On June 7, months into Paramount’s negotiations to settle a $20 billion lawsuit over CBS’ 60 Minutes, President Trump was spotted ringside at a UFC event in Newark, New Jersey. All the usual suspects came to greet him, including Marco Rubio, Mike Tyson and Joe Rogan. So did Hunter Campbell, UFC President Dana White’s lieutenant who later brokered a meeting for Skydance CEO David Ellison to talk with Trump.
Just a few feet away from the ring, Ellison bowed his head to hear Trump as the announcer blared introductions for the bout’s fighters. Campbell, sandwiched in between the two, wrapped his arms around both of their shoulders, his head swiveling back and forth as he acted like something of a conduit for the back-and-forth. At one point, he gave up his seat to allow for a second round of talks that ended with Ellison extending his arm for a handshake with Trump, who appeared to accept the olive branch.
Since then, chatter has swirled that the informal meeting juiced talks to greenlight Skydance’s pending merger with Paramount by finding an acceptable framework for a settlement of Trump’s lawsuit. Such are the new rules of media in this regime: Everything starts and ends with Trump; Everything goes through him.
Less than two weeks after the discussion, Trump signaled support for Ellison’s takeover of Paramount. When asked about the deal and whether he believes that it’ll be resolved soon, he replied: “I hope so.”
“Ellison’s great,” Trump added. “He’ll do a great job with it.”
The settlement came to pass late on July 1 when Paramount announced a $16 million deal to resolve the lawsuit. It involves an agreement from the company, which will not apologize, to release 60 Minutes transcripts of interviews with presidential candidates after they’ve aired, according to a statement from the company.
And with the deal, a pathway to approval of Paramount’s sink-or-swim merger with Skydance has emerged. It shines a spotlight on the power that Trump wields over dealmaking and regulatory matters in decisions with the potential to transform the long term trajectory of a company. Media execs are on notice: Jeff Bezos revamped The Washington Post‘s opinion section to bring it more in line with Rupert Murdoch’s Wall Street Journal; Bob Iger allowed ABC News’ settlement of a defamation lawsuit from Trump, reported The New York Times; Los Angeles Times owner Patrick Soon-Shiong shifted the paper’s strategy to increasingly platform conservative views.
“Paramount’s spineless decision to settle Trump’s baseless and patently unconstitutional lawsuit is an insult to the journalists of 60 Minutes and an invitation to Trump to continue targeting other news outlets,” says Seth Stern, director of advocacy for the Freedom of the Press Foundation. “Each time a company cowers and surrenders to Trump’s demands, only emboldens him to do it again.”
Yes, there will be legal blowback. The Freedom of the Press Foundation, represented by prominent Washington litigator Abbe David Lowell, sent to Paramount on Wednesday a demand for information related to its decision to settle, with plans to file a lawsuit on behalf of investors against controlling shareholder Shari Redstone and the board. Related are potential investigations by lawmakers like Sen. Elizabeth Warren into whether Paramount violated anti-bribery laws, though there’s skepticism about how those legal actions will fare.
“It’s not good enough to say abstractly that this was a bribe,” says Ann Lipton, professor of business law at Tulane University Law School. “People settle frivolous lawsuits to get rid of them all the time.”
That line of argument was echoed by Paramount co-CEO George Cheeks at a shareholder meeting on Wednesday. “Companies often settle litigation to avoid the high and somewhat unpredictable cost of legal defense, the risk of an adverse judgment that could result in significant financial as well as reputational damage, and the disruption to business operations that prolonged legal battles can cause,” he said.
With Trump loyalists at the head of various regulatory agencies, expect more of the same. Any greenlight from the FCC, FTC or DOJ in deals being reviewed will likely involve concessions. That includes new Paramount, which may have to agree to promote more conservative perspectives moving forward for the FCC to approve transferal of broadcast licenses.
That tactic, designed to stymie what the Trump administrations considers political bias in corporate America and mainstream outlets, was seen last month in a consent decree from advertising giants Omnicom and IPG with the FTC to get their $13 billion mega merger across the finish line. In a highly unusual move weaponizing antitrust laws to regulate private companies’ business choices and free speech rights, the FTC conditioned approval of the transaction on an agreement not to boycott media platforms because of their political content. The deal came after the FTC opened an investigation into whether advertisers and watchdog groups conspired to withhold advertising money from platforms and websites with conservative leanings.
“Coordination among advertising agencies to suppress advertising spending on publications with disfavored political or ideological viewpoints threatens to distort not only competition between ad agencies, but also public discussion and debate,” Daniel Guarnera, director of the FTC’s Bureau of Competition, said in a statement.
The likes of Warner Bros. Discovery, Disney and Comcast — all of which have significant media holdings — could choose to forego dealmaking for the remainder of Trump’s term, but it’s uncertain if that’s an option. NBCUniversal (MSNBC, CNBC) and WBD (CNN) are currently racing to offload their ailing linear TV channels, which could require some kind of regulatory approval to ensure compliance with licensing regimes. It remains to be seen whether the FCC and SEC plant their flags over those transactions.
In this regime, there’s immense value in having a direct line to Trump or knowing someone who does. Exhibit A: In the weeks leading up to the election, tech C-suites cozied up to Trump, who fielded calls from Google’s Sundar Pichai and Apple’s Tim Cook, as detailed by The Wall Street Journal. Around that time, WBD CEO David Zaslav and Elon Musk were seen sitting next to each other at the U.S. Open. By their thinking, why should they go through Justice Department antitrust division chief Gail Slater, who continues to pursue antitrust cases against Google and Apple, when they can go straight to the person who appointed — and can fire — her?
Notably, Ellison’s father, Oracle scion Larry Ellison, is believed to be the mogul closest to Trump. Earlier this year, he was front-and-center at the White House for an announcement of a project to build artificial intelligence data centers. And when asked if Elon Musk could buy TikTok, Trump replied, “I’d like Larry to buy it too.” The elder Ellison, who in 2020 hosted a fundraiser for Trump at his golf course in Southern California and later sat in on a transition meeting at Mar-a-Lago, put up most of the $8 billion bid to buy Paramount.
Then there’s the issue of federal funding for public broadcasters, like NPR and PBS. Trump is maneuvering to slash $1.1 billion for the Corporation of Public Broadcasting, which funnels money to more than 1,500 public television and radio stations across the country. If he succeeds, mass layoffs and show cancellations could follow.
Trump, meanwhile, has amassed a $31 million fund for his presidential library between settlements with ABC News and Paramount. That figure balloons to $53 million when accounting for a deal with Meta to resolve a lawsuit over the suspension of his account (it remains unknown where the money from X’s $10 million settlement is going).
For Trump’s legal team, those funds were well earned. “With this record settlement, President Donald J. Trump delivers another win for the American people as he, once again, holds the Fake News media accountable for their wrongdoing and deceit,” they said in a statement.
