“Chagossians born on the archipelago are now aged between 58 and 100. We are growing old, and we have lost several Chagossian elders this year alone,” he says.

For younger Chagossians, the consequences are also cultural.

Chrisyl Wong-Hang-Sun, a PhD researcher in anthropology at the University of Edinburgh, says years of displacement and migration are making it harder to preserve Chagossian culture.

“During my fieldwork, many diaspora members expressed concerns over cultural loss, such as words in Chagossian Creole and recipes that are difficult to recreate abroad,” she says. “Descendants of Chagossians, myself included, long to know the islands of their relatives and ancestors.”

The dispute has also exposed political differences among Chagossians.

“The actions of both the British and Mauritian governments have resulted in very nuanced and differing political opinions among Chagossians across the UK, Mauritius and the Seychelles,” Wong-Hang-Sun says.

The Chagos Refugees Group is at odds with UK-based second-generation Chagossian Misley Mandarin and his supporters, who favour resettlement under British rather than Mauritian sovereignty and have received backing from Reform UK.

Wong-Hang-Sun says those differences should be recognised as negotiations continue.

Both governments, she says, need to “find ways to prioritise and engage with the Chagossian diaspora as a whole”.

Mauritius keeps talks largely private

Mauritius has disclosed little publicly about the substance of the latest talks on Chagos.

At the United Nations General Assembly in September, Foreign Minister Dhananjay Ramful reiterated Mauritius’ position that its sovereignty over the Chagos archipelago was “non-negotiable”. He also described the 2025 agreement as a vindication of international law and said Mauritius was committed to diplomacy and dialogue over the issue.

Beyond official statements and communiques, the Mauritian government has provided few details about the substance of the current discussions.

International relations consultant Bruno Donat, who has previously worked at the UN, says Mauritius should focus on sustained engagement with diplomatic partners, including the African Union, small island states, the Commonwealth Secretariat and sympathetic voices in the US Congress.

“Being in New York corridors for a photo” is not the priority, Donat says. Sustained engagement, he argues, can build pressure on Washington and prevent the issue from remaining unresolved indefinitely.

The Chagos Refugees Group has pursued a similar approach. In June, two months after the treaty stalled, its members travelled to the UK to lobby representatives of British political parties, with the exception of Reform UK.

The unresolved question of Diego Garcia

But Diego Garcia remains the most contentious part of the agreement.

Lalit, a Mauritian political organisation that has campaigned for decades for the closure of the base, opposes its continued military use. Lindsey Collen of Lalit says the treaty, as it stood in April, would have kept the base open and brought Mauritius into a closer relationship with the US military presence on the island.

“In addition to the moral responsibility, we have the knowledge that we might become a target for self-defence if our land is used this way,” she says.

Collen is also concerned about a new partnership between the Mauritius Police Force and the New Mexico National Guard, as well as what she describes as the “enormous military-looking buildings” of the new US embassy in Mauritius.

Donat argues that the treaty could instead give Mauritius greater leverage over how Diego Garcia is used.

“Mauritius has publicly stated that the strikes launched from Diego Garcia against Iran breached international law,” he says. “That is not the position of a government staying silent to protect a lease payment.”

For Bancoult, those wider strategic questions are secondary to the need to ensure that elderly Chagossians have the chance to return to their homeland during their lifetimes.

“We are opposed to war, ethically, but we are also running out of time.”

The Chagos Refugees Group hopes to soon celebrate the 101st birthday of one of its members.

“God willing, he’ll stay with us for more years,” Bancoult says.

CNN Chairman and Chief Executive Mark Thompson could remain in his role at the news network after Paramount completes its deal to acquire the news network’s parent company, Warner Bros. Discovery.

Thompson, 69, is said to be in early stages of a discussions with Paramount Skydance Chief Executive David Ellison about continuing in the job he has held since April 2023, according to two people familiar with the matter who were not authorized to discuss it publicly.

The Wall Street Journal was first to report Thursday that Thompson has been approached by Ellison about staying with the network. A representative for Paramount declined to comment.

Retaining Thompson in his role would provide short-term relief to CNN staffers who are concerned about the change in ownership. As Paramount pursued its $111-million deal to acquire Warner Bros. Discovery — which is moving forward following a judge’s decision to settle an antitrust suit filed by state attorneys general who wanted to block the deal — the Ellison family have reportedly had discussions with President Trump about altering the network’s coverage, which he has often deemed as unfair.

As part of the settlement, Paramount agreed to the formation of an editorial 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.

Keeping Thompson at CNN raises questions of how CBS News Editor-in-chief Bari Weiss will be integrated into the new company.

Weiss, who joined the storied news division after Paramount acquired her contrarian digital news site the Free Press last year, has made major changes at “CBS Evening News” and the top rated newsmagazine “60 Minutes,” with no audience gains to show for it.

CNN insiders have been skeptical over how Weiss could take over the vastly larger and more profitable news organization based on her CBS track record so far.

CNN and CBS News are expected to consolidate some of their operations, such as its overseas bureaus. But there are obstacles to a rapid consolidation, as many CBS News employees work under union contracts. Most of CNN is not unionized.

But if Thompson remains, its likely he we will have the task of reducing costs, as the traditional TV audience that provides the bulk of revenues for both CNN and CBS News continues to shrink.

Thompson has been behind a major effort to generate more revenue from CNN’s digital operations, which now include a subscription streaming service that makes the channel available without a cable or satellite TV package. He oversaw the New York Times’ successful transformation into a dominant digital news product during his run as president and chief executive from 2012 to 2020.

The Paramount-Warner deal will close soon after a judge signed a settlement that ended the antitrust lawsuit brought by Calif. Atty. General Rob Bonta and 11 other attorneys general. The detente , however, has not cooled tensions between CNN and the White House.

CNN was scheduled to provide press pool coverage of Trump’s trip to Texas and Oklahoma on Thursday. But the White House removed the network from the pool, despite a judge’s order last week to block the administration’s attempt to ban access for some media outlets.

Last week, CNN, MS NOW and Politico were banned from White House grounds. Trump cited the outlets’ ongoing negative coverage of him as the reason for the ban. The administration later tried to argue in court that their coverage was a threat to national security.

Free-scoring All Blacks wing Fehi Fineanganofo has convinced Newcastle Red Bulls to delay his arrival on Tyneside so he can chase his dream of playing at the Rugby World Cup.

It was originally announced back in January that the 24-year-old had agreed a two-year deal with Newcastle, beginning at the start of the current campaign.

However, Fineanganofo’s exceptional form with the Wellington-based Hurricanes in Super Rugby then propelled him into Test reckoning.

He made his New Zealand debut against France in July.

Under All Blacks selection rules, a move overseas this year would have put Fineanganofo’s emerging international career on ice and ruled him out of contention for the Rugby World Cup, which begins in October 2027.

Newcastle have therefore allowed Fineanganofo to stay with the Hurricanes, for whom he broke the record for the most tries in a single Super Rugby campaign this year, for an extra season.

His Newcastle deal is still for two campaigns, but now covers the 2027-28 and 2028-29 seasons instead.

“I’m really grateful to Newcastle Red Bulls for the support and understanding they’ve shown me,” said Fineanganofo.

“The opportunity to stay in New Zealand and push for selection for the Rugby World Cup means a huge amount, and I’m fully committed to joining the club after the tournament and giving everything I can to the team.”

Newcastle’s sporting general manager Neil McIlroy said: “We are fully supportive of Fehi’s desire to represent his country at Rugby World Cup 2027, which marries with our own philosophy of aiming high and enabling our athletes to achieve their ambitions.

“Fehi’s arrival in 2027, with additional international experience that will only add to his already devastating qualities as a top-class winger, is another statement of intent around where this club is going.”

The compromise ends long-running uncertainty about Fineanganofo’s future.

In June, New Zealand Rugby denied they were attempting to put together a deal to get Fineanganofo out of his Newcastle contract.

Just a few weeks ago, Red Bulls’ head coach Dan McFarland said he expected Fineanganofo to arrive in November and play in the current campaign.

His side began the Prem season with former Ulster man Werner Kok, signed in June as doubts over Fineanganofo’s move increased, and 35-year-old Christian Wade as their first-choice wings.

McIlroy kept open the possibility of adding to the club’s options in that position.

“We are more than happy with the quality and depth that our existing squad possesses, but may yet choose to add to the outside back position if a player of the required standard becomes available,” he said.

Newcastle lost 59-26 away to defending champions Northampton on Friday in their league opener, and will take on Leicester at home on Saturday.

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.

Tehran, Iran – Hours after US President Donald Trump rejected a diplomatic solution put forward by Iran to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, explosions were heard in the waterway, according to Iranian media.

Reports of blasts near southern Iran’s Qeshm Island in the Strait of Hormuz suggested that multiple antiship missiles and drones were fired at vessels transiting the waterway against Tehran’s wishes.

While Iranian authorities did not confirm any attacks in the Strait of Hormuz that day, shipping continues to be attacked in the waters, including an Indian cargo ship last week, which killed a sailor.

The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) maintains that the strait is closed to any ship that does not coordinate with Iranian authorities. On Sunday afternoon, it released video of what it said was a second US underwater drone seized this month.

Tehran has issued instructions to shipping companies transiting the Strait of Hormuz to use a temporary route approved by Iranian authorities and pay relevant fees. But it has also said the strait will not fully reopen until the US blockade on Iranian ports ends.

Iran’s Persian Gulf Strait Authority announced on Saturday that it would blacklist any shipping charterer company which orders crews to use routes it considers to be unauthorised.

It also published what it described as an apology from an unnamed shipowner blaming commercial pressure from its charterer for trying to pass through the strait.

Washington still insists that its warships are successfully guiding oil tankers out of the strait via a different route. US Energy Secretary Chris Wright told Fox News on Sunday that the “running average” of crude oil in transit was nearly 13 million barrels per day.

A September 19 operational update by US Central Command claimed that its forces had helped move more than one billion barrels of crude out of the Gulf over roughly two months.

The US military also says its forces have redirected 122 commercial vessels to enforce the naval blockade of Iran’s ports, halting all Iranian crude exports.

Tehran has claimed that the US is providing false information regarding Strait of Hormuz traffic to project control over the key waterway. Shipping has been severely disrupted since the US and Israel started their war on Iran on February 28.

Andreas Krieg, associate professor at King’s College London, said Iran’s strategy of launching maritime attacks has spread the economic costs of the conflict beyond its borders.

While Iran has suffered economically from war damages, the US naval blockade and sanctions, it would be a mistake “to assume that reaching that threshold produces submission”.

“The next Iranian move is therefore likely to be an attempt to increase the pain experienced by the Gulf rather than simply absorb further American pressure,” Krieg said.

“That could mean more aggressive vessel interdictions in Hormuz, attacks on energy infrastructure, greater Houthi pressure around Bab al-Mandeb and pressure from Iranian-aligned groups against alternative Saudi export routes. We are already seeing how pressure on Hormuz, the Red Sea and Saudi infrastructure can interact.”

More escalation on the way

At the United Nations General Assembly in New York, Iran projected a message of defiance while also proposing to reopen the Strait of Hormuz within a week if its seven conditions were met.

They included lifting the blockade on Iran, the release of frozen Iranian funds and an end to attacks on all fronts, including Israel’s assault on Lebanon. The demands mostly amounted to a return to the June memorandum of understanding between the US and Israel.

Tehran has added that reopening the strait must be undertaken through a bilateral arrangement already finalised with Oman, the only other country with territorial waters in Hormuz.

US President Donald Trump told reporters he rejected the offer, but Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said on Sunday they were adamant about the conditions and would await an official response through mediators, such as Pakistan, Qatar and Oman.

Abolfazl Shekarchi, chief spokesman of the Iranian armed forces, warned that if the US further intervenes in the Strait of Hormuz, “it will get slapped”.

“The Americans have no way out other than withdrawing from the West Asia region. The sooner they leave, the fewer losses they will incur and the region will certainly become safe after that,” he said.

Iranian army spokesman Mohammad Akraminia  said conditions were deteriorating so badly for the US that it might launch another “military aggression” on Iran.

Krieg said that as the US moves to isolate Iran via sanctions, Tehran, unable to respond with mutual financial measures against Washington, will be forced to rely on continued coercion in the Strait of Hormuz.

“The most likely level remains controlled attrition rather than an immediate return to the massive air campaign of the opening months,” Krieg said.

“Over the coming weeks, I would expect further attacks or attempted attacks on tankers, US-enabled shipping and regional infrastructure, followed by limited US strikes against IRGC maritime assets, coastal missile positions, drones or vessels involved in those operations. That tit-for-tat cycle has already re-emerged around Hormuz.”

Donald Trump has rejected Iran’s latest proposal to end the war and reopen the Strait of Hormuz as experts say the United States president believes Washington has more to gain by waiting than by accepting Tehran’s terms at this moment.

“I reject their proposal,” Trump told reporters on Saturday, arguing that Iran wants an agreement because it is “losing so badly”.

“They want to make a deal, and I think that’s fine,” Trump said. “I’d like to make a deal too. But that deal would not be acceptable.”

On Sunday, Iranian ⁠⁠Foreign ⁠⁠Minister Abbas Araghchi said Tehran had ⁠⁠seen the initial reaction from ‌‌Trump to its proposal but had yet to receive a response through ⁠⁠mediators. In the latest diplomatic efforts, Qatar has played a role in mediating talks between Iran and the US on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly meeting in New York.

Iran’s seven-day proposal included Washington lifting its naval blockade of Iranian ports, waiving sanctions on Iranian oil sales, releasing an estimated $12bn in frozen Iranian assets and observing a wider regional ceasefire, including in Lebanon and Yemen.

Iran would then reopen the Strait of Hormuz and begin negotiations with Washington on a final agreement.

The latest proposals are similar to the June memorandum of understanding (MoU) the two countries signed. But the MoU collapsed last month due to differences on the terms of the deal, which resulted in an escalation in attacks, particularly in and around the Strait of Hormuz, which essentially remains under Iranian blockade.

According to experts, Trump’s rejection suggested that while both sides continue to publicly leave the door open for diplomacy, they remain far apart over who should make the first concessions.

“Trump’s calculation looks fairly straightforward. He believes the combination of the naval blockade and economic isolation is finally squeezing Iran hard enough that Tehran’s latest proposal is evidence of weakness rather than an offer Washington needs to seize,” Andreas Krieg, associate professor at King’s College London, told Al Jazeera.

His public argument that Iran is “losing badly” is important because it suggests he thinks time is improving the US bargaining position, Krieg said.

Why does Trump think he can wait?

A key part of Trump’s calculation appears to be a belief that the economic pressure on Iran has not yet run its course.

The Trump administration has escalated economic pressure on Tehran, tightening its naval blockade while imposing sanctions targeting Iranian oil revenues and threatening secondary sanctions against countries doing business with Tehran.

Last week, the US imposed aviation sanctions on Iran, disrupting flights. This came weeks after US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent announced an economic pressure campaign against Iran, promising to target Tehran’s financial interests across the world.

Richard Weitz, a senior nonresident associate fellow at the NATO Defence College, told Al Jazeera that the White House may believe it can “wait a bit and get better terms”.

There is also concern in Washington about Iran’s proposed sequencing, he said.

Therefore, Weitz said Washington may be calculating that “economic pressure over time will induce the Iranian government to make more concessions”.

“This is what occurred arguably a decade ago, leading to the 2015 Iran nuclear deal as the Iranian government decided it [the US] needed to end the economic sanctions in return for making concessions on its nuclear programme,” he added.

It is, therefore, possible that “we could see the same kind of trade-off in the coming months”.

Iran could make Trump ‘pay’

However, waiting for a deal also carries considerable political risk for the US president, experts said, because his Republican Party could lose November’s midterm elections.

A late August Reuters/Ipsos poll suggested 63 percent of Americans opposed the US-Israel war on Iran while 31 percent supported it. Rising fuel and transportation costs could also feed into broader cost-of-living concerns before the elections.

The problem for Trump is that time does not only increase pressure on Iran, Krieg said. “The gamble is that time cuts both ways,” he noted.

With the midterms approaching, Trump does not want to appear to lift the blockade, waive oil sanctions and release Iranian assets simply to regain access to a waterway that Iran itself disrupted, Krieg said.

“But every additional week also means elevated energy prices, continued military exposure and mounting pressure on Gulf partners.”

The essential closure of the Strait of Hormuz has disrupted oil and gas flows from the Gulf nations, which depend on energy exports to finance their budgets.

Mohamad Elmasry, a professor at the Doha Institute for Graduate Studies, told Al Jazeera that Iran’s proposal could be viewed as “kind of throwing a bone to Trump” by offering a potential route towards lower oil and gas prices before the vote.

However, Iran may decide “to make Trump pay for declining the proposal and the increased economic pressure the country is under”, he told Al Jazeera.

“They may decide that this is the time to escalate … just as the midterms are approaching.”

The Republican Party is not doing well in the polls, and a number of its candidates are “distancing themselves” from Trump, he noted. Polls indicated that Republicans could lose their slim majorities in the US Congress.

It’s not just the Iranians under severe economic pressure because of the US naval blockade and ongoing sanctions, “it’s also the Trump administration,” Elmasry said.

Trump’s wait for more Iranian concessions could ‘backfire’

Trump “wants Tehran to reopen Hormuz without Washington paying the full economic and political price Iran is currently demanding”, Krieg said.

“The danger is that he is confusing Iranian pain with Iranian willingness to capitulate. Those are not the same thing.”

Iran is undoubtedly under pressure. Krieg said the sanctions and blockade are “biting”, which is precisely why Tehran needs an agreement.

But additional pressure does not necessarily produce additional concessions.

Iran could instead increase the costs of the conflict for its adversaries, Krieg said, including through the Strait of Hormuz, regional infrastructure and potentially Bab al-Mandeb, another strait between Yemen and the Horn of Africa.

In recent weeks, the strategic weight of Bab al-Mandeb has increased dramatically after the Iran-aligned Houthis expanded their control of Yemen’s Red Sea coastline.

This advance in effect has handed the Houthis unrestricted access to the narrow waterway, a worrying development for global shipping given the group’s track record of targeting vessels, including Israeli-linked ships, in solidarity with Palestinians in Gaza.

The Houthis have already declared a naval blockade on Saudi ships in the Red Sea, which Riyadh began to use as an alternative shipping route to Hormuz for its oil exports.

“So this can backfire,” Krieg warned. “Trump thinks Iran’s clock is running faster than America’s. Tehran thinks the opposite: that Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, global energy markets and ultimately Trump himself have a lower tolerance for prolonged disruption than Iran has for economic punishment.”

Ross Harrison, a senior fellow at the Middle East Institute, similarly told Al Jazeera that Tehran may now be “less worried about overplaying their hand than they are underplaying their hand”.

According to Harrison, Tehran now sees the risk of escalation as less costly than agreeing to something prematurely or appearing willing to compromise, particularly after Washington’s response to the proposal.

In an interview with Al Jazeera that aired on Saturday, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian said his country no longer trusts negotiations with Washington after attacks occurred during previous rounds of talks and were followed by sanctions.

“We have no trust in the American side and do not know on what basis an understanding can be reached with it,” Pezeshkian said.

Tehran betting ‘heavily’ on time

US-based analyst Harrison noted that Tehran was probably “not surprised at all” by Trump’s rejection and viewed the offer partly as a way to demonstrate to Iranians and the American public that it remained willing to negotiate.

Experts said Tehran understands the US president wants an exit he can present as a victory.

“Iran is betting heavily on time. … Its strategy is to keep the pressure high enough that he eventually comes back to negotiations while making that exit progressively more expensive,” Krieg said.

“The Iranian calculation is essentially: Do not give Trump the deal cheaply when he may need it more badly several weeks or months from now.”

Harrison said the Iranian offer was a “show of goodwill” intended to demonstrate Iran’s willingness to negotiate to both its domestic audience and the American public.

According to Krieg, “protraction” of the conflict was the “most likely outcome”.

“Both sides need a deal, but both currently think waiting will improve the deal they eventually get,” he added.

SAN FRANCISCO — Stephen Curry has agreed to a two-year contract extension worth $116 million that would take him through the 2028-29 season, a person with direct knowledge of the deal told the Associated Press on Friday night.

The person spoke on condition of anonymity because the team had not announced the terms of Curry’s contract. Curry was eligible to command up to $136 million, so he is giving his team a discount as he backs up his longstanding commitment to finish his career with the Warriors.

Golden State general manager Mike Dunleavy said last month he was optimistic of getting something done with the two-time MVP and NBA career leader in three-pointers.

The 38-year-old Curry will complete a $62.6 million extension he signed for the 2026-27 season in August 2024 before the new contract takes him through 2029 — which would be his 20th season.

Curry averaged 26.6 points, 4.7 assists and 3.6 rebounds but was limited to 43 games last season because of injuries. He has won four NBA titles with Golden State, most recently in 2022.

ESPN first reported Curry’s deal.

McCauley writes for the Associated Press.

YouTube is holding onto its exclusive livestream deal with Coachella.

The tech giant in San Bruno, Calif., has renewed its partnership with festival promoter Goldenvoice, keeping exclusive livestream rights to the three-day desert festival through 2030. The next edition, in April 2027, will mark 15 years of Coachella on YouTube.

“We’re excited to bring the energy of the desert to millions of music fans around the world,” Neal Mohan, YouTube’s chief executive officer, said at its Made On YouTube event in New York City on Wednesday morning.

This year’s Coachella, headlined by Sabrina Carpenter, Justin Bieber and Karol G, drew the most concurrent viewers in the history of Coachella on YouTube, according to the company. Bieber, who was discovered on YouTube, even included a nostalgic homage to the platform into his set.

Over the years, the livestream has become an essential part of the Coachella experience, especially for fans who can’t make it to the desert. What started as a single feed has evolved into live coverage of every stage across both weekends.

Beyond Coachella, YouTube doubled down on livestreaming during its presentation, unveiling a slew of new live and AI-powered tools. In August, more than 600 million logged-in viewers watched live content on the platform each day on average, according to YouTube. The new live features include a new co-hosting function in which two creators can appear on the same stream together, and a live auto-dubbing tool that automatically translates speech in real time. Several of the updates are slated to roll out in early 2027.

“Whether it’s a music festival or a creator’s livestream, fandom is no longer a spectator sport,” added Mohan. “Just look at the sheer scale of the live communities we’re seeing today.”

YouTube isn’t the only streamer leaning into live. Netflix has spent the last few years buliding out its own live business, which now includes NFL and MLB games.

Former NFL star Antonio Brown has accepted a plea deal that will reduce the charge of attempted second-degree murder he’s facing in Florida to aggravated assault, his attorney told The Times on Wednesday.

The move will result in a significantly lighter sentence for the Super Bowl LV champion, according to attorney Mark Eiglarsh, who said Brown would receive three years of probation with the possibility of early termination after half that time is served.

A conviction for the first-degree felony of attempted second-degree murder with a firearm would have brought a prison sentence of 20 to 30 years.

Eiglarsh added that Brown will be given a withholding of adjudication, meaning he will not be considered a convicted felon. He also said that the main requirement of Brown’s probation is simply “staying away from the alleged victim, which he has no problem doing.”

“No community service hours,” Eiglarsh said. “No anger management. No evaluation psychologically. No drug treatment, no evaluations for anything like that. No letter of apology, no fines, nothing.”

A spokesperson for the Miami-Dade County state attorney’s office would not confirm that a plea deal had been reached, stating in an email that “whatever is to transpire regarding an open & pending case will be fully clarified at the next hearing,” which is scheduled for Sept. 30.

A warrant was issued for Brown’s arrest in June 2025 stemming from an altercation outside a celebrity kickboxing event in Miami the previous month. According to the warrant, “cell phone video obtained from social media” showed Brown advancing toward the other man with a gun in hand and captured “two shots which occur as Mr. Brown is within several feet” of the alleged victim.

Brown wasn’t arrested until November, when he was apprehended by U.S. Marshals in Dubai. He entered a not guilty plea to the first-degree felony charge of attempted second-degree murder with a firearm.

In December, Brown filed a motion for the case to be dismissed under Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law, which means an individual has no duty to retreat before using deadly force in certain circumstances of self-defense.

Earlier this month, the alleged victim, Zul-Qarnain Kwame Nantambu, released a statement through his attorney saying that he “does not wish to participate” in Brown’s prosecution.

In a statement sent to news organizations on Wednesday morning, Eiglarsh said that despite changing his plea, Brown still maintains that he acted lawfully during the incident.

“Antonio believes in his innocence. He believes strongly in his Stand Your Ground defense, and he believes he would ultimately prevail at trial,” Eiglarsh said. “But when prosecutors put an offer on the table that transforms a potential decades-long prison sentence into a significantly reduced charge and probation, there was simply no way he could reasonably turn it down.”

He added: “Antonio has eight children who depend upon him, and every additional day this case remains unresolved creates extraordinary obstacles for him in securing endorsement opportunities and other business opportunities necessary to support his family. He has spent more than 10½ months living under the cloud of a case with no realistic end in sight. At some point, closure has tremendous value.”

Islamabad, Pakistan – On September 16, a delegation from Powerus, a year-old United States drone company backed by two sons of President Donald Trump, was received by Pakistan’s military chief, Field Marshal Asim Munir, at military headquarters in Rawalpindi.

A day later, the company announced it had received a “limited procurement order” from Pakistan’s Ministry of Defence for unmanned aerial systems. It also said it had signed a separate memorandum of understanding (MoU) with senior Pakistani defence officials.

Neither the value of the order nor the systems involved have been disclosed. But for analysts studying Pakistan’s venture in drone technology, even bigger concerns have arisen from information that has since emerged.

Less than three months earlier, the same company had given an Indian defence manufacturer the exclusive right to make and sell its drone interceptor technology in India. And one of the cofounders of Powerus is an Israeli military veteran. Pakistan does not recognise Israel and accuses it of carrying out a genocide in Gaza.

Analysts are questioning why a country that already builds its own drones and buys others from China and Turkiye would turn to a company that was founded only last year – and has links to Israel and sells drones to India too.

“Pakistan technically already makes or is capable of making each of the drones shown by Powerus,” Bilal Khan, founder of the Quwa Group, a Toronto-based defence news and market intelligence platform, told Al Jazeera. “It’s unclear where Powerus fits in the long term [from Pakistan’s perspective].”

What did Pakistan sign?

In its statement on the meeting, Inter-Services Public Relations (ISPR), the Pakistani military’s media wing, said the two sides discussed cooperation in defence procurement, production and capacity building.

The statement did not mention the MoU.

But Powerus told Al Jazeera which institutions were involved. “The MoU was signed with the Pakistan army. The related procurement order was placed by Pakistan’s Ministry of Defence,” a company spokesperson said.

In its own statement, Powerus said the memorandum was not a definitive agreement, created no purchase obligation and would be subject to US laws and government approvals.

“We are proud to support Pakistan’s Ministry of Defence, and the memorandum gives both sides a strategic framework to build upon,” Brett Velicovich, the company’s cofounder, said in the statement.

According to media reports, Velicovich has also said the company is exploring ways to build technology in Pakistan.

The ISPR, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting did not respond to Al Jazeera’s requests for comment.

Founded in 2025 and based in Florida, Powerus is set to merge with Aureus Greenway Holdings, a Nasdaq-listed company that owns golf courses in the US state, in a deal expected to close in the final quarter of this year.

Donald Trump Jr and Eric Trump, President Trump’s oldest sons, are investors in Powerus through a vehicle called American Ventures, which is expected to hold a 9.9 percent beneficial stake in the combined company, according to US regulatory filings.

A spokesperson for Donald Trump Jr has told media outlets that he is a passive investor with no role in the company’s operations or contracts and had no prior knowledge of the Pakistan deals.

The White House has said there are no conflicts of interest.

The company makes about 3,000 interceptor drones a month, according to media reports, and last month won a US Air Force contract with a ceiling of up to $90m.

Asked how it addresses conflict of interest questions while pursuing government defence work in the US and abroad, Powerus said the Trump brothers played no part in its operations.

“Trump’s sons are not advisers to Powerus and have no involvement in how the company runs its business or structures its defence relationships, domestically or internationally. They hold no corporate-governance role. Our government relationships are pursued on their own merits,” the company told Al Jazeera.

The India question

Powerus’s first deal in South Asia, however, was not in Pakistan.

It was in India, Pakistan’s archrival, with which Pakistan fought a brief but intense conflict in May last year, one in which drones were used by both sides.

In a June 30 filing to India’s stock exchanges, Paras Defence and Space Technologies said Powerus had granted it an exclusive licence to manufacture and sell its Guardian-1 interceptor technology in India.

Mansoor Ahmed, an honorary lecturer at the Australian National University’s Strategic and Defence Studies Centre, said Washington has long armed rival states.

“The US has previously sold F-16s to Greece and Turkiye and Egypt and Israel and is now selling F-35s to Saudi Arabia, which Israel already operates,” he told Al Jazeera.

A former Pakistani government defence analyst who spoke on condition of anonymity said Pakistani planners had probably known about the Indian deal.

“Pakistan’s defence planners were likely aware of Powerus’s engagement with India,” he told Al Jazeera.

This isn’t the first time that Pakistan and India have ended up buying military equipment from the same company, the defence analyst pointed out. He cited the build-up to the conflict over the Siachen Glacier, where India launched Operation Meghdoot in April 1984 to take control of the heights.

“In 1983, Pakistan ordered high-altitude warfare gear from a London supplier, unaware that the same firm also provided gear to the Indian army, and subsequently, India learnt of it and planned Operation Meghdoot in 1984,” he said.

The analyst said the burden now lies with the company.

“In the present case, the challenge is more for Powerus than Pakistan or India as Powerus’s management must ensure it can manage and meet the requirements of two adversaries without jeopardising either side’s operational security.”

A retired Pakistan air force air marshal who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorised to speak publicly said the arrangement carries risks for Pakistan.

“Two adversary countries procuring from the same source has its pitfalls, especially when one of the adversaries has taken the lead as well as has a larger financial capacity,” he told Al Jazeera.

An Israeli link

The company’s leadership also has links to Israel, a country Pakistan does not recognise.

Powerus’s website described one of its cofounders, Ziv Marom, as a veteran of the Israeli military and said he founded Kaizen Aerospace, now a Powerus subsidiary.

Another senior executive, Justin Gans, the company’s vice president for mergers and acquisitions and a former member of the US Navy SEAL special forces, served as a vice president at Elbit Systems of America, the US arm of the Israeli defence company Elbit Systems, from 2018 to 2019.

A retired three-star army Pakistani general who served in senior roles before retiring in 2019 and requested anonymity because of the sensitivity of the subject said such a background would normally draw attention during vetting.

“So under normal circumstances, a cofounder’s service in the Israeli military would be flagged as a sensitivity marker, even if the company itself is American,” he told Al Jazeera.

“In other words, for a serious acquisition, this background would be scrutinised carefully. For a political MoU, it may not have been a decisive factor.”

Quwa’s Khan, however, said Pakistan has long accepted Israeli components inside US or European systems.

“We can see that, generally, as long as there’s a country in the middle, Pakistan does not have qualms being in close proximity to Israel,” he said. “However, the two sides very, very rarely talk to each other.”

What drone technology does Pakistan already have?

Beyond questions over who else Powerus works with, analysts said the more fundamental issue is what Pakistan actually needs from the company.

Pakistan’s air force has publicly displayed Turkish-made Bayraktar TB2 and Akinci drones, Chinese-made Wing Loong II drones and the domestically developed Shahpar-II.

China supplied 80 percent of Pakistan’s arms imports from 2021 to 2025, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute.

This month, the Pakistan air force revealed in a video that it had incorporated into its forces China’s HQ-17AE air defence missile system and Turkiye’s Korkut anti-aircraft gun and Sahin counterdrone system, all built to take on drones and other low-flying threats.

Khan said the state-owned Heavy Industries Taxila was also working with private firms to develop interceptor drones.

“So as it stands, Pakistan is following all the right best practices to build its C-UAS posture,” he said, referring to counterdrone systems.

“For Pakistan, the challenge isn’t whether it can get the designs but whether it can produce or induct these in large enough numbers fast enough.”

An official at a private drone manufacturer in Rawalpindi who requested anonymity because he is not authorised to speak to the media said Pakistan’s drone market has grown well beyond state-run firms.

Dozens of private companies and more than half a dozen state-owned enterprises now make drones besides the army’s own production facilities, he said. According to him, Powerus would have to compete with all of them on the quality of its products.

The retired general offered a different reading of why Pakistan might be interested in a tie-up with a US firm.

“The gap is not drone manufacturing. It is electronics, integration and systems-level capability, which is where American firms traditionally dominate,” he said. “How far this particular company can help in this regard is a million-dollar question.”

Powerus’s Guardian interceptors are small, low-cost drones designed to knock down incoming drones. They are a weapon widely used by both sides in the war in Ukraine.

Hammad Waleed, a research associate at the Islamabad-based Strategic Vision Institute, said such systems fill a cost gap that conventional air defences cannot.

“Traditional air defences use costly missiles against incoming cheaper drones,” he told Al Jazeera. “Interceptor drones are way cheaper and easier to operate than traditional air defences.”

Capability or signalling?

The retired Pakistani general, who has experience with defence production, said a supplier of this kind would normally face financial, technical and security checks as well as a review of its track record.

“A company less than a year old, not yet listed and without a delivery record would not usually clear these checks for a strategic defence partnership,” he said.

“Such firms are typically considered too immature unless the MoU is political signalling rather than a procurement decision.”

Khan agreed that the process has been unusual.

“Yes, the way this deal came about is not generally in line with how the procurement heads of the tri-services typically operate,” he said, referring to the three branches of Pakistan’s military.

The Powerus agreements were made as Munir has built close ties with President Trump, who has called him “my favourite field marshal” and praised him on several occasions during the past 15 months.

In September last year, weeks after Pakistan signed a $500m critical minerals agreement with a US company, Munir and Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif met President Trump at the White House, where the Pakistani leaders presented him with samples of Pakistani minerals.

In January, Pakistan also signed an MoU with an affiliate of World Liberty Financial, the Trump family’s main cryptocurrency business.

Khan said Pakistan’s security establishment needs to ask what it is getting in return for that closeness.

“There was a time when such gains were measured in F-16s and the billions in US financial assistance, yet today, we are seeing more photo ops and supposed pacts that obligate the armed forces, but are they helping the armed forces as a fighting force?”

He also offered what he called a “less cynical take”.

Pakistan has a growing number of drone start-ups that lack the capital to build production facilities, he said, and ties with Powerus could draw US investment into them.

“So there is an argument that building rapport with Powerus and its backers can lead to that capital,” Khan said.

Ahmed said Pakistan is looking beyond a single purchase.

“Pakistan’s primary interest appears to be the acquisition of state-of-the-art drone technologies that also allow for local production and indigenisation,” he said.

What about China and Turkiye?

The retired Pakistani general said bringing in a foreign private company could overlap with Pakistan’s existing Chinese and Turkish partnerships.

“It has the potential of being seen by Turkiye and China as Pakistan hedging politically,” he said.

Khan, however, disagreed.

“There’d be no issue with the Turks as they work with US companies all the time and the drones on offer by Powerus don’t overlap with the ones NASTP is designing with Turkiye,” he said, referring to Pakistan’s National Aerospace Science and Technology Park.

He added that any Powerus designs built cheaply in Pakistan would still rely on Chinese parts.

“With the Chinese, it’d be less of an issue because, ultimately, the only way to make these Powerus designs at a low enough cost for the Pakistani armed forces to induct is to literally import the upstream subassemblies from China.”

Waleed said the deal would not dent Pakistan’s defence ties with Beijing and Ankara.

“Pakistan is prioritising China and Turkiye for the sophisticated and modern combat systems in the drone and counterdrone domain. That relationship is not only unaffected and is going upwards in trajectory,” he said.

For now, Khan said, the real test of the Powerus deal would be what follows it.

“I would not pass judgement on the Powerus deal yet, but we can track whether it’s serious by seeing if the MoD [Ministry of Defence] signs similar deals with other foreign and local vendors in the coming months,” he said.

“Basically, will we see a consistent pattern moving forward, or will this be a one-off?”

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 United States, Denmark and Greenland are preparing to sign an agreement that could reshape the American military presence in the Arctic and ease a diplomatic dispute that has strained relations within NATO.

US President Donald Trump is due to meet Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen and Greenland Prime Minister Jens Frederik Nielsen in New York on Tuesday for a trilateral signing ceremony. The agreement is expected to allow Washington to expand its military infrastructure on Greenland, a strategically located and mineral rich territory of the Kingdom of Denmark.

The deal follows months of tension after Trump refused to rule out using military or economic pressure to bring Greenland under US control. The comments triggered a diplomatic crisis with Denmark and raised concerns about divisions within NATO.

The US military presence is set to expand

The agreement is expected to give the United States access to two additional military sites in Greenland, alongside the existing Pituffik Space Base.

One of the proposed locations is Narsarsuaq, a former Cold War airbase where only a small population remains. The other is Mestersvig, which is currently used by the Sirius Dog Sled Patrol, an elite Danish special forces unit.

The expansion would significantly increase the US military footprint on the island and mark the first major expansion of American military infrastructure there since the Cold War.

During that period, the United States operated 17 installations in Greenland and had more than 10,000 personnel on the island.

Greenland’s location between North America and the Arctic gives it considerable strategic importance. Its geography also places it close to major Arctic routes and areas of growing competition involving Russia, the United States and other NATO members.

NATO could play a larger role

Danish Foreign Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen has said the agreement would place Arctic security more firmly within NATO’s collective framework rather than leaving responsibility primarily to Washington and Copenhagen.

That could be significant because the Greenland dispute exposed tensions within the alliance at a time when NATO members are already facing growing security concerns in the Arctic.

The Arctic has become increasingly important to NATO because of its geography, military access and emerging economic opportunities. Greater US military activity in Greenland could therefore become part of a wider alliance approach to Arctic security.

However, the precise role NATO would play remains unclear because the full text of the agreement has not yet been published.

What happens to Greenland’s sovereignty?

The agreement also leaves questions about the balance between US security interests, Danish sovereignty and Greenland’s aspirations for greater autonomy.

Greenland is a self governing territory within the Kingdom of Denmark. Its government has repeatedly maintained that decisions about Greenland’s future must involve Greenlanders themselves.

Trump said on Friday that the agreement would give the United States “permanent control over security, and all other needs, in Greenland.”

Denmark has not endorsed that description. Copenhagen has instead said that the agreement respects the kingdom’s sovereignty and Greenland’s right to self determination.

It remains unclear whether the agreement will modify the 1951 US Denmark defence treaty, which has provided the legal basis for America’s military presence on the island, or establish a separate framework.

From acquisition ambitions to military access

The agreement represents a significant shift from Trump’s earlier push to acquire Greenland outright.

Greenland is roughly three times the size of Texas but has a population of only about 57,000 people, concentrated in small communities along its coastline. The island is also rich in natural resources, adding an economic dimension to its strategic importance.

Trump’s earlier comments about potentially using economic or military pressure to obtain Greenland created an unusual dispute between the United States and Denmark, both members of NATO.

The new agreement appears to offer a different approach: rather than changing Greenland’s sovereignty, Washington would gain a substantially larger military presence on the island.

Why does Greenland matter to the US?

Greenland’s strategic location makes it important to North American and Arctic defence. It sits between the United States, Europe and the Arctic and can provide access for monitoring activity across the region.

For Washington, expanding military infrastructure could strengthen its ability to monitor Arctic air and maritime activity and support wider North American defence.

For Denmark and Greenland, however, the issue involves more than military strategy. Any expansion of US activity has to operate within Denmark’s sovereignty over the territory and Greenland’s right to determine its political future.

The agreement therefore seeks to address two competing pressures at once: the United States’ desire for greater Arctic security access and Denmark and Greenland’s insistence that such cooperation must not amount to a transfer of sovereignty.

If signed as expected, the deal could mark a new phase in the Arctic relationship between the three governments. It would not resolve every disagreement over Greenland’s future, but it could replace the earlier confrontation over US acquisition with a more structured framework for American military access and NATO security cooperation.

With information from Reuters.

NEW YORK — President Trump threatened to escalate the war with Iran by “annihilating” the Islamic Republic if it fails to negotiate a deal over its nuclear program, delivering a defensive speech justifying the mission at the United Nations on Tuesday.

His remarks come more than six months into a war that has grown increasingly unpopular at home, with fewer than a third of Americans approving of the president’s handling of the conflict, according to recent polls.

“I have a big decision to make,” he told world leaders gathered at the U.N. General Assembly in New York, with Iranian diplomats in attendance.

“Will a deal be made with Iran that lets them rebuild and create a far greater country than it ever was before — maybe one of the greatest in the Middle East or even the world? Or do I annihilate the Islamic Republic, and do it quickly, never giving them a chance to kill and destroy again?

“Do I drive them into hell,” he continued, “with no chance of survival and no hope of future greatness?”

The war has carried steep political costs for the president and his party ahead of the U.S. midterm elections in November, increasing inflation and energy prices due to disruptions in commercial shipping traffic through key waterways in the Middle East.

Defense officials say the conflict has also placed a huge burden on U.S. munitions stockpiles, as Iran continues firing ballistic missiles and drones at American assets and bases throughout the region.

But Trump denied that the war has depleted U.S. stocks. “That’s not true,” he said.

“I believe we’ll make a deal right after the election,” Trump said. “We must be equally united in maintaining pressure.”

The rise in global gas prices has sparked protests around the world. But Trump’s vow to ensure Tehran never acquires a nuclear weapon — an issue that for decades united the international community — generated applause throughout the chamber.

Launching Operation Epic Fury in February, Trump projected the campaign would last roughly six weeks, with the stated objective of disabling Iran’s ballistic missile program, its navy and its nuclear infrastructure. He also vowed a day would soon come when the Iranian people could rise up against their government and reclaim their country.

More than six months later, the Islamic Republic stands. Iran’s ballistic missiles continue to test U.S. air defenses across the Middle East, shipping through the Strait of Hormuz remains depressed, and talks over the future of Iran’s nuclear program have collapsed.

Explaining his decision to start the war, Trump said that he decided not to let the problem of Iran’s nuclear work “fester,” and warned that its ballistic missile program was being designed as a shield to protect its nuclear program from foreign attack.

“Iran’s goal was to complete their mad dash to a nuclear bomb from behind this conventional nuclear shield,” Trump said. “They were the bully of the Middle East, but they’re the bully no more.”

The United States has repeatedly offered a deal with Iran that would open up economic cooperation between the two nations in exchange for an end to their nuclear work, he said.

“They absolutely refused,” he added. “That was a big mistake.”

Published on 22/09/2026 – 11:54 GMT+2•Updated
12:00

The European Commission struck a trade agreement with the Philippines on Tuesday, stepping up its diversification strategy across the Indo-Pacific region.

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

The deal comes more than a year after the US introduced sweeping new tariffs on many of its trading partners, prompting retaliatory measures and adding to global trade tensions.

Since then, the EU has been seeking new trade ties, recently concluding major deals with India, Australia and Indonesia.

“This agreement sends a clear signal that the EU is reinforcing its engagement with the Indo-Pacific,” EU Trade Commissioner Maroš Šefčovič said on Tuesday.

“Half of global consumers are covered by European Free trade agreements. Nobody else has this advantage.”

“Squeeze on supply chains”

The new agreement will give EU businesses access to a market of 113 million people, and remove over 94% of customs duties. It will cover more than 97% of bilateral trade, including EU exports of machinery, medicines and medical appliances, as well as agri-products such as meat, pork, poultry and spirits.

Exports from the Philippines are dominated by semiconductors, integrated circuits and industrial machinery.

The deal should also facilitate EU investment in raw materials in the Philippines, as the EU seeks to move away from China, which holds a monopoly on key raw materials.

Bilateral trade in goods between the EU and the Philippines was €17.6 billion in 2025, while trade in services reached €10.3 billion in 2024. The stock of EU foreign direct investment in the Philippines amounted to €15.4 billion.

Šefčovič also said there was a “mutual interest” with countries in the wider Indo-Pacific area “to address the current global turbulence” and “the squeeze on the supply chains.”

Brussels says China has weaponised critical products for EU industry such as chips and rare earths in 2025, jeopardising whole sectors such as the car industry.

The Commissioner added that trade deals with Thailand and Malaysia were next on the EU agenda, with an agreement with Bangkok foreseen by the end of the year.

Henry Pollock has brought an end to his contract stand-off with Northampton, saying it was ultimately “a very easy decision” to sign an extension with the defending Prem champions.

“I am very, very happy to sign here,” Pollock told BBC Radio Northampton.

“I have been here my whole career so it made sense for me to stay on the journey with such a young group of players, who are so ambitious.

“It was a very easy decision in the end.”

The 21-year-old, whose profile has exploded over the past two seasons after appearing for England and the British and Irish Lions, had been talked up as a “seven-figure player” during negotiations by his advisor Eddie Hearn.

However, the boxing promoter’s valuation was never likely to be met at Northampton or elsewhere in the Prem, given Saints’ star-studded line-up, the league’s £6.4m squad salary cap and rules over players moving between clubs.

The exact level of Pollock’s pay increase is unclear. While some sources have valued his new contract at £400,000 a year, others involved in the deal say the figure is higher.

It is certainly short of Scotland playmaker Finn Russell, who, as Bath’s marquee player, is on the league’s most lucrative package, worth about £1m a year.

Pollock’s pay puts him well ahead of most of his contemporaries in the Prem however.

His new deal is comfortably ahead of the average annual salary in the league (£191,000), the average earned by someone in his 20-22 age bracket (£106,000) and with his level of international experience (£224,000), as revealed by the latest league payroll data, covering the 2024-25 campaign., external

Only 4% of Prem players that season were paid in excess of £400,000 a year.

Pollock’s previous contract, signed in December 2024, is understood to have been worth about £150,000.

Did California come out a winner when Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta settled a multi-state lawsuit against Paramount Skydance on Monday, allowing its $111-billion purchase of Warner Bros. Discovery to move forward?

That’s the question everyone is trying to figure out, as the 32-page agreement is parsed, with pundits pouring over minutiae of cable streaming and tax credits. I’ll leave that to the business experts, but I’m here to give you a big picture of politics, power and possibilities — and one short but unsatisfying answer about whether this deal is good for the Golden State: Yes and no.

I’ll start with this: Did California win is the wrong question. There was always something bigger at play here that was lost behind the fear of further decimation to an industry so central and crucial to the state. The question the lawsuit asked is, “Do we live in an America where government institutions are so broken that power makes its own rules?”

The settlement might not give the entertainment industry all it hoped for but it was “a fight worth fighting,” said George Hay, a professor at Cornell Law School and a former attorney with the U.S. Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division, because it sought to answer that question in favor of consumers, and showed that states like California can and will step up to fill a dangerous void.

Under the Trump administration, the U.S. Department of Justice hasn’t so much abdicated its responsibility to enforce antitrust laws — it has embraced an oligarchic ethos that seems happy to feed the American economy into the mouths of behemoths, allowing companies such as Paramount free reign to gobble up whatever lies in their paths like an old-school Pac-Man.

Our president personally invests in industries he’s supposed to regulate (I’m looking at you, Silicon Valley). Corporations dump money into elections that average people can never hope to match. The free press is under increasing attack with multiple outlets banned from the White House — including CNN, which Paramount hopes to own along with CBS and whose editorial independence is at least addressed in this settlement, albeit weakly.

States, even powerful states such as New York and California, don’t have the muscle or money of the federal apparatus, and were never meant to play the role of national enforcer on issues such as these.

The fact that Bonta and the 11 other states involved in the antitrust litigation pulled together not just a credible, but effective team is a victory for all American consumers, and a message to other Pac-Man companies out there that even if federal regulation is on life support, there are still rules.

The states “showed that they could quickly and effectively put together a formidable litigation team, and achieve significant initial success. That’s a big deal. That that changes the role of the states for a long time into the future,” said William Kovacic. He’s a law professor at George Washington University and a former chair of the Federal Trade Commission, so like Hay, he knows a bit about antitrust enforcement.

“This has a ripple effect that goes through the entire federal enforcement system because they showed they could do something that was very difficult,” Kovacic said. “That’s a big institutional win for the states.”

To hear Bonta describe it, California is absolutely a winner in its own right, though, and this will be “very good” for the state. Which to be fair, is exactly what any decent politician would say.

“It will be good for consumers, good for prices, good for jobs, good for choice, quality, competition,” Bonta told me Monday afternoon.

Kovacic is a bit more measured, calling it a “modest win.”

The deal has many parts, but it covers a five-year period in which the new Paramount mega-studio must release between 30 to 32 films each year, many in theaters and some independent. It also has to keep open and running both the Paramount and Warner Bros. lots, a not-insignificant source of L.A. jobs — and maybe one of the most visible wins for the city.

The new company also must spend at least $1.5 billion over the five years on production in the U.S., and increase that figure if there are certain, uncapped federal or state tax credits available to them.

In California, where the budget deficit is in the billions, creating uncapped credits may be a hard sell, but Bonta told me he’s making it a priority in the next legislative session and will push the next governor — likely Xavier Becerra, who once held his job — to back them.

“I think we’re going to get it in California,” he said. It’s somewhat important because the settlement doesn’t specifically address production in California — and tax credits from other states have been drawing production away for years.

We’ll see how successful Bonta is on that endeavor — he hasn’t always gotten what he wants from governors.

Much has been made about the recent threats from Paramount Skydance Chief Executive David Ellison to move business operations out of California. That pressure has been cited as one of the factors pushing the state to settle, and it probably was — but not just because of Ellison.

Gov. Gavin Newsom made it clear that he preferred a settlement to a drawn-out court case, especially after that threat.

You may recall our governor has presidential aspirations, and is in a long-running battle with Trump over whether California is a wasteland for business beset by fraud and regulation, or a utopia of economic activity fueling the world’s fourth largest economy. Paramount reupping its threat to leave, or even worse, decamping for someplace such as Nashville, is not a great look.

So this case, which was never going to be a slam-dunk to win in court and which could easily have run into 2028 if it proceeded, was never a winning issue for Newsom.

Newsom Monday called the deal “a practical path forward,” which it definitely is — for him.

Hay, of Cornell, said it was a “big blow” when the governor failed to back Bonta and go all-in on litigation.

“Once [Newsom] once came out on the other side, it made things really, really difficult,” Hay said.

So there was pressure on Bonta to make a deal even from his friends, though Bonta told me that “what you call pressure was just noise to me. I never felt pressured in this process.”

But of course, nearly everything that happens in politics and litigation is about pressure — who has the power to apply it and who has the power to withstand it. Bonta, to his credit, applied pressure where Paramount never expected it.

“If I were in California, I’d be proud of the attorney general. At the end of the day, he got the best he could,” Hay said. “I’m glad they were there when the government bailed out because it made Paramount tow the line, and maybe that’s all that we could hope for.”

The Paramount settlement is more about possible than perfect, but it proved that states — and consumers — are not powerless, and every brawl that proves that is, as Hay said, a fight worth fighting.