Category: News

Karoline Leavitt plans to exit her role as White House press secretary at the end of the month, President Donald Trump announced on Wednesday.

Leavitt is leaving to spend more time with her family, Trump said. She gave birth to a daughter in May, her second child.

Trump posted on Truth Social, “Our wonderful White House Press Secretary, and one of my most trusted aides, Karoline Leavitt, will be departing her role at the end of the month so she can spend more time with her beautiful young children and family, a decision I totally understand and respect! Karoline will now be one of my top outside advisors, and an influential voice within the Republican Party, as we work to defy History, and conclusively win the Midterm Elections.

He added, “Karoline has been a real leader in the White House, and has done a phenomenal job fighting for Justice, Liberty, and Freedom, since 2018, including our Historic Re-Election Campaign of 2024. Karoline has been one of the best White House Press Secretaries in the History of the Office. Thank you, Karoline, for a job well done!”

Leavitt wrote in a post on X, “The truth is since returning to the White House after the birth of my daughter, I have felt in my heart that I cannot be the best mom my two young children deserve while devoting the constant time, energy, and attention required of the White House Press Secretary — and that is why I have ultimately made the bittersweet decision to depart the White House and embark on a new chapter in my life.”

Leavitt has served as press secretary since the start of Trump’s second term, typically holding weekly press briefings that have at times been confrontational with the press corps. She frequently criticized the media in her opening statements, while zealously defending the president and his record and attacking Democrats.

That was evident in her message on X, in which she thanked Trump for “entrusting me with the distinct privilege of speaking on his behalf at the White House podium. I have spoken with great pride about the many historic accomplishments of this Administration, and I have relished holding the liberal media accountable and ensuring the American people hear the truth about President Trump’s successes.” She also warned that the country was “facing an existential threat from an increasingly extremist Democrat Party that seeks to destroy everything great about America.”

No successor has been named. When she was on maternity leave, various administration figures including Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent led the briefings.

Trump himself has answered questions from the media in Oval Office availabilities or on his way to Marine One, and has taken calls directly from reporters who have his personal cell phone number.

Leavitt. 28, is the youngest person to serve as press secretary. She served as an assistant press secretary in the first term, made an unsuccessful bid for Congress and served as press secretary in the 2024 campaign.

During her tenure, the White House seized control of the make up of the press pool from the White House Correspondents’ Association, a private group of journalists who had for years assigned reporters to the daily task. The administration also barred the Associated Press from the pool after the news service did not switch references after Trump changed the name of the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America. A federal judge ruled that the restrictions on the AP violated the First Amendment; an appellate decision is pending.

UPDATED: The top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee wants Paramount CEO to sit for a transcribed interview to answer questions on its proposed merger with Warner Bros. Discovery.

The letter from Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD) is just the latest that Democrats have sent to Ellison, as they amplify their criticisms and opposition to the transaction. In the letter, Raskin cited changes Ellison has made to CBS News and potential changes if Paramount gains control of CNN, accusing the CEO of “colluding with President Trump and his administration to curtail media independence.” The letter referred to a Wall Street Journal report from December, citing unnamed sources, that Ellison offered “assurances to Trump administration officials that if he bought Warner, he’d make sweeping changes to CNN.”

Later on Wednesday, The Wall Street Journal reported that Paramount has discussed creating an editorial board for CNN when the merger closes. That move would be to try to alleviate concerns over the editorial independence of the network.

Ellison last week published an op ed in The New York Times defending the proposed merger and claiming that the opposition is fueled by concerns over what will happen to CNN.

In his op ed, Ellison wrote that news organizations require independence, while he said that CNN and CBS News, which Paramount already owns, “are here to tell it straight down the middle.”

Responding to the report of a potential editorial board for CNN, a Paramount spokesperson said in a statement, “We always remain open to internal improvements to journalistic integrity. However, as we have maintained, using state powers to try to control speech would threaten the protections guaranteed by the First Amendment.”

California Attorney General Rob Bonta, who is leading a dozen state attorneys general who are challenging the merger, has denied that CNN is the reason for the lawsuit and has said that a settlement would require structural remedies that would mitigate concerns over the merger’s impact on competition.

An editorial board would be unique for a major television news network, and much would depend on the make up of its members. When Skydance sought regulatory approval to purchase Paramount last year, it committed to hiring an ombudsman to take complaints about the news division. The person hired in the role, Kenneth Weinstein, formerly led the conservative Hudson Institute.

In his letter, Raskin also raised antitrust concerns, while noting the ongoing state AGs’ lawsuit.

Raskin wrote in the letter, “Last week, in a New York Times op-ed, you pledged to tell your story and stay silent ‘no more.’ This is great news. Over the past 12 months, I have sent you four letters. You have responded to none of them. Now that you have vowed to break your long silence, I invite you to a transcribed interview to tell Congress and America your story and answer the Committee’s questions about your Donald Trump-enabled shopping spree to consolidate news organizations, movie studios, cable channels, and streaming services.”

He gave Ellison until August 26 to schedule an interview.

As the minority party, Democrats cannot compel Ellison to testify. But Raskin and others have suggested that Paramount and other mergers would be under scrutiny should the party regain control of one or more houses of Congress.

At a Politico event on Tuesday, Paramount’s chief legal officer Makan Delrahim said, “You can allege all you want. There is no corruption here.” He said that they would be “happy to engage with” Raskin and “provide him, as we have, with information.”

“We respect his role and his important role in oversight,” Delrahim said. “But just because he said so doesn’t mean that there’s any corruption.”

CNN first reported on Raskin’s letter.

The Senate Judiciary antitrust subcommittee held a hearing in February on Netflix’s plans to merge with WBD, with co-CEO Ted Sarandos appearing before lawmakers, weeks before the streamer dropped its bid amid Paramount’s counteroffer. Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) said that he invited Ellison to participate in that hearing, but he declined.

Two media groups filed suit against Donald Trump over a new offering in which subscribers can pay up to $100,000 a month for quicker access to his announcements on Truth Social.

The lawsuit, filed in federal court on Wednesday, the Freedom of the Press Foundation and The Intercept Media claim that the “scheme is profoundly corrupt.”

“The President stands to gain financially by giving ‘market-moving’ government information to those who are willing and able to pay his personal company,” the lawsuit stated.

They also contend that the service violates the First Amendment, noting that it “guarantees equal access to the President’s public announcements, and even content-neutral burdens on that access must be narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest. There is no legitimate interest, let alone a significant one, in permitting President Trump to profit from selling government information.”

The lawsuit also claims violation of the Fifth Amendment, arguing that it prohibits “charging unreasonable sums that cannot be justified to offset the cost of the government benefit.”

The service is called Trump API, billed as offering the fastest access to the highest-ranking accounts on Truth Social, potentially giving an advantage to traders for the market-moving information.It was pitched as a business-to-business offering for institutional customers.

The Intercept argued that the service forces it to make an “unconstitutional choice: either subsidize and associate with the President’s private company, harming The Intercept’s finances, reputation, and legal security, or risk losing out on timely news to competing organizations, similarly harming its reputation and revenue.”

The lawsuit seeks an injunction to halt the posting of exclusive government information on Truth Social, as well as a declaration that it is unconstitutional.

Also named as defendants in the lawsuit are two of the president’s top aides, Natalie Harp and Dan Scavino.

A White House spokesperson did not immediately return a request for comment.

Trump Media and Technology Group, which owns Truth Social, has viewed Truth API as a long-term recurring revenue stream. TMTG this week reported a $238 million net loss in the most recent quarter, on revenue of $1.7 million.

A TMTG spokesperson said, “Information from President Trump is disseminated by countless platforms and news outlets, many of which offer subscription APIs. One of those channels is Truth Social, which was founded as an uncancellable haven for free speech after the President was unjustly deplatformed. Now, left-wing activists are trying to wrongfully weaponize the courts to censor him again and harm our shareholders.”

In an earnings call, TMTG Interim CEO Kevin McGurn told investors that they have signed more than 10 customer agreements to date, primarily to high-frequency trading firms at rates ranging from $60,000- $100,000 per month.

Paramount‘s Chief Legal Officer Makan Delrahim said that “everything is on the table” when it comes to finding a resolution to a state attorneys general lawsuit seeking to block the company’s proposed merger with Warner Bros. Discovery.

At a Politico conference on Tuesday, Delrahim also defended the company’s consideration of exiting California. California Attorney General Rob Bonta, who is leading the state AGs lawsuit and appeared at the same conference hours earlier, called the threat to leave a form of “blackmail.”

“David Ellison was born here, lived here since I moved to this country. I’ve lived here. He’s raising his children here. His intent is to be committed to be in California,” Delrahim said. He added, “There’s a point at which where you have a duty, a fiduciary duty to your shareholders, and those are all the factors you consider. But our goal is to be here.”

Delrahim said, “I heard the attorney general say that this was some kind of blackmail attempt for the lawsuit. It is not. When the delay starts costing you know after this merger has been approved from, I believe, 67 countries — European Union, China. Canada, Australia — let’s forget about the DOJ — but all of them have reviewed it this way. But this state seems to view this merger in a different market. You have to take a look at the business environment and look to see what’s best for not only the community, the business, and ultimately, go to the place where you are wanted.”

Ellison told a group of the company’s executives that he would start the process of leaving the state around Oct. 1 if Bonta did not negotiate a settlement. Paramount faces paying a $7 million-per-day ticking fee to Warner Bros. Discovery for each day that the merger doesn’t close past Sept. 30. But a federal judge last week set the trial for next March, scuttling the company’s plans to close the deal as soon as this summer.

California and 11 other states sued to block the merger last month, claiming that it would stifle competition for wide release theatrical film distribution, anticipated big budget blockbusters, and basic cable television channel licensing.

With the prospect of a trial delaying the transaction well into next year, Paramount has waged a PR campaign to try to show that the deal has drawn industry support, while Ellison has tried to peg the state AG opposition as about concerns over what would happen to CNN, amid warnings that he would push the network in a Trump-friendlier direction. In a new York Times op ed, Ellison wrote that news organizations require independence, while he said that CNN and CBS News, which Paramount already owns, “are here to tell it straight down the middle.”

Delrahim pointed to the Ellison op ed, and said that when it came to CNN, the CEO “wants to bring it back to news.”

Bonta, though, denied that the lawsuit was about control of the network, and a mere divestment of the channel would not be a sufficient structural remedy to satisfy the state AGs.

Delrahim told the Politico conference, “I take [Bonta] at his word. It’s not about CNN.This is an antitrust case. He’s trying to protect movie theaters and cable operators, as alleged in the lawsuit.”

But Delrahim predicted that the AGs would not have a viable case at trial. He pointed to support for the merger from major exhibitors, and when it came to the merger’s impact on cable operators, “it will fall apart because of the market definition.”

“There is no such thing as basic cable anymore,” he said. “Combined, if you look at streaming, the two companies will have something like 7% to 11% of the market share.”

When Politico’s Alex Burns pressed him on the prospect of selling CNN as a way to “make it easier to get this deal done,” Delrahim responded, “I was born in Iran. I moved here after the 1979 revolution. The single most important thing we have is the First Amendment. not because I’m a religious minority and …think people should be free, but also the First Amendment and free speech. If you start using state powers and wrap yourself around that to actually violate the First Amendment and control of content, that would be the saddest day in this country.”

He added, “But having said that, everything is on the table. We would be delighted to engage and discuss about any resolution to get this merger, to get this closing after all this time, in order to repair the industry, create more jobs, bring more jobs and production back.”

Delrahim also was asked about the prospect that the company would be investigated by Democrats if they take control of one or more chambers of Congress in the midterms. Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD), the ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, and other Democrats have warned that Paramount would face scrutiny along with other big mergers and efforts to win support from the Trump administration.

“You can allege all you want,” Delrahim said. “There is no corruption here.”

Xavier Becerra, the Democratic nominee to become the next governor of California, recommended that state attorneys general and Paramount reach a settlement and avoid an antitrust trial over the proposed Warner Bros. Discovery merger.

Weighing in for the first time on the lawsuit, Becerra said at a Politico conference on Tuesday, “I hope it settles before court. It is easier to stand in a conference room and settle than it is to stand in a courtroom. I say that having had to stand both in the conference room and in the courtroom. You get way more done in the conference room than you do in the courtroom.”

Becerra, the former secretary of health and human services during the Biden administration, served as California’s attorney general from 2017 to 2021. That is the job now held by Rob Bonta, who is leading 12 state attorneys general in their lawsuit to block the transaction.

Becerra did not weigh in on the merits of the state AGs’ case, but said, “Having done antitrust cases, these are not easy. They’re a different animal from most litigation. They are very difficult. They are very fact intensive. The law doesn’t keep pace. All I know is this, in terms of what’s going on in this particular case, the entertainment industry is our baby in California. We have to fight to keep it vibrant. If a merger is good, that helps that keeps it vibrant, I’m willing to say, let’s take a look. If that merger undermines the ability of the industry of remaining vibrant, then I’m going to take … a closer look as well. At the end of the day, is it good for the entertainment community in California? Does it benefit California families to have another merger occur? And then, at the end of the day, who will settle it?”

Asked about reports that Paramount CEO David Ellison has raised the prospect of the company exiting California if no settlement is reached, Becerra said, “Having a major player in the industry leave would not be good. At the same time, I said as well, ‘Is it going to be good for working families?’ Having them leave leave the state is certainly not good for working families. So let’s be adults, not be kids. Conference room, not courtroom.”

Earlier, Becerra’s Republican rival, Steve Hilton, blasted the state AG case, calling it “totally politically motivated.” He said that Bonta’s arguments “just don’t add up.”

The Kennedy Center is being ordered to pay more than $250,000 in attorneys fees and costs to jazz musician Chuck Redd, who was sued after he backed out of a performance when Donald Trump‘s name was added to the arts institution.

D.C. Superior Court Judge Tanya M. Jones Bosier ruled that the center owes Redd $252,479.70, about $6,000 less than he sought in legal and other costs.

Shortly after the center’s board voted in December to add Trump’s name, Redd was among the musicians and artists who canceled performances. He was scheduled to perform at a free Christmas Eve “jazz jam,” but informed the center that he was backing out because he disagreed with the name change. He also emailed a statement to the Associated Press explaining his reason for canceling.

The center sued Redd for breach of contract, with the lawsuit citing a morals clause, claiming that he “chose to abuse the public forum provided to him by the center in order to make a political statement.”

In June, the judge dismissed the center’s lawsuit against Redd, noting that he never signed a contract for the 2025 performance. She also sided with Redd’s contention that his conduct was protected under the D.C. Anti-SLAPP Act.

“Notably, the Center acknowledged at the Hearing that multiple artists canceled their performances leading to the cancelation of the Jazz Jam in its entirety, and Redd acknowledged that he is the only performer to his knowledge to have made a public statement and be sued thereafter,” the judge wrote.

A Kennedy Center spokesperson did not immediately return a request for comment. In a filing last month, the center’s legal team called the proposed costs “nothing short of astonishing. It is out of all proportion to the issue at stake, the non-complexity of case, the experience needed to handle it, and most importantly, the work needed to defend it.”

In a separate case, a federal judge ordered the center to remove Trump’s name from the building and other materials by June. A tarp now covers part of the facade of the structure, concealing the original name sans that of the president, but the judge has ordered a status update after the board meets again this month.