Netflix and Paramount Will Fight for Trump's Favor

Which is what progressive fans of antitrust want, no?

Netflix has moved to acquire Warner Bros. for $82.7 billion, a massive media deal that would bring the film studio's iconic intellectual property—everything from Harry Potter to Tony Soprano—under the auspices of the streaming giant.

But not so fast! Paramount Skydance has launched a hostile takeover bid and is trying to persuade Warner Bros. shareholders that they would be better off throwing in with Paramount owner David Ellison, who is the son of Larry Ellison, a close ally of President Donald Trump. The two deals are slightly different; under the terms of the Netflix deal, CNN would be spun off separately, whereas Paramount Skydance would also acquire CNN as part of its deal. This would mean that CNN would be part of the same media company as CBS News, which is now run by the right-of-center journalist, Bari Weiss. In other words, the Paramount deal could in theory be more appealing to the Trump administration, though Trump has thus far had relatively nice things to say about Netflix co-CEO Ted Sarandos as well.

Trump would definitely like to be involved in the decision, however—and thus, Netflix and Paramount Skydance have every incentive to curry favor with the president and flatter his vanity. This could influence editorial decisions at the relevant media properties, since no one wants to risk offending a president with the power to blow up the deal. Undoubtedly, executives at Paramount Skydance were sweating last weekend after Trump penned a Truth Social post blasting CBS' new management for failing to swiftly rein in 60 Minutes, which committed the unpardonable sin of interviewing Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R–Ga.), a MAGA loyalist turned Trump archenemy. "THEY ARE NO BETTER THAN THE OLD OWNERSHIP," fumed Trump, referring to his friends at Paramount.

This seems likely to get very ugly, from a free speech perspective. Media companies should feel unconstrained to criticize government leaders, but some of the most powerful business leaders in the country will clearly be competing to outdo each other in terms of obsequiousness toward Trump.

But if you have a problem with this—and to be clear, most people ought to be offended by it—then you should object to the federal government exercising so much power over market actors in the first place. This entire situation, in which flattering Trump is the end goal of Netflix and Paramount, exists because the Justice Department and the Federal Trade Commission have the power to block corporate mergers and acquisitions. Progressive proponents of robust antitrust enforcement, which involves limiting the size and scale of major companies, are living in a reality that follows naturally from their own principles.

They won't see it that way, of course. Progressives like to imagine that the government would scrutinize mergers in an objective manner, considering the potential merits from a neutral standpoint.

I feel like merger review should be governed by some effort at an objective standard (perhaps welfare to consumers) rather than treated as a pure political football. https://t.co/wIoZO5aFeu

— Matthew Yglesias (@mattyglesias) December 9, 2025

But of course, progressive crusades against private businesses are often political in nature. Democrats frequently probe the decisions of private media companies and threaten regulatory action for noncompliance with a specific political agenda. What distinguishes Trump is the brazen and transactional nature of his pressure campaigns. Yet the solution is simple: greatly limit the power of federal antitrust regulators, or scrap these offices completely. If Sarandos, Ellison, and any other media titan could safely ignore Trump's demands for special deference, then free speech rights of these companies would be much better protected.

This Week on Free Media

I was joined by Amber Duke and Niall Stanage to discuss Democratic Rep. Jasmine Crockett's bid for the Texas Senate seat, MTG's latest clash with Trump, and more.

Worth Watching

It's here! My new show with Reason's Christian Britschgi debuted last week to rave reviews. Have you seen it yet? It's called Freed Up, and we are just getting started. You can watch the 90-minute first episode below, and make sure to tune in this Friday for our next entry.

Comments

[Stupid Government Tricks]

But if you have a problem with this—and to be clear, most people ought to be offended by it—then you should object to the federal government exercising so much power over market actors in the first place.

THIS is the kind of libertarian content which should be in every article. That it isn't shows how far Reason has strayed from being libertarian.

Good on ya, Robby. I wish other writers said as much.

[Incunabulum]

Once Soave was outed as a conservative he stopped GAF and is letting it all hang out;)

[Incunabulum]

They wanted an Imperial Presidency.

Now they're mad they god one.

[Quicktown Brix]

Correct. There might be a lesson here.

[Incunabulum]

No. But there will be by the time we're done.

[charliehall]

The stockholders of WB should decide.

But there actually IS a legit antitrust issue in CNN and CBS news having the same ownership. Easy to spin one of them off, though. More money for the stockholders.

[SCOTUS gave JeffSarc a big sad]

Just shutter CNN. It’s a massive money loser with ratings below Gilligan’s Island reruns.

[sarcasmic]

When Democrats did it it was bad, but when Trump does it it’s ok. Anyone who says otherwise is a leftist Marxist with TDS.

[Bertram Guilfoyle]

Abolish the FTC, FCC, et al, and repeal all anti-trust laws; regardless of who the president is.

Odd that when I posted this earlier in the week, no one applied your straw epithets to me.

[SCOTUS gave JeffSarc a big sad]

Walz +6

[JesseAz (RIP CK)]

Youre being too generous.

1 sarc = Walz +7

[shrike]

What makes Bari Weiss “right of center”, Robby?

Now I’ve heard progressive idiots say that because she unabashedly supports Israel. So do most Democrats.

Is it her candor on trans issues? Gavin Newsom has said the same things.

Serious question.

[Bertram Guilfoyle]

unabashedly supports Israel. So do most Democrats.

A decade or more ago, perhaps, and their support was hardly "unabashed". You're a bit behind the times, shit for brains. But you also lie freely, so hard to tell which this is.

[shrike]

Jews consistently vote 70-75% Democrat, you dumb cracka. Obama is the only US president to get the Israeli Presidential Medal. Even old Sleepy Joe and Kammy were called out for their support of Israel over the ragheads.

You stupid hick.

[SCOTUS gave JeffSarc a big sad]

Walz +5, you dumb cunt.

The democrat party is scorchingly anti semitic. Just like you, JewFree, Jeffy, Sarc, etc.. just like how you filth like to rape children.

[Kungpowderfinger]

Which is what progressive fans of antitrust want, no?

I’ve noticed this non-idiomatic style of writing here at Reason as of late. Did ChatGPT recently push an update?

[Vernon Depner]

The pharmaceutical corporations have a stranglehold on broadcast news content. That will continue regardless of the mergers or Trump's preferences.

[Don't look at me! ( Is the war over yet?)]

Ban pharmaceutical advertising.

[Vernon Depner]

Any politician who proposes that will be Arkancided.

[Gaear Grimsrud]

Shouldn't Reason just give Yglesias an editor title? He's their go to expert on like everything. And I probably spelled his name wrong but you know what? Fuck him. Whoever the fuck he is. And fuck Reason for linking to him in every fucking article. Just needed to get that off my chest. Now carry on.

[Fu Manchu]

The Kingmaker should be personally involved in every deal. How else is he supposed to steer business to his family and friends?

[JesseAz (RIP CK)]

Hey. More dem king rhetoric for the not a democrat.