more people

Hollywood’s biggest deal in decades is on hold.

On Monday, a federal judge temporarily blocked Paramount Skydance’s efforts to complete its purchase of Warner Bros. Discovery, ruling that the proposed $111-billion merger “raises serious questions” about whether the combination violates U.S. antitrust law.

District Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín, based in Oakland, granted a request for a temporary restraining order from a coalition of 12 state attorneys general, led by California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta, to freeze the deal while the court delves more closely into its impact on markets.

The order pauses the deal for 14 days. Martínez-Olguín’s ruling sets up a showdown for Aug. 3, when she considers a motion for a preliminary injunction — which, if granted, could tie up the deal for months in advance of a trial.

“This is a critical first win in our case to ensure this megamerger never sees the light of day,” Bonta said in a statement. “History tells the tale of what happens when a few people have great power over markets that are central to Americans’ lives: fewer opportunities for more people, worse products and services for all people.”

Two century-old film studios — with rights to Harry Potter, Batman, Scooby-Doo, “Top Gun,” “Ted Lasso” and “Game of Thrones” — would be combined, and HBO, CNN and HGTV would come under new ownership.

“The judge basically said, ‘Look, let’s not race to the finish line here,’” Eric Talley, a Columbia Law School professor, said in an interview. “At the end of the day, maybe this thing gets signed off on, but I think the AGs are going to be given a fair chance to bring their claims forward.”

The ruling dealt a blow to tech scion David Ellison’s efforts to quickly finalize his massive merger, which has the support of President Trump. Ellison wants to complete the deal by September to avoid a higher payout to Warner Bros. Discovery shareholders.

Paramount, in a statement, said the restraining order simply preserves the status quo, which Paramount had already pledged to do in court papers last week that offered to hold off on finalizing the transaction.

“We are confident the evidence will demonstrate that the State AGs’ antitrust arguments are without merit as their alleged markets and claims of anticompetitive effects are without any basis in modern market realities,” Paramount said in the statement.

Larry Ellison, co-founder of software giant Oracle, is bankrolling his son’s ambitions to acquire a second major entertainment company in less than a year. The Ellison family acquired the smaller Paramount in August.

The Democratic state attorneys general, including from New York, New Mexico, Nevada, Oregon and Washington, filed their lawsuit a week ago.

The 37-page lawsuit alleges that Paramount’s proposed takeover — the largest Hollywood deal in decades — would violate the U.S. Clayton Antitrust Act, a century-old law to prevent mergers that weaken competition and raise costs for consumers.

The lawsuit represents the stiffest challenge to a deal that had been swiftly clearing its various regulatory hurdles. Nearly two dozen regulators from around the globe, including Australia, Austria and Saudi Arabia, have already signed off.

The U.S. Justice Department last month approved the merger, saying the combination would probably bolster competition — not harm it. That decision wasn’t a surprise because Trump has been rooting for a CNN shakeup. The president told the network’s Jake Tapper earlier this month: “We’re trying to have CNN go on a normal path.”

“This merger is lawful, pro-competitive, and will benefit consumers, creators, workers, and the entertainment industry,” Paramount said. “We will continue to vigorously defend the transaction and will look forward to the hearings on the substance of the State AGs’ action.”

Paramount shares slid 2% to $8.57 on Monday. Warner shares tumbled nearly 4% to $25.86 — the stock’s lowest mark this year.

Martínez-Olguín’s order came after a hearing in Oakland on Friday that represented an opening salvo between the two sides in the fight over a merger that would dramatically reshape the entertainment industry.

“In many ways this case is a poster child for a much larger set of questions — some of which are specific to the entertainment industry but many are more specific to our regulatory state in general,” Talley said.

Because of the case’s expedited status, the judge said she looked closely at only one of the three markets where the plaintiff states allege the merger could bring anticompetitive harms — wide-release Hollywood films.

“Plaintiffs present compelling evidence that the combined firm resulting from the transaction will possess substantial market share in the wide-release theatrical distribution market,” Martínez-Olguín wrote in her 10-page order.

If allowed to merge, Paramount-Warner Bros. would control about 27% of the market of films that are initially released into more than 3,000 theaters.

“On this combined firm market share alone, the Court is persuaded that it can presume the proposed merger is likely to violate antitrust laws,” the judge wrote.

The ruling doesn’t signal that the states will win but, Talley said: “This is an important mark in the road that suggests that, in the eyes of the judge, at least one of their allegations has the seeds of a valid case.”

Paramount and Warner Bros. Discovery are “temporarily enjoined and restrained from closing or consummating the transaction or taking any steps, directly or indirectly, to integrate or consolidate their operations pursuant to the transaction,” the judge wrote.

The order extends to all officers, attorneys, and “other persons who are in active concert or participation with Defendants,” Martínez-Olguín wrote.

The merger is far from dead, Emarketer senior analyst Ross Benes said in a statement after the ruling.

“The order is likely to be a speed bump,” Benes wrote. “Thanks to the company’s symbiotic relationship with Trump, most challenges ahead that could stop the deal will be steamrolled.”

WASHINGTON — The world has largely viewed the U.S. more favorably than China for years, but those opinions have flipped in Beijing’s favor this year, according to a new poll by the Pew Research Center, a remarkable shift driven in part by tensions between the Trump administration and U.S. allies.

More people have favorable views of China than the U.S. in 25 out of the 36 countries and territories that were surveyed, including Canada and Mexico. The poll was conducted from February to May, a period when the United States and Israel launched a war against Iran.

In only six countries do people still see the U.S. more positively than China, according to the findings released Wednesday.

Views in 22 out of the 36 countries and territories also are more favorable of Chinese leader Xi Jinping than President Trump, including in Canada, Mexico and major European powers including France, Germany and the U.K. However, people in many of the countries have low confidence in both men.

It marks the first time in the roughly 20 years Pew has been tracking global opinions that China has been viewed more positively than the U.S., said Laura Silver, associate director of Pew’s Global Attitudes Research and one of the researchers on the study. Views of Beijing and Washington have been very similar at some points in the past but have not been significantly more favorable for China until now, she said.

The shift follows the COVID-19 pandemic becoming a distant issue and as global views of the U.S. have soured, Silver said.

“There was just an actual relationship between the outbreak of the war and the sense that the U.S. is just not contributing to peace and stability and that people have less confidence in Donald Trump,” she said.

Trump’s demands to control Greenland, the American military raid that captured Venezuela’s then-leader Nicolás Maduro, and the U.S. handling of the Israeli-Hamas war in Gaza also have led to low approval in many countries, Silver said.

“The U.S. has done a lot in terms of global engagement in recent months to years that is not being perceived positively internationally,” she said.

Aside from benefiting from the fading memory of the pandemic, China appears to have gained from comparison with the U.S., Silver said.

“By comparison, we know that China is seen to be a more reliable partner in many places. It’s more likely to be seen to contribute to global peace and stability,” the researcher said.

Notably, those in some U.S. allied countries have drastically shifted their views in recent years, such as Canada. In the new survey, only 33% of Canadians have positive views of the U.S., down from 57% in 2023. Over the same period, their favorable opinions of China rose from 14% to 44%.

Trump slapped a barrage of tariffs on Canadian goods last year, and even claimed that Canada could be the “the 51st state.”

Major European countries — including France, Germany, Spain, Italy, Sweden, the Netherlands and Italy — all have switched their opinions toward the world’s two largest economies.

People in the U.K., where about 6 in 10 held positive views of the U.S. in 2023, now view China and the U.S. similarly. Three years ago, the spread was 32 percentage points in Washington’s favor.

Of the six countries where people have more favorable views of the U.S., Israel leads the way. About 8 in 10 Israelis view the U.S. positively, compared with 19% for China.

The other five countries are Japan, India, South Korea, the Philippines and Poland. Still, even their views of the U.S. have dimmed over recent years.

The U.S. is still ahead of China when it comes to government respect for personal freedoms, though the gap is shrinking, the Pew report says.

While China’s standing has improved somewhat, the narrowed divide is “driven largely by the fact that people in nearly every country surveyed have become less likely to say the U.S. government respects its people’s personal freedoms” since 2021, when Pew last asked the question.

For the new study, Pew surveyed more than 42,000 people across 35 countries plus the West Bank and east Jerusalem, with margins of error ranging from 2.3 to 5.5 percentage points depending on the country.

Tang writes for the Associated Press. AP journalists Linley Sanders, Emily Swanson and Kevin S. Vineys contributed to this report.

From now through July 6, residents and tourists alike can download the California State Parks Historian Passport for free, allowing them access to more than 30 state historic parks across the state through the end of 2026.

Gov. Gavin Newsom announced the initiative Wednesday in honor of both Juneteenth and the the 250th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence.

“California’s state historic parks preserve some of our nation’s most powerful and meaningful stories, and I’m proud to live in a state that celebrates diversity to connect more people with those stories through this limited-time free pass,” California State Parks director Armando Quintero said in a statement. “I hope the free Historian Passport introduces more Californians to the state’s historic gems and sparks a curiosity and thirst for knowledge that leads to many return visits.”

The pass typically costs $50 and allows unlimited entry for up to four people to state historic parks and museums that charge a per-person admission fee or a vehicle day-use fee.

Historic parks in and around L.A. County that accept the Historian Passport include:

Colonel Allensworth State Historic Park

(Courtesy of California State Parks, 2026)

Other parks that accept the pass are:

A full list is available at parks.ca.gov.

To download a free pass, visit ReserveCalifornia.com and click “Passes” in the upper main menu. From here, you’ll be prompted to either create a new account or log into your existing account. Once logged in, you can use the dropdown menu on the page to select “Special Edition Historian Passport 2026 – $0.00.” You can then check out with your pass and will quickly have it added to your list of passes within your account.

Leaders with the California State Parks Foundation and the California State Railroad Museum Foundation, which helped finance the initiative, said they hope the free Historian pass opens up access to more people to see our public lands.

“California state parks help us understand the history of California, the United States, and the ongoing work of building a more inclusive democracy,” said Rachel Norton, executive director of California State Parks Foundation. “The special edition Historian Passport is a great opportunity to explore state parks for free. We hope access to the Historian Passport encourages more Californians to visit a historic state park and learn about, and reflect on, our shared history.”

With just days left to campaign and polls putting him in an unexpectedly strong third place — maybe even second — Tom Steyer is down-not-out. But Riverside’s favorite MAGA sheriff and Republican contender Chad Bianco is almost definitely shoulders-to-the-mat done.

That means there’s no chance of a Republican sweep in this blue state, and suddenly, what has up until now been a pretty dry governor’s primary race has turned into one that has a slim-but-genuine chance at a surprise ending — two Democrats on the November ticket.

“It’s a low probability,” political data guru Paul Mitchell told me, “But there’s always a chance.”

He puts it somewhere under 10%. But stranger things have happened. Spencer Pratt, for instance.

Those of you who have hung on to your ballots like winning lottery tickets, and those who plan on voting in person, will largely decide what happens next: An Xavier Becerra-Steve Hilton top two is a virtual election for Becerra since there just aren’t enough Republican voters in the state to carry a general election. A Becerra-Steyer face-off would force both candidates to define a vision of California beyond generic liberal ideas.

Personally, I wouldn’t mind seeing California have that Dem-on-Dem showdown so that voters of all parties (or none) have the chance to pin these would-be leaders down on the details of their policies. So far, this election has been light on the specifics, but the state faces real problems — from a failing healthcare system to gas prices that literally mystify even lawmakers.

Everything changes when a candidate becomes a winner, so maybe it would be good for democracy to have an old-fashioned war of ideas in this moment when the future of California holds so many unknowns.

Is Steyer just a billionaire dilettante trying to buy an office? Is Becerra beholden to the many corporate interests who have funded his campaign? Those are just the top-line questions many voters still have.

“There’s lots of shades of blue,” pointed out Chad Peace of the Independent Voter Project, on a press call to support open primaries. “When we only look at things as, ‘Oh, there’s red and there’s blue,’ we forget that.”

But voters remain nervous, and the ballot is still packed — along with the top three, former Rep. Katie Porter and San José Mayor Matt Mahan are still campaigning, though with falling support.

Voters, Mitchell said, “are really thinking about the implications” of their vote, and perhaps don’t want to throw it away on a candidate they perceive as having no chance. That’s why the new polls showing Steyer as a contender have the potential of stirring up momentum, especially for voters who originally saw themselves filling in the bubble for one of those candidates on the decline.

Recent polls have put Steyer in a near-dead-heat with Republican front-runner Hilton, both hovering slightly above or below 20%. Becerra, the former California attorney general and a former Biden Cabinet secretary, leads them both by a few points, especially among Latino voters. As my colleague Gustavo Arellano has pointed out, Becerra would be the state’s second Latino governor, after Romualdo Pacheco, who held the office for 10 months in 1875.

“A Dem-Dem race, maybe we’ll get more people involved, because it’s going to be a harder fight, you know?” Diane McClure told me. She’s a board member of the California Nurses Assn., which endorsed Steyer early — in large part because he supports a plan for single-payer health insurance, which that union has long fought for.

McClure, of course, would love to see Steyer take the top spot in that easy-win scenario against Hilton, though that seems doubtful. But a Steyer-Becerra race?

“Maybe it’s a good thing, maybe it’ll wake some people up,” she said.

For his part, Steyer is staying the course. At a Sacramento stop Friday, he bounded around chatting with about four dozen mostly union supporters, wearing trademark Nikes, this time a vintage pair with a tartan plaid swoop.

“Four days,” Steyer said when he finally took the microphone. “I really need you to stand with me. But let me say this: you stand with me, I stand with you.”

Unlike his debate performances, Steyer is passionate, and, though it seems unlikely based on his television appearances, has an amiable charisma dotted with a fair amount of light profanity.

“Make a decent living, buy a house, have a great education for your kids, and retire,” he said. “That’s what we’re trying to build here. We can easily do that. When people say that’s not possible, bull—, that’s bull—.”

It was enough to sway Ricky Carter, one of the few non-union members in the room, who was invited because his wife, Barbara, was on a prayer chain with another invitee. An older Black man originally from South Los Angeles, Carter represents a demographic where Steyer has growing popularity.

“I believe him. He got it right in here,” he said, pounding a fist over his heart. “It ain’t about no color, creed and race. … It’s about the people.”

Indeed, elections are about the people, though it doesn’t always feel like it. But suddenly, this one does.