Paramount has named Kenneth R. Weinstein, former head of a conservative-leaning Washington think tank, to be ombudsman for CBS News, fulfilling a condition of winning the Trump administration’s approval for an $8-billion merger.
The company announced Monday “that complaints from consumers, employees and others” about CBS News stories will go to Weinstein, who will help determine if remedial action is necessary.
Weinstein, who served as president and chief executive of the Hudson Institute, will report to Jeff Shell, who is president of Paramount under new owner and CEO David Ellison.
Weinstein will address complaints about news coverage in consultation with Shell, CBS President and CEO George Cheeks and CBS News Executive Editor Tom Cibrowski.
Paramount buyer Skydance Media agreed to appoint an ombudsman in order to get regulatory clearance for its acquisition of the media company, which closed in August.
The Federal Communications Commission said Skydance agreed to commit to “viewpoint diversity, nondiscrimination and enhanced localism” in its news coverage when the agency announced its approval of the deal.
“Americans no longer trust the legacy national news media to report fully, accurately, and fairly. It is time for a change,” FCC Chairman Brendan Carr said in a statement at the time of the approval. “That is why I welcome Skydance’s commitment to make significant changes at the once storied CBS broadcast network.”
Under Skydance’s ownership, CBS News has already shown a willingness to respond to Trump White House beefs with its coverage. On Friday the division announced a new policy for its Washington public affairs program “Face the Nation,” which will no longer edit taped interviews.
The policy shift came after U.S. Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem complained that her Aug. 31 “Face the Nation” interview, which was trimmed for time, deleted harsh allegations against Kilmar Abrego Garcia, the Maryland man wrongly deported to his native El Salvador. He was returned to the U.S., where he faces deportation efforts.
In addition to his work at the Hudson Institute, where he still holds a chair, Weinstein served on multiple advisory boards including the United States Agency for Global Media when it was known as the Broadcasting Board of Governors. The agency, currently headed on an interim basis by Kari Lake, oversees the funding for government-run media outlets such as Voice of America.
Weinstein also holds a doctorate in government from Harvard University and has taught political theory at Georgetown University and Claremont McKenna College.
“I’ve known [Weinstein] for many years and have respect for his integrity, sound judgment and thoughtful approach to complex issues,” Shell said in a statement. “Ken brings not only a wealth of experience in media and beyond but also a calm measured perspective that makes him exceptionally well-suited to serve as our Ombudsman.”
A federal judge has rejected Newsmax’s lawsuit alleging Fox News violated U.S. antitrust laws by squeezing out rival conservative news networks.
The court’s decision came two days after the case was filed.
However, U.S. District Court Judge Aileen M. Cannon said she would give Newsmax a do-over. The Boca Raton, Fla.-based network has until Thursday to refile its lawsuit against Rupert Murdoch’s media company and top-rated cable news network to comply with judicial style.
In her two-page ruling on Friday, Cannon said Newsmax’s lawyers inappropriately tried to build their case by stringing together allegations to compound their effect.
“We understand this is just a technical matter and our law firm is refiling,” Newsmax said in a statement.
Newsmax sued Fox News and its parent Fox Corp. on Wednesday, accusing Murdoch’s television company of anticompetitive behavior to maintain its “unlawful monopolization of the right-leaning pay TV news market.”
Lawyers for Newsmax alleged Fox used its market clout to discourage pay-TV distributors from carrying or promoting Newsmax and other rival conservative news outlets. Newsmax claimed Fox News resorts to intimidation campaigns, including by pressuring guests not to appear on Newsmax.
“But for Fox’s anticompetitive behavior, Newsmax would have achieved greater pay TV distribution, seen its audience and ratings grow sooner, gained earlier ‘critical mass’ for major advertisers and become, overall, a more valuable media property,” Newsmax said in its lawsuit.
Fox News scoffed at the allegations.
“Newsmax cannot sue their way out of their own competitive failures in the marketplace to chase headlines simply because they can’t attract viewers,” the company said in a statement.
Murdoch’s company declined further comment on Friday.
The Trump-appointed judge wrote that Newsmax’s lawsuit was structured as a “shotgun pleading” — a complaint that contains “multiple counts where each count adopts the allegations of all preceding counts.”
Should Newsmax try again, it must untangle its arguments.
“Each count must identify the particular legal basis for liability and contain specific factual allegations that support each cause of action within each count,” Cannon wrote.
Thirty years ago, the coming-of-age romantic comedy “Clueless” opened in movie theaters and went on to become an enduring American pop culture touchstone.
“I’m thrilled that people love it and continue to love it,” the movie’s star, Alicia Silverstone, said in a recent conversation in New York. “Young people. Old people. It’s really gone on and on, and obviously that’s lovely.”
AMC Networks is counting on Silverstone’s multigenerational appeal to help boost the New York-based media company’s streaming service Acorn TV, which specializes in British dramas and other programs from overseas.
Silverstone is the lead in the new Acorn original series “Irish Blood,” which premiered Monday. She plays hard-bitten Los Angeles divorce lawyer Fiona Sharpe, who heads to Ireland to resolve a mystery involving the father who abandoned her as a child.
AMC has also signed the imperishable Brooke Shields to star in another Acorn project titled “You’re Killing Me.” She portrays a mystery novelist who teams with a young wannabe writer and influencer to investigate murders in a small New England town. The series starts shooting this summer and is set to premiere in 2026.
Why put two iconic American actors on a streaming platform with a well-defined niche of providing viewers with international locations and accents that at times require closed-captioning even when the language is English?
Even the small players in streaming have to get bigger.
AMC does not have the deep pockets to compete with the likes of Netflix, Prime Video and Disney+. The company has blazed its own digital path by serving dedicated audiences who will pay for an additional streaming service that caters to their passions, such as Shudder for horror fans and HIDIVE for anime lovers.
The company’s suite of streaming services has around 10.4 million customers. Even with that modest figure, AMC Networks’ streaming revenue has steadily grown to the point where it will soon surpass what the company earns from its traditional TV channels such as AMC, BBC America, Sundance TV and WE, which continue to see subscriber declines because of cord-cutting.
AMC has found that the strong fan bases for its niche services are willing to absorb price increases and are less likely to cancel. The company has managed to keep its streaming platforms priced at less than $10 a month.
Brooke Shields is set to star next year in “You’re Killing Me,” a new small-town mystery from Acorn TV.
(Evelyn Freja / For The Times)
Now AMC Networks is looking to accelerate its subscriber growth and Acorn — the most popular and profitable of its standalone offerings — is seen as the platform best suited to the task.
“It’s a service we really believe in,” Courtney Thomasma, executive vice president for streaming and content strategy at AMC Networks, told The Times in a recent interview. “Over the last year, we’ve been really focused on looking for ways to continue to raise awareness of the brand and invite new viewers in who we know would also love it. We’re doing that with a focus on investing in the brand and inviting bigger talent that’s more familiar to North American audiences.”
Many fans of Acorn — which started out as a direct marketer of British TV series on home video and was acquired by AMC in 2018 — are what Thomasma calls “armchair travelers” who want to take in a French vineyard or the cobblestone streets of Chelsea. But AMC believes aligning Acorn more closely to the mystery genre will widen its appeal.
A monthlong promotional campaign under the banner of Murder Mystery May — which featured a number of season premieres — drove Acorn TV subscription sign-ups to a four-year high. The 20 million hours watched during the month was the best ever for the service, according to AMC.
The emphasis on mystery provides Acorn the latitude to cast Silverstone and Shields. One way AMC attracts star talent is the opportunity to put their own creative stamp on their programs. “They become as invested in the success of the projects as we are,” Thomasma said.
Silverstone came on to “Irish Blood” as executive producer and became involved in the development of the series. She was involved in the hiring of key positions in the production and worked with the writers. She’s happy with the result.
“I thought it was quirky and also an emotionally deep drama,” Silverstone said. “There’s a lot for me to do.”
Shields and writer Robin Bernheim pitched the generation gap tandem at the center of “You’re Killing Me” to AMC, and the actor remains deeply involved in the process as shooting begins. “This is the first time I’ve ever had this much creative control as an executive producer,” Shields said in an interview. “I feel lucky that they entrusted me to do what we’re doing.”
Silverstone, left, with Ruth Codd in “Irish Blood.”
(Szymon Lazewski / Acorn TV)
Acorn teams with production partners around the world and generates revenue from selling some of its series for second runs on international broadcasters and PBS. AMC spends in the range of $1 million per episode for its cost-efficient series, which are heavy on dialogue and largely car-chase free. The audience is older — they are avid readers who are likely to subscribe to newspapers, watch cable news and PBS, and enjoy solving puzzles.
And though Acorn is hoping to attract more younger subscribers, the service won’t be losing its British accent.
Acorn recently launched “Art Detectives” with Stephen Moyer, who also is an executive producer. The series, about a Heritage Crime Unit that solves murders connected to art and antiques, had the strongest premiere in the streamer’s history.
Later this year, it will offer a new six-episode series starring Matthew Lewis, known for his Neville Longbottom role in the Harry Potter films. Based on the series of Canon Clements mystery novels by the Rev. Richard Coles, “Murder Before Evensong” is a co-production with British broadcaster Channel 5.
“We pride ourselves on being a boutique neighborhood store, the kind that you walk in, you know the owner [and] the owner knows you,” Thomasma said. “We have deep connection to our audience.”
SACRAMENTO — An overwhelming number of California voters think American democracy is being threatened or, at the very least, tested, according to a new poll released Thursday by the UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies.
The poll, conducted for the nonprofit Evelyn and Walter Haas Jr. Fund, found that concerns cut across the partisan spectrum. They are shared regardless of income or education level, race or ethnicity. Californians living in big cities and rural countrysides, young and old, expressed similar unease.
“I do think that it’s at a pretty dangerous point right now. The concerns are justified,” said political scientist Eric Schickler, co-director of the Berkeley institute. “Our democracy is not healthy when you have a president that’s acting to unilaterally stop money from being spent that’s been appropriated, or going to war with colleges and universities or sending troops to L.A.”
In the survey, 64% of California voters said they thought American democracy was under attack, and 26% felt our system of government was being tested but was not under attack. The poll did not investigate what voters blamed for putting democracy in peril.
Democrats, who dominate the California electorate, were the most fearful, with 81% saying it was under attack and 16% who described democracy as being tested. Among voters registered as “no party preference” or with other political parties, 61% felt democracy was under assault, and 32% said it was being tested.
Republicans expressed more faith — nearly a quarter of those polled said they felt democracy was in no danger. But 38% said it was under attack and 39% said it was being tested but not under attack.
Concerns among Democrats may have been expected in California, given the state’s liberal tilt and the widespread and relentless government upheaval since President Trump took office in January. But the opinions shared by Republicans indicates just how pervasive the concerns are about the future of a country seen as a worldwide beacon of freedom and democracy.
Emily Ekins, director of polling for the libertarian Cato Institute in Washington, said those findings are evidence of an unsettling new development in American politics.
“A couple years ago, Republicans felt that democracy was at risk and now Democrats feel that democracy is at risk. I think that this is pretty worrisome, because people are starting to view the stakes of each election as being higher and higher,” said Ekins, who had no involvement with the Berkeley poll. “They may feel like they could lose their rights and freedoms. They may not feel like the rules apply to them anymore because they feel like so much is on the line.”
Schickler said the political perceptions among Republicans have been recently fed, in part, by Trump’s baseless claim that the 2020 presidential election was stolen from him. Continuous allegations that the U.S. Department. of Justice, including the FBI, and a “deep state” federal government bureaucracy were weaponized against him since his first term in office also contributed to the fear.
Those claims were magnified by conservative news outlets, including Fox News, as well as Trump loyalists on social media, popular podcasts and talk shows.
Even some Republicans who support the president or are agnostic about his tenure are likely concerned about the discord in American politics in recent months, Schickler said, especially after the Trump administration sent U.S. Marines and the California National Guard to the streets of Los Angeles as a protective force during widespread federal immigration raids and subsequent protests.
Recent decisions by media companies to settle Trump’s lawsuits over complaints about stories and coverage also are concerning, he said, despite the merits of those allegations being suspect.
This month, Paramount Global decided to pay $16 million to settle Trump’s lawsuit over a “60 Minutes” interview with then-Vice President Kamala Harris; the president claimed it was done to help her presidential campaign against him. Paramount’s leaders hope the settlement will help clear a path for Trump-appointed regulators to bless the company’s $8-billion sale to David Ellison’s Skydance Media.
“That’s not how a democracy is supposed to work,” Schickler said. “I think the voters’ concerns are rooted in a reality, one that’s been building up for a while. It’s not something that’s just started in 2025 but it’s been kind of gradually getting more serious over the last 20 or 30 years.”
The survey also found that 75% of California voters believe strongly or somewhat that special interest money has too much influence in state politics, a sentiment especially strong among Republicans.
Slim majorities of California voters had little or no trust that Gov. Gavin Newsom and the state Legislature act in the best interest of the public. According to the poll, 42% of voters said they have a lot or some trust in Newsom to act in the public’s interest; 53% said they trust his actions just a little or not at all.
Those surveyed had similar sentiments about the legislature.
The courts received the most favorable marks, with 57% of voters saying they trusted the judicial system to act in the best interest of the public.
Technology companies and their leaders were labeled completely untrustworthy by 58% of those surveyed.
Russia Chavis Cardenas, deputy director of the nonpartisan government accountability organization group California Common Cause, which has received grants from the poll-sponsoring Haas Fund, said the findings show just how much special interest influence in Sacramento, and Washington, erodes public trust in government, which may provide insight into their concerns about the health of the American democracy.
“I want to see folks from every political party, every race and every walk of life to be able to be engaged in their democracy, to be able to have a say, to be able to have representation,” Chavis Cardinas said.
“So these numbers are concerning, but they also don’t lie,” she said. “They’re letting us know that folks here in California recognize the influence that big money has, and that the tech companies have too much power over elected officials.”
The poll surveyed 6,474 registered voters throughout California from June 2-6.
Respected Washington litigator Abbe David Lowell this week joined the team representing the New York advocacy group, which has vowed to sue Paramount should it settle with Trump. The group owns Paramount shares.
Lowell, who has represented Hunter Biden, Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner, is working on the case with attorney Norm Eisen, a Trump critic who helped House Democrats with strategy during Trump’s first impeachment hearings in 2019.
Eisen is a former ambassador to the Czech Republic who served as White House ethics advisor under President Obama.
Late Thursday, the two attorneys sent a strongly worded letter to Paramount’s chairwoman and controlling shareholder Shari Redstone and other board members arguing that a Trump settlement would cause “catastrophic” harm to the embattled media company.
Hunter Biden (left) with his attorney Abbe Lowell (right) at a House committee hearing last year.
(Jose Luis Magana / Associated Press)
1st Amendment experts have labeled Trump’s lawsuit frivolous. But Paramount leaders are desperate to end the Trump drama and some believe a truce could clear a path for the Federal Communications Commission to approve the company’s $8-billion sale to David Ellison’s Skydance Media.
Paramount needs the FCC to authorize the transfer of the CBS station licenses to the Ellison family.
“Trading away the credibility of CBS’s news division to curry favor with the Trump Administration is an improper and reckless act that will irreparably damage the company’s brand and destroy shareholder value,” Lowell said in a statement late Thursday.
“The board is legally and morally obligated to protect the company, not auction off its integrity for regulatory approval,” Lowell said.
Paramount, in a statement, said that it is treating the FCC review and the Trump lawsuit as separate matters. “We will abide by the legal process to defend our case,” a corporate spokesman said.
Paramount’s lawyers entered mediation with the president’s legal team in late April, but no resolution has been reached. Paramount offered $15 million to Trump to end his suit, according to the Wall Street Journal, but the president rejected the overture and asked for more.
On Thursday, Redstone disclosed that she has been diagnosed with thyroid cancer and is receiving treatment. Last month, doctors removed her thyroid but cancer cells had spread to her vocal chords.
In their seven-page letter, Lowell and Eisen told Paramount’s leaders that, should they approve a Trump settlement to gain traction at the FCC, they would be violating their fiduciary duty to shareholders and potentially breaking federal anti-bribery statutes.
“We believe [a settlement] could violate laws prohibiting bribery of public officials, thereby causing severe and last damage to Paramount and its shareholders,” Lowell and Eisen wrote.
“To be as clear as possible, you control what happens next,” they said.
The admonition follows a similar warning from three U.S. senators — Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt) and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) In a May 19 letter, the senators wrote that paying money to Trump to help win clearance for the Paramount sale could constitute a bribe.
“It is illegal to corruptly give anything of value to public officials to influence an official act,” the three senators wrote in their letter.
In addition, two California Democrats have proposed a state Senate hearing to examine problems with a possible Trump settlement.
The senators invited two former CBS News executives — who both left, in large part, because of the controversy — to testify before a yet-unscheduled joint committee hearing in Sacramento.
The California lawmakers, in their letter, said a Trump settlement could also violate California’s Unfair Competition Law because it could disrupt the playing field for news organizations.
Earlier this week, Paramount asked shareholders to increase the size of its board to seven members at the company’s annual investor meeting next month.
The Freedom of the Press Foundation was created in 2012 to protect and defend public interest journalism.
This spring, Lowell left his former major law firm, Winston & Strawn, where he had been a partner for years. He formed his own boutique firm, Lowell & Assoc., with a focus on “public interest representation in matters that defend the integrity of the legal system and protect individuals and institutions from government overreach,” according to its website.
Lowell’s firm also includes lawyer Brenna Frey, who made a high-profile exit from another prominent law firm, Skadden Arps, after it cut a deal with Trump to avoid becoming a target. That law firm agreed to provide $100 million in free legal services.
Last month, Frey appeared on CBS’ “60 Minutes” to air her decision to resign from Skadden Arps.
“I was able to tell my story on CBS’s ’60 Minutes’ because of the independence of a courageous news division, which is what’s at risk now,” Frey said in a statement.
Paramount Global’s efforts to appease President Trump could carry a steep price, and not just financially. As Paramount executives struggle to win government approval for its planned sale, the legal risks and political headaches are spreading — from Washington to Sacramento.
Three U.S. senators have warned Paramount’s controlling shareholder Shari Redstone and other decision-makers that paying Trump to drop his $20-billion lawsuit over an October “60 Minutes” interview with former Vice President Kamala Harris could be considered a bribe.
Scrutiny widened late last week when two California Democrats proposed a state Senate hearing to probe details of the drama that has roiled the media company for months. The senators invited two former CBS News executives — who both left, in large part, because of the controversy — to testify before a joint committee hearing in Sacramento to help lawmakers examine problems with a possible Trump settlement.
“I haven’t seen a president act in this brazen of a manner,” state Sen. Josh Becker (D-Menlo Park) said in an interview. “We’re concerned about a possible chilling effect any settlement might have on investigative and political journalism. It would also send a message that politically motivated lawsuits can succeed, especially when paired with regulatory threats.”
Settling the Trump lawsuit is widely seen as a prerequisite for regulators to finally clear Paramount’s $8-billion sale to Skydance Media, which Redstone has been desperately counting on to save her family’s fortunes.
Trump contends CBS edited the “60 Minutes” interview to enhance Harris’ appeal in the 2024 presidential election, which she lost. He reportedly rebuffed Paramount’s recent $15-million offer to settle his lawsuit, which 1st Amendment experts have dismissed as frivolous.
“This is a really important case,” said Scott L. Cummings, a legal ethics professor at UCLA’s School of Law. “Legislators are starting to raise alarms.”
But whether federal or state politicians could foil a Trump settlement is murky. Experts caution, for example, that it may be difficult, if a settlement is reached, to prove that Paramount’s leaders paid a bribe.
Congress has grappled with such distinctions before, Cummings said. The U.S. Senate acquitted Trump in February 2020 after the House voted to impeach him for allegedly holding up nearly $400 million in security aid to pressure Ukraine to investigate former President Biden and his son Hunter. Major universities and law firms offered significant concessions to the administration this year to try to carve out breathing room.
“We would have to have a lot more facts,” Cummings said. “Bribery requires a quid pro quo … and [Trump and his lieutenants] are always very careful not to explicitly couple the two things together. But, clearly, they are related, right? This is the challenge, legally speaking.”
Even if a Paramount payoff could be proved to be a bribe, it’s unclear who would prosecute such a case.
No one expects the Trump-controlled FBI or others within the U.S. Department of Justice to investigate allegations of bribery. Trump also has a grip on congressional Republicans and the Federal Communications Commission is run by a Trump appointee, Brendan Carr, who in one of his first acts as chairman, opened a public inquiry into whether the “60 Minutes” edits rose to the level of news distortion.
It may fall to state prosecutors to dig into the issue, Cummings said.
Vice President Kamala Harris talks to “60 Minutes” correspondent Bill Whitaker.
(CBS News)
That hasn’t stopped nationally prominent progressive lawmakers from sounding alarms.
U.S. Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) have demanded Paramount provide information about the company’s deliberations or concessions to facilitate a deal with Trump, including whether newscasts were toned down.
“It is illegal to corruptly give anything of value to public officials to influence an official act,” the lawmakers wrote in their May 19 letter to Redstone. “If Paramount officials make these concessions … to influence President Trump … they may be breaking the law.”
Redstone and Paramount failed to respond to the senators’ questions by this week’s deadline, according to Warren’s office.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) has suggested that Paramount executives could be liable for unlawfully paying a bribe if it settles President Trump’s lawsuit against CBS to secure approval of Paramount’s sale to Skydance Media.
(Mark Schiefelbein / Associated Press)
Paramount and a Redstone spokesperson declined to comment.
Lawmakers often express interest in big media takeovers, and Skydance’s proposed purchase of an original Hollywood movie studio and pioneering broadcaster CBS could be an industry game changer. But this time, interest is less focused on vetting the Ellison family or the deal’s particulars and more about determining whether Trump inappropriately wields his power.
Trump has demanded Paramount pay “a lot” of money to settle his lawsuit. The president also has called for CBS to lose its station licenses, which are governed by the FCC.
For more than a month, attorneys for Paramount and Trump have participated in mediation sessions without resolution.
Paramount offered $15 million but Trump said no, according to the Wall Street Journal. Instead, the president reportedly demanded at least $25 million in cash, plus an additional $25 million in free commercials to pump his favorite causes. He also wants an apology.
The latter is a red line for CBS News executives who say they have done nothing wrong, according to insiders who were not authorized to discuss the sensitive deliberations.
The two California state senators — Becker and Tom Umberg (D-Orange) — hope such fractures provide an opening.
Late last week, the pair invited former CBS News and Stations President Wendy McMahon and former “60 Minutes” executive producer Bill Owens to testify at a yet-unscheduled oversight hearing in Sacramento.
“You are being approached as friendly witnesses who may help our committees assess whether improper influence is being exerted in ways that threaten public trust and competition in the media sector,” Becker and Umberg wrote to the former executives. Becker is chairman of the Senate Energy, Utilities & Communications Committee; Umberg heads the Senate Judiciary Committee.
California has an interest, in part, because Paramount operates in the state, including a large presence in Los Angeles, Becker told The Times.
The controversy over the edits began in October after CBS aired different parts of Harris’ response to a question during a “60 Minutes” interview a month before the election. Producers of the public affairs show “Face the Nation” used a clip of Harris giving a convoluted response. The following day, “60 Minutes” aired the most forceful part of her answer, prompting conservatives to cry foul.
Trump filed his federal lawsuit in Texas days before the election, alleging CBS had deceptively edited the Harris interview to boost her election chances, an allegation CBS denies. After returning to the White House, Trump doubled the damages he was seeking to $20 billion. His team claims he suffered “mental anguish” as a result of the interview.
CBS has asked the Texas judge, a Trump appointee, to dismiss the lawsuit, saying the edits were routine.
Since then, the FCC’s review of Paramount’s Skydance deal has become bogged down. Paramount needs Carr’s approval to transfer CBS television station licenses to the Ellison family.
Paramount has said it is treating the proposed settlement and FCC review on the Skydance merger as separate matters.
Experts doubt Trump sees such a distinction.
Trump and his team “essentially are using government processes to set up negotiations that end up benefiting Trump personally in ways that raise corruption concerns,” Cummings said.
Paramount’s decision could open the company to shareholder complaints.
The reason Trump’s CBS “60 Minutes” lawsuit has become such a lightning rod is “because the lawsuit is so ridiculously frivolous,” said Seth Stern, advocacy director for the Freedom of the Press Foundation, which owns Paramount shares and has vowed a lawsuit if the company capitulates.
“This is so transparently an abuse of power — a shakedown,” Stern said.
Media analyst Richard Greenfield of LightShed Partners suggested that Trump’s goal may be about more than his reported demand of nearly $50 million.
“The far bigger question is whether there is any number that Trump would want to settle the CBS/60 Minutes lawsuit,” Greenfield wrote in a blog post this week. “If Trump’s goal is to weaken the press and cause persistent fear of lawsuits that could negatively impact business combinations, keeping the CBS/60 Minutes lawsuit ongoing could be in the President’s best interests.”
UCLA’s Cummings sees another deleterious outcome.
A settlement could “legitimize the narrative that Trump puts out that there’s some sort of corruption within these media entities,” Cummings said. “He could point to a settlement and say: ‘I told you they did something wrong, and they now agreed because they paid me this amount of money.’ ”
“Even though they would be paying to get this deal through,” Cummings said.
Paramount Global chairwoman and controlling shareholder Shari Redstone is battling cancer as she tries to steer the media company through a turbulent sales process.
“Shari Redstone was diagnosed with thyroid cancer earlier this spring,” her spokeswoman Molly Morse said late Thursday. “While it has been a challenging period, she is maintaining all professional and philanthropic activities throughout her treatment, which is ongoing.
“She and her family are grateful that her prognosis is excellent,” Morse said.
The news comes nearly 11 months after Redstone agreed to sell Paramount to David Ellison’s Skydance Media in a deal that would end the family’s tenure as major Hollywood moguls after four decades.
However, the government’s review of the sale to Skydance hit a snag amid President Trump’s $20-billion lawsuit against Paramount and its subsidiary CBS over edits to an October “60 Minutes” broadcast.
Redstone, 71, told the New York Times that she underwent surgery last month after receiving the diagnosis about two months ago. Surgeons removed her thyroid gland but did not fully eradicate the cancer, which had spread to her vocal cords, the paper said.
She continues to be treated with radiation, the paper reported.
The Redstone family controls 77% of the voting shares of Paramount. Since Bob Bakish was ousted as chief executive last year, the company has been managed by a trio of executives who share the title of co-chief executive.
Her father, the late Sumner Redstone, built the company into a juggernaut but it has seen its standing slip in recent years. There have been management missteps and pressures brought on by consumers’ shift to streaming. The trend has crimped revenue to companies that own cable channels, including Paramount.
The COVID-19 pandemic followed by the 2023 writers and actors strikes also took a toll on Paramount and the Redstone family’s private firm, National Amusements Inc., which owns movie theaters.
Paramount cut its dividend to shareholders two years ago, leaving the family in a financial bind.
Financial pressures contributed to Redstone’s decision to entertain offers for Paramount and National Amusements, which holds the Paramount shares.
Nearly two years ago, Ellison and Redstone began talks that culminated last July with an agreement on a multi-phased $8-billion deal that would pass the torch to Ellison.
Redstone wants to close the deal. National Amusements would receive $2.4 billion, which would pay its debts and leave the family with more than $1.7 billion.
She has urged the company to settle the lawsuit Trump filed in October, weeks after “60 Minutes” interviewed then-Vice President Kamala Harris. Trump accused CBS of deceptively editing the interview to make Harris look smarter and improve her election chances, a charge that CBS has denied.
The dispute over the edits has sparked unrest within the company, prompted high-level departures and triggered a Federal Communications Commission examination of alleged news distortion.
The FCC’s review of the Skydance deal has become bogged down. If the agency does not approve the transfer of CBS television station licenses to the Ellison family, the deal could collapse.
The two companies must complete the merger by early October. If not, Paramount will owe a $400-million breakup fee to Skydance.
Redstone, through National Amusements, also owes nearly $400 million to a Chicago banker who loaned the family money in 2023 and tech titan Larry Ellison, who is helping bankroll the buyout of Paramount and National Amusements.
Last week, Paramount nominated three new directors to serve on the company’s board following its July 2 investor meeting.
In a proxy filing, Paramount asked shareholders to expand the board to seven directors, including Redstone and three recruits: attorney Mary Boies (a member of the firm led by her husband David Boies); Silicon Valley venture capital executive Charles E. Ryan; and former Massachusetts trial court judge Roanne Sragow Licht.
They would join longtime board members Linda M. Griego, Susan Schuman and Barbara M. Byrne.
The Trump brand has been used to hawk cryptocurrencies, Bibles, steaks and guitars. Now the US president’s media company is laying the groundwork to sell investment funds.
Trump Media & Technology Group Corp., which is majority owned by Donald Trump, plans to sell offerings tied to his agenda.
The parent of the Truth Social platform, where the president is also a prominent poster, has announced plans for and trademarked the names of a group of financial products under the Truth.Fi banner—investments that will potentially benefit from the president’s policies with bets on energy, crypto and domestic manufacturing. The proposed products include exchange-traded funds, or portfolios that trade like stocks that can be purchased through most brokers.
Details on the products’ structures and strategies are still scarce. ETFs are subject to approval by regulators, and no public filings are available yet. Yet the brand-building has already begun. So have the arguments. Critics see a sitting US president having a financial stake in the success of funds that are associated with his brand and his politics, built on strategies that he can influence from the White House.
“These transactions fly in the face of government ethics standards,” says Michael Posner, professor of ethics and finance at NYU Stern School of Business. “When you’re president, the assumption is that 100% of your energy is devoted to serving the country—not monetizing your public platform.”
The administration says the president is walled off. “President Trump’s assets are in a trust managed by his children,” Deputy Press Secretary Anna Kelly said in a statement. “There are no conflicts of interest.” Trump Media did not respond to a request for comment.
US presidents aren’t required under federal law to divest assets, but past leaders have done so or used blind trusts to avoid perceived conflicts. Trump, however, has maintained financial exposure through family-controlled structures. Right before taking office again, he transferred about $4 billion worth of Trump Media shares to a trust controlled by his son Donald Trump Jr. But the arrangement is not a blind trust with independent oversight.
The concern among ethics experts isn’t only the ownership. It’s the overlap between policy and potential monetary benefit. The Truth.Fi funds could rise and fall in line with decisions the president makes in office. Protectionist policies aimed at various sectors and countries could help the proposed Truth.Fi Made in America ETF, which is set to bet on reshoring. Deregulatory moves in favor of crypto may boost a Bitcoin-themed ETF. And so on.
The crypto angle is a familiar one. Trump and his family have already profited from the digital-asset boom, hyping up a cryptocurrency bearing his name. Such so-called memecoins have no underlying value as investments, but creators of Trump’s coin recently held a promotion offering top holders a private dinner with the president. A company affiliated with the Trump Organization owns a large chunk of the Trump memecoins. Another Trump family-linked company, World Liberty Financial, has also issued its own cryptocurrencies, including a dollar-linked digital token called a stablecoin. World Liberty recently announced the coin would be used to complete a $2 billion transaction between a state-backed Abu Dhabi company and the overseas crypto exchange Binance. Senators Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and Jeff Merkley of Oregon have said the stablecoin offers “opportunities for unprecedented corruption” because the Trump family can benefit financially from the use of its product.
In its ETF announcement, Trump Media said the proposed products, which include portfolios known as separately managed accounts in addition to ETFs, offer a conservative alternative to “woke” investing. It’s a niche currently occupied by funds including the Point Bridge America First ETF and the God Bless America ETF, among others. Both have gathered only modest assets, as have left-leaning ETFs, thanks in part to a saturated ETF market that’s making life harder for newbie issuers.
There are already about 60 ETFs based on Bitcoin, a tally that’s grown by at least 22 this year. In addition, there are more than 60 funds tied to energy, including coal, and at least three from issuers including Tema and BlackRock Inc.’s iShares based on reshoring and manufacturing, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.
Trump Media “will be depending on its brand recognition to set its ETFs apart among a crowd of competing products,” says Roxanna Islam, head of sector and industry research at ETF shop TMX VettaFi. “A strong political following may help gather initial support, but in the long run, flows will ultimately depend on ETF basics like fees and performance.”
The company has announced plans to seed the funds with as much as $250 million. It’s working with trading platform Crypto.com and investment firm Yorkville Advisors to help run the funds. Still, its biggest unrivaled asset is Trump himself. Even if he’s not an explicit spokesperson, almost everything he does makes him a potential ad for the company. “What a competing fund doesn’t have is a person who’s in the news literally every day who can then talk about these things,” says Philip Nichols, a professor of legal studies and business ethics at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania.
Hal Lambert, who runs the MAGA ETF and has raised money for Trump’s presidential runs, dismisses concerns about conflicts. For one, the president’s views on issues such as domestic manufacturing have been publicly known for decades. There are more direct ways to have a seat at the table than buying an ETF, he says; people can give money to campaigns or political action committees, for instance. “I just don’t know that that stuff would work on him,” Lambert says. “Trump does what he wants to do.”
