negotiation

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.”

After more than three years behind bars, José Ignacio Moreno Suárez said he walked out of El Rodeo I prison last Friday with nothing to his name. “I have no house. These are my clothes; this is what I have left after three years. They took everything from me, everything I have,” he told reporter Maryorin Méndez at the prison gates, gesturing at what he was wearing. Moreno Suárez, the legal representative in Venezuela for Canadian miner Gold Reserve, was arrested in June 2023 for defending the company’s international arbitration claim for over $1 billion in expropriated assets. He was freed in the first round of political prisoner releases since the beginning of the US-brokered talks between the Rodríguez government and the opposition. 

Although we know no further details about Moreno Suárez’s case, we do know that it is one of many cases of this kind of systematic punishment against political prisoners and dissident figures. While the Rodríguez-Figuera table gets to boast about the releases, the regime has yet to answer for the houses and personal property it raided or seized from dozens of political figures and their relatives. Among them is Dinorah Figuera herself, president of the Delegate Commission in the ongoing negotiations with chavismo. As they begin releasing prisoners and readmitting exiles to take part in the talks, the question remains about whether these negotiations will give any of the houses back.

Charity in a stolen home

In May, chavista officials gathered in Los Palos Grandes to inaugurate the Casa de los Abuelos y Abuelas Indio Chacao, a new branch of the Gran Misión Abuelas y Abuelos de la Patria program for the elderly. Footage of the opening (and backlash against it) spread quickly, as the building they chose was once the family home of Lilian Tintori and Leopoldo López, the exiled founder of Voluntad Popular and once-popular opposition leader.

Back in March, Tintori had reported that authorities took over the house, emptied it of their belongings and started demolishing parts of it. The raid happened after López said in an interview that he supported the US military operation that captured Maduro and Cilia Flores.

“They took my house from me for assuming the presidency of the 2015 National Assembly,” Dinorah Figuera said recently.

The day after the inauguration, López answered with a video walking through what was done to his house. “This is the house where my children grew up, where we hold the memory of our family, the photos, the sheets, the furniture, the toys. This is the house where I spent a year and a half under arrest,” he said. The video, originally posted on May 30 to Leopoldo López’s account in collaboration with Voluntad Popular, was deleted this week. Tintori had already reported, in March, that the home was looted and structurally damaged, with personal objects removed, interior walls knocked down, and even the family’s pets disappeared. 

López clarified that he was not against this kind of assistance program, as he inaugurated similar centers during his time as mayor of Chacao. He condemned, however, that Rodríguez’s administration is now presenting this action as an ‘act of justice’ when, in his view, it represents a message of intimidation. “Recovering democracy also means recovering every citizen’s right to live, work, and return home in freedom and safety”, López wrote in his post.

House by house

Magalli Meda, campaign chief for María Corina Machado, had her family home raided in May 2025, days after she escaped from the Argentine embassy where she sheltered for over a year. Agents returned in February 2026, tagging the property “secured” and “seized.” GNB agents had raided Meda’s mother’s apartment in May 2025, stealing her car in the process. Machado’s personal assistant, Laura Acosta, also saw her main residence taken by force in March 2025, and formally confiscated a year later.

Those close to Antonio Ledezma— the former Caracas metropolitan mayor— lost multiple properties. In 2023, the National Anti-Corruption Police of Venezuela (PNCC) raided the Santa Rosa de Lima apartment he shared with his wife Mitzy Capriles, where Ledezma had lived under house arrest from 2015 until 2017, when he escaped the country. Neighbors told Ledezma that hooded men with long guns forced the lock, entered, and carried off boxes of his belongings. They left a sign on the door that read clausurado, sealed. Ledezma’s father-in-law’s vacation home in Naiguatá had already been seized before then. His stepdaughter Isabel González Capriles and her husband, former Chávez minister Andrés Izarra, were forcibly removed from their Quinta Los Gnomos in Caraballeda in 2020 and given a 15-day notice to remove their belongings. Three years later, the head of the DGCIM, Iván Hernández Dala, celebrated his wedding at the confiscated property. 

Diego Arria, the former governor, minister and UN ambassador during the Carlos Andrés Pérez administrations, faced two expropriations back in 2010 under Chávez’s guerra al latifundio policies: his Hacienda La Carolina in Yaracuy and Finca Los Azahares in Carabobo. Julio Borges’s home was raided in 2018 over his alleged link to the drone attack on Maduro, which stripped him of parliamentary immunity. Bony Pertiñez, wife of the jailed police commissioner Iván Simonovis, lost her home in 2019 through a precautionary seizure issued by a terrorism court and executed by the SEBIN.

But confiscations and raids are not confined to the country’s household-name dissidents. 

Former presidential candidate Enrique Márquez described the same process: “The police arrested me leaving my house, took my keys, and went in. They took my computer and personal effects… They stole money, kitchen appliances, clothes, paintings. They left us bankrupt.” When approached for an update on the state of the stolen goods, Márquez told Caracas Chronicles those belongings were never returned. 

And then there’s Dinorah Figuera, the opposition’s co-chair at the current negotiating table. In January 2023, the DGCIM raided her home and that of Auristela Vásquez, second vice president of the 2015 National Assembly. “At this moment my home in Los Rosales, Caracas, is being raided. Regime security agents, continuing their strategy of State terrorism, are adding one more act to their long list of human rights violations”, she tweeted. In June, Figuera confirmed she returned to Venezuela “having been stripped of a home” in an interview with Luis Olavarrieta: “They took my house from me for assuming the presidency of the 2015 National Assembly,” she recalled when asked about those who consider her a divisive figure within the opposition.

But confiscations and raids are not confined to the country’s household-name dissidents. 

José Breijo was a Uruguayan-Venezuelan former hotel manager held in Tocuyito Prison for two years on a terrorism charge. His alleged crime was taking a picture of a flag in an office where he believed Islamist groups met. The detention drew little attention until this May: after being granted house arrest, a photo of Breijo lying on a mattress at the entrance of his home started circulating on social media. One of the officers who arrested him had moved a family in. “It’s a very common police practice,” Breijo said. “They pick you up on the street, ask you a lot of questions, and if they realize you live alone, they send you to prison and take your house.” Unable to occupy the house the court ordered him to remain in, he risked being sent back to prison for failing to comply. He slept in the hallway for three days until, after several human rights organizations and activists denounced the situation, State authorities opened the doors to his house and handed José the keys. He passed away this month in that same apartment, at 71.

Even some chavistas were stripped of their property once their loyalties faded. Raúl Baduel was the general behind Chávez’s return to power after the 2002 coup, and then became his Minister of Defence in 2006. After breaking with Chávez the following year over proposed constitutional reforms, he was arrested in 2009, convicted on corruption charges and stripped of all his material goods. Baduel insisted the charges were pushed as a tool for political persecution. More recently, Tareck El Aissami, Simón Zerpa, and Samark López were deprived of their property because of their involvement in the PDVSA-crypto case of 2023.

The laws laundering the theft

Article 116 of the Venezuelan Constitution forbids confiscation, permitting it only by final judicial sentence and against those convicted of crimes against public property or enrichment through illicit trafficking. Still, the State built itself loopholes by declaring statutes to route around that protection.

Officers invoked one of three laws for the seizures (at least, whenever a legal basis was provided at all). The Organized Crime and Terrorism Financing Law, passed under Chávez in 2012, is used to target exiles: Article 58 allows a court to move from “preventive seizure” to permanent forfeiture after a year if the owner is deemed to have “abandoned” the property. On the other hand, the 2024 Libertator Law “against the imperial blockade” explicitly authorizes the confiscation of assets as a criminal penalty against anyone who supports or requests international sanctions against Venezuela.

The 2023 Asset Forfeiture Law (Ley de Extinción de Dominio) was born out of Maduro’s anti-corruption purge of El Aissami. The chavista National Assembly issued it to “establish mechanisms to identify, locate, and recover assets tied to illicit activity.” The law was first applied in February 2025 against an alleged corruption network within PDVSA, when a single court gave roughly 400 assets belonging to more than 100 people over to the State. The 462-page ruling never established when the alleged crimes took place, and inverted the presumption of innocence by forcing the accused to prove their assets were clean.

The US-sponsored negotiations are advanced by an opposition cohort of mostly exiles who have been permitted to return to take part in the talks, premised on “reconciliation” and on “verifiable” steps toward a restored democracy. While Figuera can now re-enter the country whose legitimate Assembly she once led, the properties seized from her circle have not been restored.

Restitution is a direct measure of whether “reconciliation” means anything concrete or is simply another buzzword to back transactions that leave the regime’s loot intact. A transition pushed by the US to partially restore investor confidence cannot leave the confiscations unaddressed. Doing so would ratify the theft and reward those behind the seizures with fresh capital. If the Trump administration intends to sell this process as a genuine opening, it must be prepared to say whether the property the regime took will be given back.