Elizabeth Warren Says Companies That Settled With Trump May Have Committed Bribery

While the settlements likely don't meet the statutory definition of bribery, they're still inappropriate.

During his second term in office, several major media organizations have settled lawsuits brought by President Donald Trump. The lawsuits have little or no merit, and the settlements clearly seem like payoffs meant to hold off a vengeful president. Now Senate Democrats are investigating whether the settlements amount to bribery.

"We write seeking information on Google subsidiary YouTube's $22 million settlement with President Trump, and on how the decision may relate to regulatory issues pending with the Trump administration," began a letter last week from lawmakers—chief among them Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D–Mass.)—to Google CEO Sundar Pichai and YouTube CEO Neal Mohan.

In January 2021, YouTube suspended Trump's account after the January 6 Capitol riot; Twitter and Facebook did the same. Trump later sued all three companies, saying the suspensions constituted "illegal, shameful censorship." The lawsuits were frivolous on their face—private companies are free to decide whom to allow or exclude from their platforms—but all three companies settled once Trump reentered office. Last month, more than two years after it reinstated his account, YouTube agreed to pay $24.5 million to settle the lawsuit. The bulk of it went to Trump, which he said he would earmark for a new ballroom he is building at the White House.

The lawmakers wrote to Pichai and Mohan in August, when it appeared YouTube may settle. Google, they noted, faced a number of potential regulatory hurdles as well as labor and antitrust actions. "Google stands to benefit from how the federal government proceeds in these matters, and Google may settle this lawsuit in the hopes of securing outcomes favorable to the company," the letter warned. "Under the federal bribery statute, it is illegal to corruptly give anything of value to public officials with the intent to influence an official act." (In a brief two-page reply, Google noted "the Company's commitment to comply with both U.S. and non-U.S. laws and regulations" and clarified that talks were still ongoing.)

In last week's follow-up letter, Warren—along with Sens. Ron Wyden (D–Ore.), Bernie Sanders (I–Vt.), Richard Blumenthal (D–Ct.), and Jeff Merkeley (D–Ore.)—asked, in light of the settlement, to know more about the negotiations. Among other things, they asked whether Google and YouTube were "engaging the Trump administration in any way to secure favorable treatment in any pending legal or enforcement matters or potential future matters."

Google was not the only example.

During the 2024 election, Trump complained when CBS lightly edited a 60 Minutes interview with his opponent, then–Vice President Kamala Harris, by airing only part of her answer to a question in the primetime broadcast. In October 2024, he sued CBS and its parent company, Paramount, seeking $10 billion in damages—later increased to $20 billion—saying the minor edits caused "confusion and mental anguish" for him and for viewers. CBS called the lawsuit "completely without merit."

Legally, Trump had no leg to stand on: Even substantive edits to news broadcasts are fully within an outlet's discretion, according to the U.S. Supreme Court. CBS later released a transcript and raw footage of the interview, proving there was no substance to the controversy in the first place.

But in July 2025, Paramount agreed to pay $16 million to settle the lawsuit. This was better than what Trump had reportedly demanded—$25 million and an apology—but it was still a shameful outcome for one of the most prominent journalistic outlets in the country.

The decision likely stemmed, at least in part, from the fact that Paramount needed the Trump administration's approval to finalize an $8 billion merger with Skydance Media. The Federal Communications Commission approved the merger on July 24, just three weeks after Paramount agreed to settle the lawsuit and two days after Skydance pledged that as Paramount's new owner, it would install an "ombudsman" to "receive and evaluate any complaints of bias or other concerns involving CBS."

In a May letter, Warren and other Democratic lawmakers cautioned Paramount about settling Trump's lawsuit and acceding to his government's demands "in exchange for approval of its megamerger" with Skydance. "Under the federal bribery statute, it is illegal to corruptly give anything of value to public officials to influence an official act," they wrote. "If Paramount officials make these concessions in a quid pro quo arrangement to influence President Trump or other Administration officials, they may be breaking the law."

This was apparently not news to Paramount. All the way back in February, The Wall Street Journal's Jessica Tonkel reported the company was "wrestling" with how to settle the lawsuit, "and how it might do so without exposing executives to future legal threats, such as accusations of bribery."

The lawmakers also asked if Skydance made any sort of "side deal" with Trump, wherein the company agreed to certain concessions in exchange for merger approval. "The public deserves to know which White House officials met with Skydance executives, and if Skydance cut a side deal with the President in order to grease the skids for its merger approval," Warren, Sanders, and Wyden wrote in a letter last week.

The senators were not alone. After the merger, the nonprofit organization Free Speech for People "called on" the attorneys general of New York and California "to determine whether Trump, senior administration officials, and Trump's personal associates violated state laws and, if warranted, to bring criminal charges."

It's unlikely the bribery allegations will bear fruit. "An offer made merely to ingratiate or with a generalized hope of future official benefit is insufficient. Bribery law requires an unambiguous intent to influence a public official's action through money or something else of value," wrote John Keller, an attorney who previously headed the Department of Justice Public Integrity Section, in a post at Lawfare. "Without the requirement of an actual offer, every company or individual with any business pending before the federal government would be subject to a bribery charge for any commercial or personal dealings with Trump or his expansive network of businesses that appeared favorable to the president."

Legal or not, it's completely inappropriate for the sitting president to sue media companies he doesn't like and use the levers of government to force them to settle. While it may not meet the statutory definition of bribery, lawmakers are right to probe both the administration and the companies Trump has targeted.