Trump Intervenes in Netflix-Warner Bros Antitrust Review, Favoring Politically Connected Paramount

Overview

On December 10, 2025, President Donald Trump publicly intervened in the Department of Justice’s antitrust review of Netflix’s proposed $72 billion acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery, stating the deal “could be a problem” and demanding that CNN be sold as a condition of approval. Trump’s intervention comes after his administration expressed “heavy skepticism” about the Netflix bid while showing favoritism toward a competing offer from Paramount, which is backed by Trump ally Larry Ellison. Legal experts warn that Trump’s hands-on involvement in antitrust enforcement represents a dangerous politicization of law enforcement, where mega-merger approval depends on political considerations and “making promises” to Trump rather than on competitive analysis and consumer welfare—undermining the rule of law and due process.

The Netflix-Warner Bros Acquisition

Deal Structure

On December 5, 2025, Netflix announced a landmark agreement to acquire Warner Bros. Discovery’s studio and streaming business for an equity value of $72 billion. Under the deal structure:

• Warner Bros. Discovery would first spin off its cable networks (including CNN and Discovery) into a separate publicly traded entity called Discovery Global
• Netflix would acquire the studio and streaming operations, including Warner Bros. studios, HBO, HBO Max, and DC Studios
• The cable networks division would remain independent and not be part of the Netflix acquisition

What Netflix Gains

The acquisition would give Netflix control over one of Hollywood’s most valuable intellectual property portfolios:

• Classic Films: “Casablana,” “The Wizard of Oz,” and thousands of other Warner Bros. titles
• Franchises: “Harry Potter,” “Looney Tunes,” DC Comics characters (Batman, Superman, Wonder Woman)
• Premium TV: “Game of Thrones,” HBO’s acclaimed content library
• Studio Infrastructure: Warner Bros. production facilities and expertise

CEO Justification

Netflix co-CEO Ted Sarandos characterized the acquisition as “a rare opportunity” that would advance the company’s mission “to entertain the world and to bring people together through great stories.”

Netflix and Warner Bros. Discovery stated they expect to close the transaction in 12-18 months, pending shareholder approval and regulatory clearances—assuming they can navigate the Trump administration’s politicized review process.

Trump’s Direct Intervention

Kennedy Center Comments

Trump first raised concerns about the Netflix acquisition publicly during red carpet interviews at the Kennedy Center honors. He told reporters:

“They have a very big market share. When they have Warner Bros., that share goes up a lot.”

Trump added that he would need to consult “some economists” before giving the deal his support, suggesting he would personally decide whether the merger could proceed—a radical departure from traditional antitrust review processes that are supposed to be independent from White House political interference.

“It Will Be Involved” Statement

On December 7, Trump told reporters on Sunday that he would “be involved” in the decision on the Warner Bros. Discovery acquisition, making explicit that the president—not career antitrust professionals at the DOJ—would control the outcome.

This direct presidential involvement in specific merger reviews represents a fundamental break from the traditional independence of antitrust enforcement.

December 10 Intervention: CNN Must Be Sold

On December 10, Trump escalated his intervention, inserting himself directly into the battle for control of Warner Bros. Discovery by declaring:

“It’s imperative that CNN be sold.”

Trump’s demand came during a White House roundtable and indicated he favors Paramount’s competing hostile takeover bid for Warner Bros. Discovery. Paramount, led by CEO David Ellison and backed by his father, billionaire Oracle co-founder Larry Ellison (a Trump ally), is the only bidder seeking to acquire all of WBD, including CNN.

By demanding CNN be sold—when the Netflix deal already excludes CNN from the acquisition—Trump effectively signals opposition to the Netflix bid while supporting the Paramount offer that would put CNN under the control of a Trump-allied ownership group.

Administration’s “Heavy Skepticism”

Senior Official Statement

A senior official in the Trump administration told CNBC on December 5 that the White House views the proposed $72 billion Netflix-Warner Bros. deal with “heavy skepticism.”

This public statement of administration opposition before the DOJ has completed its antitrust review demonstrates that political considerations—not competitive analysis—are driving the administration’s position.

Contrast With Paramount Bid

While expressing “heavy skepticism” about the Netflix acquisition, the Trump administration has shown favoritism toward Paramount’s competing bid. Key differences:

1. Political Connections: Paramount is backed by Larry Ellison, a billionaire Trump supporter and ally
2. Trump Praise: Trump publicly praised Paramount’s earlier acquisition of another media company
3. CNN Control: Paramount’s bid would give Trump allies potential control over CNN, a frequent target of Trump’s attacks

DOJ Antitrust Division Position

According to reporting, Trump’s DOJ antitrust chief is preparing to launch a “sweeping multi-year investigation” into Netflix’s dominance and alleged monopoly over streaming—a position that appears designed to create leverage against the Netflix-Warner Bros. deal regardless of its competitive merits.

Political Considerations vs. Antitrust Law

Traditional Antitrust Analysis

Under traditional antitrust law, merger reviews focus on:

1. Market Definition: What markets would be affected by the merger
2. Concentration Levels: How much market share the combined entity would control
3. Competitive Effects: Whether the merger would reduce competition, raise prices, or harm consumers
4. Efficiencies: Whether the merger would create benefits that outweigh competitive harms

Legal experts noted that the DOJ’s antitrust division could potentially argue the deal is illegal if the combined market share would put Netflix well over a 30% threshold in relevant markets.

Trump’s Political Calculus

In contrast to traditional antitrust analysis, Trump’s intervention appears driven by political considerations:

1. CNN Control: Trump wants CNN under friendly ownership and opposes deals that don’t achieve this
2. Ally Benefits: Trump favors the Paramount bid backed by his ally Larry Ellison
3. Personal Grievances: Netflix has produced content critical of Trump
4. Negotiating Leverage: Trump can extract political concessions by threatening to block mergers

Expert Warnings on Politicization

Departure From Independence Norms

Professor Sam Weinstein of Cardozo Law School warned:

“The norm is that the White House wouldn’t get involved—that definitely isn’t happening here.”

Weinstein’s assessment captures the fundamental break from established processes. Historically, presidents have maintained distance from specific enforcement decisions to preserve the independence and integrity of antitrust law.

“Unpredictable” Outcomes

Weinstein further warned that Trump’s direct involvement makes outcomes “unpredictable” because approval now depends on “making promises” to administration officials rather than meeting legal standards:

“The outcome is now unpredictable because [it] may depend on making promises to administration officials rather than following standard antitrust guidelines.”

This represents a fundamental corruption of the legal process, where law is replaced by political deal-making.

Rule of Law Concerns

Rebecca Allensworth, a professor at Vanderbilt Law School, explained how Trump’s intervention threatens due process:

Trump’s administration could use antitrust concerns as leverage and then “make that all go away on terms that he agrees to,” potentially conditioning approval on non-competitive concessions like:

• Media coverage favorable to Trump
• Personnel changes
• Policy commitments
• Business decisions benefiting Trump or his allies

This converts antitrust enforcement from consumer protection into a tool for presidential extortion.

White House Interference Warning

Diana Moss, an antitrust expert, warned:

“White House interference in antitrust cases, whether it’s mergers or monopolization cases or other cases, really threatens at the very core due process and the rule of law.”

When political considerations override legal analysis, companies face uncertainty about what standards they must meet, and the law becomes whatever the president decides it is.

Precedent: Paramount-Skydance Deal

Political Conditions on Merger Approval

The Paramount-Skydance acquisition earlier in 2025 demonstrates the Trump administration’s pattern of conditioning merger approval on political commitments. That deal reportedly included:

1. Elimination of diversity programs: Commitments to end DEI initiatives
2. Ombudsman appointment: Installing an ombudsman to address content concerns
3. Other political commitments: Changes aligned with Trump administration priorities

These conditions have nothing to do with traditional antitrust concerns about competition, prices, or consumer welfare. They represent political demands extracted as the price of merger approval.

Setting Dangerous Template

The Paramount-Skydance precedent establishes that companies seeking merger approval must make political commitments to the Trump administration. This creates a template where:

• Merger approval depends on political loyalty
• Companies must negotiate political terms, not just competitive remedies
• The administration can extract concessions unrelated to antitrust law
• Due process and rule of law are replaced by political deal-making

Industry and Public Interest Opposition

Theater Owners

Cinema United, representing movie theater owners, opposes the Netflix-Warner Bros. deal, warning that approximately 25% of annual domestic box office revenue could disappear if Warner Bros. films move exclusively to streaming platforms rather than receiving theatrical releases.

This concern highlights legitimate competitive issues about vertical integration and the future of theatrical exhibition—the kind of issue that should be at the center of antitrust analysis, not political considerations about CNN ownership.

Labor Unions

Multiple entertainment industry unions have raised concerns:

• Writers Guild of America: Wants the merger blocked, citing job elimination and wage reductions
• Producers Guild: Expresses serious concerns about industry consolidation
• Actors’ Union: Worried about impact on employment and compensation

These labor concerns represent legitimate stakeholder interests that should inform antitrust review.

Congressional Concerns

Lawmakers from both parties have flagged antitrust issues with the deal:

• Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA): Described it as “an anti-monopoly nightmare”
• Senator Mike Lee (R-UT): Anticipated antitrust hearings on the transaction
• Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA): Questioned whether the administration would side with workers or corporations, noting such mergers harm workers, writers, and consumers

The bipartisan concerns suggest there are legitimate antitrust questions worth examining—but those questions should be analyzed through legal standards, not Trump’s political preferences.

Creative Community

Director James Cameron expressed skepticism about the Netflix acquisition, noting that Sarandos has previously stated theatrical releases are “dead.” Cameron’s concern reflects broader industry worries about streaming consolidation threatening traditional filmmaking and exhibition.

Market Concentration Analysis

Netflix’s Current Position

Netflix is already the dominant player in subscription streaming, with the largest subscriber base and market share globally. Adding Warner Bros.’ content library and HBO Max would significantly increase that dominance.

Relevant Markets

Antitrust analysis would need to examine concentration in multiple relevant markets:

1. Subscription Streaming: Netflix’s share of SVOD market
2. Content Production: Combined studio production capacity
3. Content Licensing: Impact on content available to competing streamers
4. Vertical Integration: Netflix controlling both content production and distribution

30% Threshold

Legal experts noted that the DOJ could argue the combined entity’s market share would exceed 30%—a level that traditionally raises antitrust red flags and triggers intensive review.

However, the proper analysis requires defining relevant markets, considering entry barriers, examining competitive effects, and weighing efficiencies—not simply determining which bidder has better political connections to Trump.

Constitutional and Legal Framework

Antitrust Law Enforcement

The Sherman Antitrust Act and Clayton Act establish legal frameworks for preventing anti-competitive mergers. The DOJ Antitrust Division is charged with enforcing these laws to protect competition and consumers.

Traditionally, enforcement decisions are made by career attorneys and economists who analyze competitive effects based on legal precedent and economic evidence—not by presidents based on political considerations.

Executive Branch Independence

While the DOJ is part of the executive branch and ultimately answers to the president, there has been a longstanding norm (if not legal requirement) that specific enforcement decisions—particularly in antitrust and criminal matters—should be made independently to ensure equal application of the law and avoid corruption.

Trump’s explicit statement that he will “be involved” in the Netflix-Warner Bros. decision shatters this norm and converts antitrust enforcement into an extension of presidential political power.

Due Process Concerns

Companies subject to government enforcement actions have due process rights, including:

• Clear legal standards
• Consistent application of those standards
• Decision-making based on evidence and law, not political favoritism
• Ability to predict what conduct will be permitted or prohibited

Trump’s intervention undermines all these elements, creating a system where companies cannot know in advance what legal standards they must meet because approval depends on political negotiations with the White House.

Implications for Media Independence

CNN and Critical Coverage

Trump’s explicit demand that CNN be sold, combined with his favoritism toward the Ellison-backed Paramount bid, suggests his intervention is designed to punish Netflix for content he dislikes and to potentially bring CNN under ownership friendly to Trump.

This represents an abuse of government power to influence media coverage and punish critical journalism.

Chilling Effect

When merger approval depends on presidential favor, media companies face pressure to:

• Avoid content critical of the president
• Produce content favorable to the administration
• Make personnel and editorial decisions designed to curry favor with the White House

This chilling effect on media independence threatens First Amendment values even without formal government censorship.

Precedent for Future Interventions

If Trump successfully blocks or extracts concessions from the Netflix-Warner Bros. deal based on political considerations, it establishes a precedent for future administrations to use antitrust enforcement as a tool to control media coverage and punish disfavored speech.

Comparison to Historical Antitrust Enforcement

AT&T-Time Warner Under Trump 1.0

During Trump’s first term, his administration challenged AT&T’s acquisition of Time Warner (now Warner Bros. Discovery) in court. Reporting suggested Trump’s opposition was motivated by his dislike of CNN, which was part of Time Warner.

The DOJ lost that case, with the court finding insufficient evidence of competitive harm to block the merger. However, the case demonstrated Trump’s willingness to use antitrust enforcement against media companies he dislikes.

Traditional Standards

Historically, antitrust enforcement has focused on:

• Market structure and concentration
• Barriers to entry
• Likelihood of coordination among competitors
• Impact on prices and consumer welfare
• Innovation effects

Political considerations about media coverage or the political affiliations of bidders’ backers have not traditionally factored into antitrust analysis—nor should they.

Netflix’s Confidence vs. Uncertainty

Sarandos Meeting With Trump

Netflix co-CEO Ted Sarandos met with President Trump in November to discuss the potential deal. Trump reportedly told Sarandos that Warner Bros. should “sell to the highest bidder”—a statement that could be interpreted as Trump wanting to maximize the sale price or as Trump signaling he would not predetermine the outcome.

Public Confidence

Despite the administration’s “heavy skepticism,” Sarandos has publicly expressed confidence in obtaining regulatory approval. He told investors and reporters that Netflix is “confident of the regulatory process” and is “going full steam ahead.”

This public confidence may reflect:

1. Belief in legal merits: Netflix may believe the deal passes traditional antitrust scrutiny
2. Negotiating strategy: Public confidence might strengthen Netflix’s negotiating position
3. Naivety about politicization: Netflix may underestimate Trump’s willingness to block deals for political reasons

Actual Uncertainty

Contrary to Sarandos’ public confidence, legal experts assess the situation as highly uncertain precisely because Trump has made clear he will personally decide the outcome based on his own political considerations rather than legal standards.

Broader Implications for Business Certainty

Unpredictable Regulatory Environment

When merger approval depends on presidential whim rather than legal standards, businesses face fundamental uncertainty:

• Companies cannot reliably predict what mergers will be approved
• Investment decisions become more risky
• Long-term planning becomes more difficult
• Political connections become more valuable than competitive efficiency

Corruption of Market Processes

Markets function most efficiently when legal rules are clear and consistently applied. Trump’s politicization of antitrust enforcement introduces corruption into market processes:

• Resources are diverted from efficiency to political maneuvering
• Companies with political connections gain advantages over more efficient competitors
• Innovation and competition are distorted by political considerations

International Competitiveness

When U.S. companies must navigate politicized regulatory processes while foreign competitors face more predictable legal frameworks, American businesses face competitive disadvantages in global markets.

Conclusion

President Trump’s intervention in the Netflix-Warner Bros. antitrust review—stating he will personally “be involved” in the decision, declaring the deal “could be a problem,” demanding that CNN be sold, and expressing “heavy skepticism” while favoring the politically connected Paramount bid—represents a fundamental corruption of antitrust law enforcement.

Legal experts warn that Trump’s hands-on involvement makes outcomes “unpredictable” because approval now depends on “making promises” to Trump rather than meeting legal antitrust standards. This departure from the rule of law threatens due process, undermines business certainty, and converts merger review from consumer protection into a tool for presidential political warfare and media control.

The Netflix-Warner Bros. case demonstrates how Trump politicizes law enforcement based on:

• His desire to control CNN coverage through friendly ownership
• His favoritism toward political allies like Larry Ellison
• His willingness to extract political concessions as the price of merger approval
• His personal grievances against companies that produce critical content

When antitrust enforcement becomes an instrument of political power rather than a mechanism for protecting competition and consumers, the rule of law gives way to corruption, favoritism, and presidential extortion. Companies face a system where legal compliance is insufficient—they must also negotiate political terms with the White House and demonstrate sufficient loyalty to Trump to win approval for business transactions.

This represents a clear abuse of presidential power that undermines both market efficiency and constitutional governance.