scrutiny

ChatGPT creator’s latest release comes amid heightened fears following AI-led hacking of the startup Hugging Face.

OpenAI has announced the release of what it says is its most advanced AI model, amid heightened scrutiny of the risks of the frontier technology escaping human control.

The $852bn start-up said in its announcement on Thursday that GPT‑6 Astra, the “world’s most intelligent and aligned” AI model, earned perfect or near-perfect scores in key benchmarks of AI reasoning, beating both its prior release GPT 5.6 Sol and rival Anthropic’s Claude Fable 5.

Recommended Stories

list of 4 itemsend of list

The ChatGPT creator said GPT‑6 would become available to the general public in the coming days, following its initial launch with a “limited set of organisations”.

OpenAI’s latest release comes as the AI industry is at the centre of a lively public debate about the dangers of the cutting-edge technology following the AI-led hacking of the startup Hugging Face in July.

An independent probe into the cyberattack found that hundreds of OpenAI’s AI agents had begun communicating among themselves before breaking out of their controlled environment and compromising Hugging Face’s servers.

On Thursday, US Senator Bernie Sanders, an Independent, and US House Representative Greg Casar, a Democrat, unveiled legislation that would pause the development of advanced AI until the establishment of federal safety rules and an outright ban on the creation of “superintelligent” AI.

“Nearly every day, there is a frightening new story about how Big Tech companies are losing control of the technology they are developing, with potentially cataclysmic results,” Sanders said in a statement announcing the legislation, which is unlikely to advance due to the Republicans’ control of all three branches of the US government.

“The leaders of the major AI companies publicly acknowledge that they do not fully understand the technology and that it is escaping their control. It is irresponsible for society to allow them to move forward and make these products even more advanced.”

In its announcement, OpenAI devoted significant space to AI safety, highlighting both GPT‑6’s potential to do harm and its safety features.

Toby Walsh, a professor and AI expert at the University of New South Wales, Sydney, said that while OpenAI is clearly “neck and neck” in the race to lead AI, the technology remains inconsistent and in need of greater scrutiny.

“The intelligence in artificial intelligence is still today very jagged,” Walsh said. “There are simple things that even the best AI models do poorly.

“And it’s hard to see how the AI companies, including OpenAI, are slowing down to address justified concerns around cyber risk, when new models are being released at an ever greater and greater rate.”

Roman Yampolskiy, a computer scientist at the University of Louisville, said GPT‑6 marks a “meaningful” advance that raises the stakes for AI safety.

“The key question is whether capabilities are improving faster than our ability to reliably understand, predict and control these systems,” Yampolskiy said.

“I see little evidence that this gap is closing.”

Voting from home

California’s mail-in voting system has also become a particular target for Trump.

Voting by mail surged during the COVID-19 pandemic. In 2021, California passed a law to automatically mail a ballot to every registered voter.

More than 80 percent of the state’s voters cast a mail-in ballot in 2024 alone.

Moreles, the Santa Clara registrar, said his county has an even higher rate. More than 90 percent of voters in his jurisdiction use mail-in ballots to vote.

His county processed more mail-in ballots in the last general election than the entire state of Texas did. While Texas accepted roughly 342,000 mail-in votes, Santa Clara County sent out more than a million.

That widespread use suggests that voters do not share Trump’s scepticism of the mail-in system, according to Moreles. “They like the accessibility of it. They must believe it’s secure as well,” he said.

But mail-in ballots can continue to trickle in after the election ends, causing vote tallies to fluctuate in the days and weeks after polling stations close. In California, all mailed ballots are valid so long as they are postmarked by election day, and must also be received no later than seven days after.

Trump has pointed to those long vote counts and shifting tallies as evidence of fraud.

Even some Democrats have pushed for the process to be faster. By law, elections must be certified within 30 days of the election. But Moreles argued that not rushing can have its virtues, too.

“For the folks who are living here and are used to it, it makes sense and, to a lot of people, is reassuring,” Moreles said. “Taking the time to get it right is something that intuitively makes sense to people.”

Still, on August 24, the Supreme Court opened the door to additional uncertainty surrounding mail-in ballots.

In a six-to-three ruling, the court’s conservative majority allowed the Trump administration to begin implementing a March executive order that would impose new restrictions on mail-in voting.

The order could impact both the design of mail-in ballots and who is eligible to receive one.

But state officials have questioned the feasibility of redesigning and reprinting ballots with so little time before the midterm elections. Early voting in some states starts as early as September.

Others have speculated about whether the legal wrangling with cause confusion or discourage voters who rely on mail-in ballots.

On Wednesday, California announced it was co-leading a group of 24 state attorneys general in filing a new lawsuit to see the executive order blocked.

“Donald Trump does not run elections. States do. And his latest attack on democracy is proof of how weak he has become,” the state’s Governor Gavin Newsom said in a statement accompanying the suit.

“California will continue to lead the way in defending democracy — using every tool at our disposal and every minute in our day. This perilous moment in history demands no less from us.”

A second court order pausing part of Trump’s plan for mail-in ballots remains in effect.

Nithya Raman has made Los Angeles’ struggle to combat homelessness a key plank in her mayoral campaign, yet her own record on the matter has itself become an issue with her ouster as head of the City Council committee seeking solutions to the crisis.

Mayor Karen Bass is at the helm of the city’s battle against homelessness, but since 2023 Raman has been the second-most powerful official as chair of the City Council’s Housing and Homelessness Committee. That changed this month, when council President Marqueece Harris-Dawson, a key Bass ally, split the committee in two and removed Raman as its chair, effective Sept. 1.

Raman claims that politics were at play, casting her removal as a hit job for her decision to challenge Bass. Harris-Dawson disputes that, saying Raman failed to lead the committee with the urgency needed to combat L.A.’s enduring homelessness crisis.

“The committee is behind in excess of more than 100 issues,” said Harris-Dawson in an interview. “There are very serious decisions to make over what happens with homelessness. We needed someone who could focus on that and get it done and get it done quickly and show ability to build consensus.”

Beyond the dispute over Raman’s leadership of the committee, there are clear policy disagreements between the mayor and the council member over the best way to combat the crisis.

Raman contends that Bass’ signature program Inside Safe, which dismantles encampments and moves people living there into motels, hotels and interim housing, is overly expensive and unsustainable. On average, the cost of housing these individuals runs about $82,000 a year, according to city reports.

Raman has repeatedly signed off on funding for the program, but has become more critical of it in the last year.

Despite the city’s efforts, L.A.’s unsheltered homeless population — those living outdoors or in their vehicles — went up by 7.9% after two consecutive years of decreases, the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority reported last month.

“The approach to homelessness that Mayor Bass has led and defended has brought us here,” Raman said after LAHSA’s report was released.

Raman has called for the use of time-limited subsidies, or rental vouchers, to house homeless Angelenos in private residences — at a city-estimated cost of $30,000, less than half the price of an average Inside Safe bed. Raman says she would “significantly expand” the city’s investment in the vouchers if she became mayor.

“For the same amount of money, we could rent three apartments using a short-term rental voucher and provide intensive services — housing more people in a program that has delivered much better outcomes,” Raman says in her mayoral policy platform on homelessness.

Even so, the more than $60-million voucher program Raman has already pushed through her committee has so far struggled to get off the ground under a tight timeline, and Raman’s critics have seized on the delay as evidence of the council member’s ineffectiveness.

A city consultant on the program set a goal of having 600 households moved into leases by July 1 of this year, and 2,000 households moved in by next April. But as of that July 1 date, only three households had moved into homes via the vouchers, housing officials said in a report.

By Aug. 13, however, the number had jumped to 54 households, “with new move ins happening nearly every day,” the housing department said in a report.

Bass’ campaign spokesperson, Alex Stack, cited the sluggish start to the program and said subsidies are only a small part of the fight against homelessness.

“It’s not the silver bullet Raman’s selling,” Stack said.

In an interview, Raman said that the contracting process slowed the start of the program, but that time-limited subsidies are a great way to free up space in city shelters by moving those people into private housing.

“This is a cost-effective program that has very good outcomes in the past in terms of percentage of people moving on to permanent housing,” she said.

Raman added that the council will continue to monitor data from the program and make fixes as needed if it doesn’t move fast enough.

Homeless services providers working with the city on the program said part of the challenge has been getting a completely new program off the ground.

“It’s definitely been slower than I think most people anticipated,” said Sasha Morozov, the regional director of supportive services for PATH, a nonprofit contracting with the city for the program.

But Morozov said the program is speeding up now and she believed the 2,000 slots will be filled on time.

A key plank in Raman’s platform

Raman said she ran for council largely to take on the homelessness crisis in Los Angeles. She says she is running for mayor for the same reason.

She’s cited a 49% drop in street homelessness in her district over the past year as a clear sign that she is equipped to bring down homelessness citywide. Bass counters it was her efforts through Inside Safe that brought homelessness down in Raman’s district.

While chair of the Housing and Homelessness Committee, Raman established monitoring of all the city’s spending on homelessness and tracking of 35 key performance metrics to see how effective the city’s investments are. She also stewarded the creation of a Bureau of Homelessness Oversight within the city’s Housing Department that is responsible for coordinating and overseeing the city’s homelessness system.

Her critics say that Raman’s tenure atop the committee hasn’t adequately met the moment facing the city of Los Angeles — with the Trump administration and county both moving to cut funding from LAHSA, the joint city-county authority responsible for homeless services. Meanwhile, the city is still managing a landmark federal lawsuit settlement, which requires it to invest in thousands of new shelter beds in its response to homelessness.

“She’s been in this building … longer than Karen Bass,” said Councilmember Monica Rodriguez, who served on the committee under Raman. “It’s convenient now for her to saddle all blame on the mayor when she rubber-stamped Inside Safe and stood in lockstep with the mayor.”

Rodriguez has specifically accused Raman — as chair of the committee — of slow-walking Rodriguez’s proposal from 2024 for the city to study a plan to separate itself from LAHSA and form its own department that would directly contract with homeless services providers.

Rodriguez said it took Raman months to schedule her motion in committee and that, while it was pending, the county removed most of its funding from LAHSA.

“The city has been left flatfooted because she wouldn’t lead our conversation. She wouldn’t schedule our items. She set us up for failure,” Rodriguez said.

Raman tried until the last minute to get the county to remain in LAHSA.

While Rodriguez’s motion was waiting on a report, Raman made her own proposal to create a Bureau of Homelessness Oversight within the Los Angeles Housing Department to keep track of the city’s more than $1-billion annual investment in homelessness response.

The council moved that bureau forward last year, and a spokesperson for the Housing Department said that seven positions have been hired within the bureau handling contracts and data oversight.

Harris-Dawson said a seven-person bureau isn’t adequate.

Raman said the bureau was a starting point that could one day lead to a department, which she said would be expensive and take a long time to stand up.

“This was not precluding [the creation of a department],” Raman told The Times. “This was trying to speed up that staffing faster than the departmental process normally takes in this city.”

Raman said she talked to Bass about creating a department for homelessness in late 2023 or early 2024, but the mayor told her to move ahead with the bureau instead. Bass representatives didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

Paige Sterling, a spokesperson for the mayor, said that Bass and Raman discussed the bureau in 2025, during the budget process. The mayor opposed a standalone department at the time because it “would add to the bureaucracy,” and the bureau was a compromise, Sterling said.

“The mayor signed a budget with funding and positions for the bureau, which begins to give the city the capacity it needs to start overseeing homelessness as we evaluate what the future governance of this issue looks like,” Sterling said.

Raman has touted the bureau as a success that provides clear oversight of how the city spends its money, but has also claimed that the mayor’s office has moved too slowly to staff the bureau. The Housing Department still hasn’t hired an assistant general manager to oversee it.

Canceled meetings and frustrated colleagues

Raman hasn’t been endorsed for mayor by any of her colleagues on the council, and some of those who served on her homelessness and housing panel say she did a shoddy job as its chair. They complain that she frequently canceled meetings and allowed hundreds of motions to pile up without getting moved through council.

“It had started to feel less like a policymaking body and more like a scholastic seminar — a lot of philosophizing, a lot of talk about feelings, but not enough substantive questions or direction on policy to present to staff,” Councilmember Imelda Padilla said in a statement to The Times.

In response, Raman said her committee focused on data to make sure the city’s investment in fighting homelessness is paying off.

“That doesn’t feel scholarly to me, that feels like oversight and accountability — exactly what the public is asking for for one of our largest investments as a city,” she said.

The full council, meanwhile, has agreed to review its relationship with LAHSA and the county, and to study creating a new department to centralize homelessness oversight.

“This conversation that we’re having about this … is long overdue,” said Councilmember John Lee.

Raman will have a seat on the new homelessness committee, but it will be chaired by Councilmember Ysabel Jurado. Padilla was named chair of the new Housing Committee.

Raman’s final meeting as committee chair was supposed to be Wednesday.

She didn’t show up.

As online speculation swirls around Brian Hickerson — an on-again, off-again boyfriend of Hayden Panettiere who was present when she was found in cardiac arrest — his brother is speaking out to tell their side of the story.

Zach Hickerson spoke with TMZ on Friday, almost a week after Panettiere died of an apparent overdose, and following days of increasing scrutiny over Brian’s involvement in her life.

“The truth will come out as the authorities complete and release additional details from the investigation,” Zach Hickerson said in a statement to the outlet. “And that is important because the people who loved and adored Hayden deserve the truth.”

Internet would-be sleuths have popped up in Zach’s comments on social media this week, probing Brian’s behavior and previous conduct.

On Wednesday, Panettiere’s former West Hollywood neighbor Mia Terrazas told “Inside Edition” that she was “terrified” of Brian, and that the apartment complex at one point had signs posted warning passersby to call the police if anyone spotted him. On Thursday, Panettiere’s mother, Lesley Vogel, pointed blame for the actor’s death toward Brian.

But on Friday, Zach said that it was Brian who gave Panettiere a dose of Narcan — a medication that can quickly reverse or reduce the effects of an opioid overdose — after the brothers discovered she was unconscious at the Greenville, S.C., Airbnb where they were staying.

“I want to clarify my involvement in an effort to keep the focus on the fact that we lost one of the most precious individuals on this earth and to allow those that cared about her to mourn without additional noise, chaos, and misinformation being created and propagated by the media as well as the public,” he told TMZ.

Zach told the outlet that he made plans to get lunch and play indoor golf with his brother and the actor after church on Sunday morning. When he attempted unsuccessfully to reach them, he drove to the rental home and “knocked loudly, which apparently woke Brian up from a nap they were both taking on the pull-out couch bed in the living room.”

When they realized Panettiere was unconscious, “I immediately called 911 and Brian gave her Narcan. We then jointly performed CPR while 911 was on speaker until Fire and EMS arrived. At that point we watched as they tried every measure possible to save her life.”

According to a report from Greenville, S.C., police, Zach was “very emotional” as paramedics attempted to revive Panettiere, and Brian “did not become emotional” until paramedics declared that she was dead.

Over the course of Brian’s volatile relationship with the actor, he was arrested multiple times on suspicion of domestic violence against Panettiere. Those include in May 2019 in Los Angeles (charges were later dismissed when prosecutors couldn’t secure a material witness) and again on Valentine’s Day 2020 in Wyoming (misdemeanor battery charges were eventually dropped). Following an eight-count criminal indictment in July 2020 that covered multiple violent incidents between May 2019 and January 2020, Brian pleaded no contest in April 2021 to two felony counts of injuring a spouse or girlfriend.

He was sentenced to 45 days in jail (but served 13 days due to credit for time served) along with four years of formal probation, mandatory domestic violence classes, and a five-year protective order.

Three days before Panettiere’s death, Brian attempted to expunge and reduce his past felony charges but was denied by a Los Angeles judge. He made the same request in July 2025, which was also denied.

“Hayden was one of my dearest and closest friends that I loved and cared about for the last 8 years,” Zach said in his statement to TMZ. “Out of respect for her loved ones, the speculation and sensationalism of her death needs to end until the facts can be released from the investigation.”

Legal challenges flared this week over an Inland Empire school district’s alleged removal of library books and, separately, on its efforts to require parental notification on student gender identity — policies strongly supported by the school board president, Sonja Shaw, a leading contender to become the next state schools superintendent.

One policy of Chino Valley Unified allows parents and others to force the removal of school library books to which they object, resulting in books with sexual content or with LGBTQ+ themes being pulled off shelves, according to a complaint filed this week by a leading public-interest law firm and local parents.

The complaint, filed with the California Department of Education, asks the state agency to investigate whether education codes have been violated. The complaint also seeks to invalidate the policy and have books returned to shelves.

The other Chino Valley Unified policy under legal scrutiny would require school employees to notify parents when students express gender-identity issues at school — even if the students want to keep this information secret from their parents. The Chino Valley school board passed its notification policy in July 2023, but a state judge put the policy on hold and subsequently ruled it illegal.

However, the Chino Valley school board is seeking to reinstate the policy in light of recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions. A court hearing on the matter had been scheduled for Wednesday, but has been moved to Sept. 15.

The San Bernardino County school system of 26,000 students adopted both policies under the leadership of school board President Shaw, a conservative Republican running for the office of state superintendent of public instruction. Shaw finished first in the June primary among 10 candidates, seven of them Democrats who appeared to split the Democratic vote among them.

On Wednesday, Shaw had not yet had an opportunity to review the book-policy complaint, but said both policies ultimately look out for children by safeguarding the rights of parents.

“I believe the larger issue is whether parents are going to remain the primary decision-makers for their children or whether Sacramento continues to chip away at that role,” Shaw said. “I will always stand on the side of parents.”

The book policy “is about ensuring that sexually explicit material is not placed in the hands of children in our schools,” Shaw said. “That is a reasonable responsibility for a school board, and I believe parents overwhelmingly expect us to exercise that responsibility.”

The challenge to the policies comes in the context of the November election, which pits Shaw against second-place finisher Richard Barrera, a Democrat.

Barrera said that some parents may agree with some of Shaw’s positions on culture war issues, but not with her entire agenda.

“I would say that the overwhelming majority of parents of students in our public schools find the agenda that Sonja Shaw is promoting to be terrifying,” Barrera said. “The idea that we’re going to restrict access to books for students, the idea that we are going to pick on and bully LGBTQ students, and particularly transgender students, is not a reflection of the values of parents in California.”

Barrera, the president of the San Diego Unified school board, also works as a senior state Education Department staffer, but has no involvement in handing complaints such as the one just filed, the department said.

Books removed from shelves

The Chino Valley school board adopted the book restriction policy in October 2023.

The district policy permits any community member to call for removing a library book. Such a demand, according to the policy, must be acted on immediately, with the book’s removal occurring within three days. A subsequent hearing within 45 days allows for public testimony, board discussion and a board vote, which would be the final decision.

Before the policy was adopted, community members had complained in public hearings about specific books and dramatically read aloud sexually explicit passages at board meetings to make their point. Defenders of the books said the passages were taken out of context in works that needed to be considered in their entirety.

The district began acting on its new book-removal policy before receiving any formal complaints, according to the filing submitted to state officials by Los Angeles-based Public Counsel.

In the fall of 2023, district officials asked schools for an inventory of specific titles public speakers had complained about at board meetings. Also included in the inventory were some books perceived as likely to be challenged.

Shortly after, parents and employees were no longer able to find copies of some of these books on the public-facing, book-search system, these critics told The Times in early 2024.

During this early period, only one formal complaint about a specific book was immediately received, a November 2023 request to remove the Bible “in all its forms” based on the Bible’s sexual content. This request was not carried out, the Public Counsel complaint states.

Other requests were submitted in October 2024 and covered 14 books, including: “Looking for Alaska” by John Green; “A Court of Mist and Fury” by Sarah J. Maas; “Beloved” by Toni Morrison; “Juliet Takes a Breath” by Gabby Rivera; and “More Happy Than Not” by Adam Silvera.

The complaint to the Education Department also alleges the removal this year from at least one library of an unnamed book by Maya Angelou and an unnamed middle school book that touched on sexual identity.

The complaint alleges that the Chino Valley policy is unlawful under state law and unconstitutional under state and federal law. It also alleges that, even if the policy were to survive the legal test, Chino Valley did not follow its own rules. The complaint states there is no evidence of any public hearings or board votes on a challenged or removed book.

The state Education Department had no immediate response to the filing of the complaint.

A consistent theme in the removed books was LGBTQ+ content, according to the complaint. Targeting that content would amount to unlawful discrimination against LGBTQ+ individuals, who are explicitly protected against discrimination in California, said Elizabeth Graves, senior staff attorney in the educational equity unit of Public Counsel.

Ultimately, books were removed “not because they contain sexually obscene material, but because they contain content protected by law,” Graves said. “The school district appears to be targeting books that are featuring LGBTQ people, or written by LGBTQ authors.”

The state education code, Graves said, “really calls out how important accurate and inclusive education is for students, especially LGBTQ people, Black, Indigenous, and other peoples of color.”

Graves said that Public Counsel filed its complaint with the California Education Department because it can carry out an expedited complaint process in as little as 60 days.

Shaw said that if anyone questioned the district’s management of its policy, the matter could have been brought directly to district officials. Her issue, she said, is simply sexually explicit, graphic description — not references to sex. Parents can find that explicit material for their children in a public library if they choose, she added.

Parent notification on gender issues

Chino Valley became the first school district in California to adopt a parental notification policy in July 2023. It required that a school administrator, counselor or teacher notify parents if a student requests to be treated as a gender different from the student’s biological sex in any facet of school or in school records.

California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta quickly sued to stop the policy and San Bernardino County Superior Court Judge Michael Sachs barred nearly all its elements. But he did allow parents to be notified of any student requests to change school records; for example, if a student requested to be known by a different name on a class roster.

In March, however, in a California case, a U.S. Supreme Court majority ruled that parents had a right to be told — if they asked — about their child’s sexual orientation issues at school. A lower court in the same case — Mirabelli vs. Bonta — had already ruled that school staff could not be barred from informing parents if they wanted to.

Since then, California Justice Center and Advocates for Faith & Freedom have filed a motion asking the state court to dissolve the injunction blocking Chino Valley’s original parent notification policy.

“Chino Valley is now in the impossible position of being subject to two conflicting permanent injunctions,” said attorney Emily Rae.

“The original policy was important because parents have a fundamental right to know what is happening with their own children,” Shaw said. “The U.S. Supreme Court has recognized the fundamental role parents play in raising and directing the upbringing of their children. Schools should not replace parents.”

Bonta’s office asserted in court papers that the original ruling should stand because the other recent rulings did not directly apply and because the Chino policy “discriminated against transgender and gender nonconforming students by forcing school personnel to ‘out’ those students to their parents, even if their parents have not asked for such notification; even when disclosure would result in physical, emotional, or psychological abuse; and even when less harmful alternatives … were available.”

Reform UK leader Nigel Farage may have won re-election to parliament but scrutiny over his finances has hurt his party, says politics professor Tim Bale.

Published On 14 Aug 202614 Aug 2026

Click here to share on social media

Share

Add Al Jazeera on Google

Referee Anthony Taylor explains to BBC sports editor Dan Roan why he has stepped away from officiating.

The 47-year-old opened up on the impact of the often toxic debate surrounding officiating, and the intense scrutiny faced by referees.

READ MORE: Critical former refs add to culture of fear – Taylor

David Ellison, Paramount CEO, arrives on the red carpet in 2025 for the Kennedy Center Honors at the Kennedy Center in Washington D.C. House Democrats, led by Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., are escalating scrutiny of Ellison’s planned Paramount Skydance acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery. File Photo by Bonnie Cash/UPI | License Photo

Aug. 12 (UPI) — Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives are escalating their criticism of Paramount Skydance’s attempt to acquire Warner Bros. Discovery, with one lawmaker accusing the Paramount CEO of “colluding” with President Donald Trump and his administration.

Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, sent Paramount CEO David Ellison, a letter Wednesday, inviting him for an interview to “answer the committee’s questions about your Donald Trump-enabled shopping spree to consolidate news organizations, movie studios, cable channels and streaming stations.”

Raskin opened his letter referring to a New York Times opinion piece by Ellison in which the CEO defended the deal and said he would stay silent “no more.”

“This is great news,” Raskin wrote. “Over the past 12 months, I have sent you four letters. You have responded to none of them.”

“I have repeatedly sought answers from you about the Paramount Skydance merger and your planned acquisition of Warner Bros.Discovery in light of troubling reports that your company is colluding with President Trump and his administration to curtail media independence, spread political censorship and suppress dissent.”

Raskin also wrote that he’s sought answers about alleged political interference in CBS News reporting and that he has “significant concerns” that the acquisition would “dangerously” consolidate power in a single conglomerate.

Paramount had not commented on the letter Wednesday afternoon. However, Makan Delrahim, during a summit this week hosted by Politico, said the company is “transparent” and responsive to lawmakers’ concerns.

As of now, Raskin cannot require Ellison’s cooperation. However, if Democrats win control of the House in the upcoming midterm elections, Raskin — who is expected to become committee chairman — could subpoena Ellison.

Raskin previously told Politico that he plans to increase oversight of the merger and that “anyone involved should be prepared to answer under oath for their roll in this brazen campaign to bend America’s free press to Donald Trump’s political, financial and personal will.”

In 2025, Paramount paid $16 million to settle a lawsuit (which many called “meritless”) brought by Trump, and Democrats have said the money could be considered a bribe to allow the Paramount-Skydance merger, which was approved shortly afterward.

However, the merger has been postponed because of an antitrust lawsuit brought by attorneys general of 12 states and the Writers Guild America. A trial is set for March.