Financial

Democratic lawmakers are demanding scrutiny into Paramount Skydance’s financial backers amid rising concerns about potential foreign influence of U.S. media properties.

In a letter this week to Federal Communications Commission Chairman Brendan Carr, seven U.S. senators criticized Carr’s suggestion that Paramount’s $111-billion bid for Warner Bros. Discovery, backed by billionaire Larry Ellison and his family, was on a fast track to receive FCC approval with scant oversight.

Such complicated mergers typically receive an intense government review. The proposed merger would combine two legendary film studios, dozens of cable channels, HBO, CBS and two major news organizations, CNN and CBS News.

Ellison and his son, David, who chairs Paramount, are friendly with President Trump, who has long agitated for changes at CNN, which is slated to be absorbed by Paramount.

The company has said it expects to complete the deal by the end of September.

The Democrats expressed concerns that the fix may be in. Trump’s Justice Department has been reviewing whether the merger would violate U.S. antitrust laws, but a key deadline passed last month without comment from the department’s antitrust regulators.

Also at issue is the Middle Eastern money the Ellison family has been expecting to pull off Paramount’s leveraged buyout of its larger entertainment company rival. The acquisition would leave the combined company with nearly $80 billion in debt.

Late last year, Paramount disclosed that it had lined up $24 billion from wealth funds representing the royal families of Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Abu Dhabi, who would then become equity partners in the combined company.

Paramount has described the funds as largely passive investors, saying the royal families would not have input into corporate decision-making. They also would not control seats on the Paramount-Warner board.

Congressional Democrats previously have warned about potential national security concerns. The senators, led by Cory Booker (D-N.J.) and Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), remain concerned, particularly because the transaction will help shape the future of Hollywood production and the direction of key news outlets, including CNN, which maintains a strong presence around the world.

Members of the party have called on Carr to conduct “a full and independent” analysis of the foreign ownership interests before signing off on the merger. The FCC could play an important role, they said, because the tie-up includes Paramount-owned CBS, which holds FCC broadcast station licenses.

Paramount declined to comment. FCC officials did not respond to a request for comment.

Booker and Schumer pointed to Carr’s comments at an industry conference in Spain earlier this month. During an appearance at the Mobile World Congress, Carr suggested the Paramount-Warner deal could be swiftly approved because the foreign investment would warrant only a “very quick, almost pro forma review,” Carr reportedly said.

The FCC has a duty to examine foreign ownership, the lawmakers said, referencing the U.S. Communications Act, which forbids owners from outside the U.S. from holding more than 25% of the equity or voting interests in an entity that maintains an FCC license.

The lawmakers mentioned the FCC’s move earlier this year to tighten its foreign ownership framework to bolster transparency.

Paramount has not yet disclosed its final list of equity partners.

The company previously disclosed its proposed partners in Securities & Exchange Commission filings. However, last month, the composition of the Paramount-Warner deal changed when Larry Ellison agreed to fully guarantee the $45.7-billion in equity needed to finance the $31-a-share buyout of Warner investors.

Before Ellison stepped up, Warner board members had expressed concerns about Paramount’s financing. The tech billionaire’s increased involvement helped carry the Paramount deal over the finish line. Netflix bowed out Feb. 26, ceding the prize to Paramount.

Still, Paramount is expected to line up billions of dollars from outside investors.

It would be significant if Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund, the Qatar Investment Authority and Abu Dhabi’s L’imad Holding Co., contributed $24 billion to the deal, the Democrats wrote.

“This is not incidental capital, it represents roughly one-fifth of the total transaction value,” Booker and the others wrote. “And it is not clear that this will be the only foreign investment.”

Initially, Paramount included Chinese technology company Tencent Holdings as a minority investor, but Paramount later removed Tencent from the investor pool due to concerns about its problematic status — it has been blacklisted by the U.S. Department of Defense.

Bloomberg News reported earlier this month that Tencent might return to the fold.

“This constellation of foreign investment from China and from Gulf States, with complex and sometimes competing relationships with the United States, demands rigorous, not perfunctory review,” Booker and the others wrote.

The letter also was signed by Sens. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) and Mazie K. Hirono (D-Hawaii).

They keyed in on the role of Saudi Arabia’s sovereign wealth fund, saying it was controlled by Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman “whom the U.S. intelligence community concluded ordered the murder of Washington Post journalist Jamal Khashoggi in 2018.”

The proposed $24-billion investment would give “these governments a significant financial stake in the future content, licensing, and strategic decisions of a combined entity that includes some of the most-watched news and entertainment networks in America.”

It is also unclear whether the current tensions in the Middle East over the Iran war will have an impact on Paramount’s investor syndicate.

Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner, a proposed Paramount investor, also withdrew late last year.

Paramount shares held steady at $9.17. The company’s stock is down 31% since Feb. 27, when the company prevailed in the Warner auction.

Black smoke could be seen in Dubai’s financial district where witnesses reported hearing explosions on Friday morning. Authorities there said a building was hit by debris from an intercepted missile.

The surge in oil prices triggered by the war in Iran is increasingly becoming a major concern for global central banks, which are closely monitoring the potential economic and financial consequences of the shock.

More than a week of conflict in the Middle East has disrupted energy supply routes and pushed crude prices sharply higher, raising fresh fears about inflation. For policymakers already grappling with fragile economic conditions, the oil spike presents a complex policy dilemma.

Historically, oil shocks have posed a difficult challenge for central banks. Rising energy prices can drive inflation higher while simultaneously weakening consumer spending and business activity by raising costs. In such circumstances, policymakers face an uncomfortable choice: tighten policy to control inflation or ease financial conditions to support economic growth and employment.

The current situation could potentially produce both outcomes at once, creating a scenario where inflation rises even as economic demand weakens a combination that complicates monetary policy decisions.

Inflation Versus Economic Growth

Central banks traditionally respond to inflationary pressures by raising interest rates or maintaining tighter monetary policy. Some policymakers argue that responding quickly to inflation triggered by an oil shock can prevent inflation expectations from becoming entrenched and reduce longer-term economic damage.

Others, however, advocate “looking through” temporary energy-driven price spikes, arguing that aggressive tightening could unnecessarily damage economic growth. This approach gained prominence after the pandemic, when many central banks initially viewed inflation as temporary a judgment widely criticised in hindsight.

The decision facing policymakers now depends on several uncertainties, including how long the conflict lasts, how severely energy supplies are disrupted, and whether governments intervene with subsidies or price caps to protect consumers.

Given these unknowns, many central banks may prefer to adopt a cautious approach, waiting to see how markets and economic conditions evolve before making significant policy adjustments.

Financial Stability Risks Enter the Picture

Beyond inflation and growth concerns, central banks must also consider a third responsibility that has gained prominence since the global financial crisis: financial stability.

Senior policymakers worry that the oil shock could expose vulnerabilities that have been building in global financial markets for years. A large macroeconomic disturbance involving energy prices, inflation, interest rates and currency volatility could trigger a broader financial stress event.

Much of the concern centres on the growing role of “shadow banking” institutions, financial intermediaries operating outside traditional banking regulation. These entities have become increasingly important providers of credit to companies and governments.

One major area of focus is the rapid expansion of private credit funds, which now manage more than $3 trillion globally. These funds allow asset managers to lend directly to businesses, often outside the scrutiny of public markets or traditional banking standards.

Regulators worry that during a major shock, investors could rapidly withdraw funds from these vehicles, potentially creating liquidity problems for borrowers and spillover risks for banks that help finance or manage the funds.

Pressure in Bond and Repo Markets

Another major source of concern lies in government bond markets, where highly leveraged hedge funds have become increasingly active. Many of these funds use repurchase agreements, or “repo” markets, to borrow money and finance large trades involving government bonds.

These strategies often rely on exploiting small price differences between cash bonds and futures contracts, but they involve substantial leverage. While such activity can help smooth government financing, it can also create systemic vulnerabilities during periods of market stress.

The Financial Stability Board, which monitors risks to the global financial system for the G20, warned earlier this year that sudden deleveraging in repo markets could disrupt sovereign bond markets.

More than $16 trillion in repo transactions backed by government bonds were outstanding last year, with about 60% concentrated in the United States. A sudden withdrawal of leveraged investors could therefore have significant ripple effects across global financial markets.

New Fragilities: Stablecoins and Technology Stocks

Regulators are also monitoring emerging risks linked to digital finance. Stablecoins cryptocurrencies pegged to traditional currencies such as the U.S. dollar have grown rapidly and are increasingly investing reserves in government bonds.

With the stablecoin market now worth roughly $300 billion and expanding, any loss of confidence in these assets could trigger large-scale sales of the bonds that back them. Such an event could add stress to already volatile financial markets.

At the same time, some investors remain concerned about high valuations and heavy market concentration in the rapidly growing artificial intelligence sector, which could amplify market volatility during periods of economic uncertainty.

Analysis: Oil Shock Could Trigger Wider Financial Stress

The Iran war oil shock illustrates how geopolitical crises can interact with financial vulnerabilities to create broader economic risks.

Higher energy prices directly increase inflation and strain household finances. At the same time, they can force central banks to reconsider interest-rate policies, potentially leading to higher borrowing costs and greater volatility in financial markets.

Such conditions could expose weaknesses in highly leveraged sectors of the financial system, particularly in shadow banking, hedge funds and digital financial markets.

Although previous shocks including the economic turmoil following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine did not ultimately trigger a major financial crisis, policymakers remain cautious. The brief turmoil in the U.S. regional banking sector in 2023 demonstrated how quickly financial stress can emerge when economic conditions shift.

If oil prices remain elevated and central banks are forced to respond aggressively, the resulting tightening of financial conditions could amplify existing vulnerabilities across markets.

For now, the disturbances appear manageable. But the combination of geopolitical conflict, energy market disruption and financial fragility ensures that central banks will continue to watch the situation with increasing concern.

With information from Reuters.