Tag: Deadline News

Donald Trump has vowed to appeal a judge’s ruling in the networks’ challenge of his ban on their access to the White House, even though a federal judge has yet to issue a ruling in the case.

Shortly after CNN, Politico and MS NOW filed suit on Monday against Trump for his ban on their access to the White House, the case was assigned to U.S. District Judge Timothy J. Kelly. Kelly set a hearing for Wednesday on the networks’ motion for a temporary restraining order to prohibit such a ban and restore their correspondents’ credentials.

Trump appointed Kelly in his first term, but the judge ruled in favor of CNN and then-White House correspondent Jim Acosta after the administration pulled his credentials.

Trump wrote on Truth Social on Monday, “As expected, Fake News CNN, Politico (Pay back the 8 Million Dollar contribution made by the U.S. Government to keep them afloat!), and MSNOW (formerly known as MSDNC!), have brought suit to gain access to the White House, and your President, ME! They have drawn a great Judge, for them, a man who ruled in favor of Jim Acosta, who now seems to have disappeared from the Planet. The Judge’s name is Tim Kelly, and he was, sadly, appointed by ‘TRUMP.’ In other words, almost without question and, as usual, we’ll go for appeal because Fake News people and publications that only write negatively, and who violate our National Security by writing false and defamatory stories with unknown ‘sources,’ shouldn’t be allowed access to the most important Office anywhere in the World.”

In the Acosta case, Kelly ruled that precedent required that the White House give proper notice of a revocation of a credential. In the 1977 D.C. Circuit opinion, Sherrill vs. Knight, the judges ruled that “the protection afforded newsgathering under the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of the press requires that this access not be denied arbitrarily or for less than compelling reasons.”

Trump announced his ban on Friday. On Saturday, reporters for CNN, Politico and MS NOW said that they were denied access to the White House when their hard passes no longer worked.

Another Trump appointed federal judge, Trevor McFadden, sided with the Associated Press last year when they sued the administration for banning them from the White House pool and other events. The AP was restricted after it declined to change the name of the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America, as set out in one of Trump’s executive orders.

McFadden wrote in his opinion, “The Court simply holds that under the First Amendment, if the Government opens its doors to some journalists — be it to the Oval Office, the East Room, or elsewhere — it cannot then shut those doors to other journalists because of their viewpoints. The Constitution requires no less.” His decision is under appeal.

In contrast to the AP case, which had to do with being blocked from specific areas of the White House, the three networks were restricted from the grounds entirely.

Trump has also made clear that the ban was over their coverage. Courts have typically required that such restrictions on press freedom serve a compelling government reason for it. In his Truth Social post, Trump wrote that ‘FAKE NEWS IS A THREAT TO DEMOCRACY.”

He wrote, “Virtually every story about me, or anything having to do with me, is negative, wrong and, in many cases, DANGEROUS for our Country! No matter how GREAT my Achievements, they trivialize and demean. The fact is, I won all seven Swing States, the Popular Vote, the Electoral College (312 to 226), and the Counties throughout America by 86%, and yet it is reported that I get 94% bad publicity. With such a Crooked and Corrupt Press, how did I win in such a LANDSLIDE? It is because the Media has NO credibility, and that is a very bad thing for our Nation! Why should I have to give “access” to such people? Perhaps Judge Kelly could explain that!”

Kelly has given Trump until Tuesday to respond to the networks’ lawsuit.

Whatever the true state of settlement talks this weekend among Paramount, a coalition of state Attorneys General and the Writers Guild of America to end the antitrust action over the $111 billion Warner Bros Discovery merger, the people against the deal from the beginning are not going quietly.

“As Trump tries to ban CNN from the White House, it would be a massive mistake to cave on the Paramount merger,” Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) said Saturday morning as the current WBD-owned CNN and MS Now journalists were denied access to the Executive Mansion. “The last thing we need is another Trump-controlled media conglomerate abusing its power to stomp out competition. This is a dangerous merger.”

Compared to Warren, the A-list-supported Block the Merger is truly angry and feeling betrayed.

“The rumored ‘deal’ to usher the Paramount-Warner Bros. merger forward is an insult to everyone who has stood up against this harmful transaction and to the hundreds of thousands of workers, journalists, and consumers who will be hurt if it goes forward,” the DC-based group told Deadline today of reported behind-closed-doors negotiations underway right now. “Let’s be very clear: an agreement based on unenforceable concessions is a win only for David Ellison. It is an L for everyone else.”

As leaks of talks between the AGs, led by California’s politically ambitious AG Rob Bonta, and the Ellison-run Paramount flooded the media late Friday, the possible L (loss) that BTM are spotlighting could include guardrails around CNN editorial independence, some selloffs and job assurances. The hope down on Melrose is such a deal would render moot the March 2, 2027, trial start date currently on the calendar in federal court — and all the financial and political blast radius that comes with it for the Trump-friendly Ellisons.

To that, with massive job, production and tax-revenue losses on the table, Paramount’s plan B for the last eight weeks has been to pressure Bonta from all sides to make a deal. Two days of court-ordered settlement talks have already been set for mid-October, but that’s procedural in the judicial system and widely expected to go nowhere fast.

Also, mid-October doesn’t quite line up with Ellison’s balance sheet.

Looking at an October 1 date in which a $7 million-a-day ticking fee to WBD shareholders begins, as well as a September 24 hearing on a Hail Mary desire for a $1.88 billion bond from the states and the WGA, Ellison’s crew has been leaking more than ever threats to exit California for a red state.

Even as the likes of outgoing California Gov. Gavin Newsom acknowledged privately at the recent Primetime Emmys that the Ellisons were being too heavy-handed, the multi-pronged pressure campaign seems to have paid off. Whereas Bonta once accused Paramount of “blackmail” with its threats and theatrical promises, the reelection-seeking AG now has his lieutenants in the room with Ellison’s execs.

The latest word on the wire is the parties could have an agreement before the official start of Yom Kippur this weekend.

Word is also out there that New York AG Letitia James isn’t as “in step,” according to a source, with Bonta as she was when it came to burying the hatchet with Paramount. There is also the wildcard of the WGA, which joined the AGs’ July 13 suit after filing an anti-merger action of its own.

“This is such bullsh*t,” an industry insider told Deadline this morning of the ParaBros talks. “Bonta should have called their bluff, instead he caved,” she added, noting such tactics are typical of Democratic politicians in the MAGA era.

Block the Merger, with its support from such names as Bryan Cranston, Hannah Einbinder, Bradley Whitford, W. Kamau Bell, Kristen Vangsness, Jane Fonda and Rati Gupta, wasn’t quite as blunt today in its statement, but the vibe was much the same.

“Thousands of industry leaders took a risk when they spoke out publicly about the harm the Paramount-Warner Bros. merger would cause,” said the outfit, which also counts Noah Wyle, Denis Villeneuve, Atsuko Okatsuka, Damon Lindelof and Sofia Coppola among its backers. Claiming that more than 75,000 people have joined them to tell the state AGs to stand strong including national leaders like Warren, the group said, “We know a bad deal when we see one. AG Bonta and his fellow state AGs should reject this deal, stand strong, and fully block the merger with no concessions.”

That mention of Warren may have greater significance this weekend than initially apparent. Like everyone else, Paramount is keenly aware of what the polls are projecting going into November’s midterms. If the midterms actually occur and if the new Congress is actually seated (two big ifs in America right now), a projected Democratic majority in the House and Senate have promised to probe and even break up mega media mergers.

Even with Oracle founder Larry Ellison the primary backer of his son’s ParaBros dreams, the even older Ellison’s net worth, which has been declining of late, may not be able to handle the strain of months and months of such probes. So perhaps it is the first week of November, not October 1, that is the calendar date the younger Ellison is hoping to beat this weekend.

Paramount has been in “no comment” mode for weeks since the Melrose lot got burned on allegations of leaks detailing past preliminary talks with Bonta’s gang.

Bonta’s office did not respond Saturday to Deadline’s request for comment on Warren and Block the Merger’s opposition to the talks.

UPDATED: CNN, Politico and MS NOW are suing Donald Trump and other White House officials after the president banned him from the complex.

In the lawsuit, the news outlets are asking a federal judge to immediately restore their access, which was denied on Saturday, a day after Trump announced he was restricting them from entry to the White House grounds.

“This ban could not be a more direct assault on the First Amendment nor a more blatant violation of our most fundamental constitutional principles.”

The new organizations said in a joint statement, “This morning, we notified the government that we are filing a lawsuit today to protect our First Amendment rights and defend the principle that the government does not decide what the press reports or publishes.

“Without notice or process, the White House revoked our journalists’ credentials because it objected to our reporting. Left unchallenged, this threatens press freedom and the public’s right to independent journalism free from government interference.”

The White House also removed CNN from the White House pool on Monday, the day it was scheduled to be the primary network for their coverage. As a result, there will be no TV pool on a day when Trump is traveling to New York, signaling that other networks declined to serve as replacements because of the president’s targeting of CNN.

The news outlets state in their lawsuit, “The President banned CNN, MS NOW, and Politico, and the individual reporters covering the news for those media organizations, in disregard of the most basic guarantees of the First Amendment and the Due Process Clause. He did so expressly for the improper purpose of retaliating against Plaintiffs for past news coverage because he deemed it ‘negative’ and chilling future reporting about him and his administration’s policies and actions.

“President Trump has said in no uncertain terms that he would prefer only to be covered by news organizations and reporters who praise his administration. But the Constitution does not allow a president or any other government official to deprive the press of their First Amendment rights and liberty and property interests with no notice or process based solely on his dislike of the content of their reporting. The ban is unconstitutional and should be immediately restrained.”

The lawsuit claims violation of the Fifth Amendment’s due process clause and First Amendment retaliation and viewpoint discrimination. The outlets are seeking a temporary restraining order and injunction to prohibit the ban from being enforced and to require that their access be restored, as well as a declaratory ruling.

The outlets are represented from Theodore J. Boutrous Jr., who represented CNN’s Jim Acosta when his credentials were revoked in Trump’s first term, as well as others at Gibson Dunn, including Katie Townsend and Patrick Fuster.

In addition to the impact of the ban on their own news organizations, the outlets argue in the lawsuit that
it “inflicts an injury on all news media organizations—who now risk a similar fate if they engage in reporting the President deems insufficiently favorable. And the public at large suffers for however long the unconstitutional ban restricts access to current and complete information about their government. These irreparable harms should not be tolerated for a day longer. The Court should immediately enjoin enforcement of the ban.”

The lawsuit also names White House Communications Director Steven Cheung, Secret Service Director Sean Curran and Chief of Staff Susie Wiles as defendants.

Shortly after the lawsuit was announced, Trump posted on Truth Social, “The White House is not instituting an assault on the Free Press, something which I cherish. It is instituting an assault on the FAKE NEWS, something that has grown like Cancer in our beloved United States of America. It is corrupt, purposeful, pervasive, fully coordinated, and totally out of control. It is a threat to our National Security, and must be stopped, NOW! Thank you for your attention to this matter.”

In 2018, in the case of Acosta, a federal judge ruled that precedent required that the White House give proper notice of a revocation. In the 1977 D.C. Circuit opinion, Sherrill vs. Knight, the judges ruled that “the protection afforded newsgathering under the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of the press requires that this access not be denied arbitrarily or for less than compelling reasons.”

The White House has yet to provide a legal justification for revoking the credentials of the news outlets. On ABC’s This Week on Sunday, host Jon Karl pressed House Majority Leader Steve Scalise on Trump’s ban.

“Do you support him banning these news organizations because he doesn’t like what they are reporting?” Karl asked.

Scalise deflected, pointing to Trump’s accessibility to the media and claimed that Joe Biden removed the press credentials from more than 400 news organizations.

In fact, the Biden White House established new criteria for credentialing, based in part on how often holders had used the hard passes and that they had full time employment and residency in the D.C. area. It was not based on a news organization’s viewpoint, although the changes were made after one correspondent had repeatedly interrupted press briefings.

Karl told Scalise that they “were not banned from the White House.” He then asked Scalise whether Trump’s ban violates the First Amendment, but Scalise again did not answer. Karl moved on to another topic.

When Donald Trump travels to New York on Monday, there will be no primary TV pool, after major networks declined to replace CNN in the regular rotation after it was banned from White House and other coverage of the president.

CNN was scheduled to serve as the pool network, but the White House released a schedule late Sunday showing that was no longer the case. On Friday, Trump announced a ban on CNN, Politico and MS NOW from White House access because of their negative coverage of him.

The five major networks in the pool — CNN, Fox News, ABC, NBC and CBS — indicated that there would be no such TV coverage as long as the restrictions remain in place.

“This is to advise that, effective today, the TV pool will not be covering events designated as pool coverage of the president,” read a message from Fox News Washington bureau chief Bryan Boughton, who is currently chairing the pool. “This follows the White House’s position preventing CNN from fulfilling its assigned pool duties. There will be no replacement pool put in place.”

He added, “All other pool coverage will continue as normal, including Congress, VIPs, and selected events in Washington and around this country. We will provide further updates as this situation develops.”

The network boycott of the pool is taking place during an eventful week: Trump is addressing the United Nations General Assembly on Tuesday. Later in the week, he will host Chinese President Xi Jinping in Washington, including for a state dinner.

In a statement, the five networks in the TV pool stated, “The public has a vital interest in receiving accurate, independent information about its government. No administration should restrict a news organization because it objects to its reporting.”

The network pool distributes video and audio to other outlets, a system designed to rotate responsibilities and costs while gaining access where space is limited.

Earlier today, CNN, Politico and MS NOW announced that they were filing a lawsuit against Trump and other members of the administration, claiming First Amendment retaliation and violation of due process. The lawsuit seeks a restoration of journalists’ access and credentials.

Print, photo and radio pool coverage is scheduled to continue, as well as secondary TV poolers.

Whatever the true state of settlement talks this weekend among Paramount, a coalition of state Attorneys General and the Writers Guild of America to end the antitrust action over the $111 billion Warner Bros Discovery merger, the people against the deal from the beginning are not going quietly.

“As Trump tries to ban CNN from the White House, it would be a massive mistake to cave on the Paramount merger,” Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) said Saturday morning as the current WBD-owned CNN and MS Now journalists were denied access to the Executive Mansion. “The last thing we need is another Trump-controlled media conglomerate abusing its power to stomp out competition. This is a dangerous merger.”

Compared to Warren, the A-list-supported Block the Merger is truly angry and feeling betrayed.

“The rumored ‘deal’ to usher the Paramount-Warner Bros. merger forward is an insult to everyone who has stood up against this harmful transaction and to the hundreds of thousands of workers, journalists, and consumers who will be hurt if it goes forward,” the DC-based group told Deadline today of reported behind-closed-doors negotiations underway right now. “Let’s be very clear: an agreement based on unenforceable concessions is a win only for David Ellison. It is an L for everyone else.”

As leaks of talks between the AGs, led by California’s politically ambitious AG Rob Bonta, and the Ellison-run Paramount flooded the media late Friday, the possible L (loss) that BTM are spotlighting could include guardrails around CNN editorial independence, some selloffs and job assurances. The hope down on Melrose is such a deal would render moot the March 2, 2027, trial start date currently on the calendar in federal court — and all the financial and political blast radius that comes with it for the Trump-friendly Ellisons.

To that, with massive job, production and tax-revenue losses on the table, Paramount’s plan B for the last eight weeks has been to pressure Bonta from all sides to make a deal. Two days of court-ordered settlement talks have already been set for mid-October, but that’s procedural in the judicial system and widely expected to go nowhere fast.

Also, mid-October doesn’t quite line up with Ellison’s balance sheet.

Looking at an October 1 date in which a $7 million-a-day ticking fee to WBD shareholders begins, as well as a September 24 hearing on a Hail Mary desire for a $1.88 billion bond from the states and the WGA, Ellison’s crew has been leaking more than ever threats to exit California for a red state.

Even as the likes of outgoing California Gov. Gavin Newsom acknowledged privately at the recent Primetime Emmys that the Ellisons were being too heavy-handed, the multi-pronged pressure campaign seems to have paid off. Whereas Bonta once accused Paramount of “blackmail” with its threats and theatrical promises, the reelection-seeking AG now has his lieutenants in the room with Ellison’s execs.

The latest word on the wire is the parties could have an agreement before the official start of Yom Kippur this weekend.

Word is also out there that New York AG Letitia James isn’t as “in step,” according to a source, with Bonta as she was when it came to burying the hatchet with Paramount. There is also the wildcard of the WGA, which joined the AGs’ July 13 suit after filing an anti-merger action of its own.

“This is such bullsh*t,” an industry insider told Deadline this morning of the ParaBros talks. “Bonta should have called their bluff, instead he caved,” she added, noting such tactics are typical of Democratic politicians in the MAGA era.

Block the Merger, with its support from such names as Bryan Cranston, Hannah Einbinder, Bradley Whitford, W. Kamau Bell, Kristen Vangsness, Jane Fonda and Rati Gupta, wasn’t quite as blunt today in its statement, but the vibe was much the same.

“Thousands of industry leaders took a risk when they spoke out publicly about the harm the Paramount-Warner Bros. merger would cause,” said the outfit, which also counts Noah Wyle, Denis Villeneuve, Atsuko Okatsuka, Damon Lindelof and Sofia Coppola among its backers. Claiming that more than 75,000 people have joined them to tell the state AGs to stand strong including national leaders like Warren, the group said, “We know a bad deal when we see one. AG Bonta and his fellow state AGs should reject this deal, stand strong, and fully block the merger with no concessions.”

That mention of Warren may have greater significance this weekend than initially apparent. Like everyone else, Paramount is keenly aware of what the polls are projecting going into November’s midterms. If the midterms actually occur and if the new Congress is actually seated (two big ifs in America right now), a projected Democratic majority in the House and Senate have promised to probe and even break up mega media mergers.

Even with Oracle founder Larry Ellison the primary backer of his son’s ParaBros dreams, the even older Ellison’s net worth, which has been declining of late, may not be able to handle the strain of months and months of such probes. So perhaps it is the first week of November, not October 1, that is the calendar date the younger Ellison is hoping to beat this weekend.

Paramount has been in “no comment” mode for weeks since the Melrose lot got burned on allegations of leaks detailing past preliminary talks with Bonta’s gang.

Bonta’s office did not respond Saturday to Deadline’s request for comment on Warren and Block the Merger’s opposition to the talks.

Whatever the true state of settlement talks this weekend among Paramount, a coalition of state Attorneys General and the Writers Guild of America to end the antitrust action over the $111 billion Warner Bros Discovery merger, the people against the deal from the beginning are not going quietly.

“As Trump tries to ban CNN from the White House, it would be a massive mistake to cave on the Paramount merger,” Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) said Saturday morning as the current WBD-owned CNN and MS Now journalists were denied access to the Executive Mansion. “The last thing we need is another Trump-controlled media conglomerate abusing its power to stomp out competition. This is a dangerous merger.”

Compared to Warren, the A-list-supported Block the Merger is truly angry and feeling betrayed.

“The rumored ‘deal’ to usher the Paramount-Warner Bros. merger forward is an insult to everyone who has stood up against this harmful transaction and to the hundreds of thousands of workers, journalists, and consumers who will be hurt if it goes forward,” the DC-based group told Deadline today of reported behind-closed-doors negotiations underway right now. “Let’s be very clear: an agreement based on unenforceable concessions is a win only for David Ellison. It is an L for everyone else.”

As leaks of talks between the AGs, led by California’s politically ambitious AG Rob Bonta, and the Ellison-run Paramount flooded the media late Friday, the possible L (loss) that BTM are spotlighting could include guardrails around CNN editorial independence, some selloffs and job assurances. The hope down on Melrose is such a deal would render moot the March 2, 2027, trial start date currently on the calendar in federal court — and all the financial and political blast radius that comes with it for the Trump-friendly Ellisons.

To that, with massive job, production and tax-revenue losses on the table, Paramount’s plan B for the last eight weeks has been to pressure Bonta from all sides to make a deal. Two days of court-ordered settlement talks have already been set for mid-October, but that’s procedural in the judicial system and widely expected to go nowhere fast.

Also, mid-October doesn’t quite line up with Ellison’s balance sheet.

Looking at an October 1 date in which a $7 million-a-day ticking fee to WBD shareholders begins, as well as a September 24 hearing on a Hail Mary desire for a $1.88 billion bond from the states and the WGA, Ellison’s crew has been leaking more than ever threats to exit California for a red state.

Even as the likes of outgoing California Gov. Gavin Newsom acknowledged privately at the recent Primetime Emmys that the Ellisons were being too heavy-handed, the multi-pronged pressure campaign seems to have paid off. Whereas Bonta once accused Paramount of “blackmail” with its threats and theatrical promises, the reelection-seeking AG now has his lieutenants in the room with Ellison’s execs.

The latest word on the wire is the parties could have an agreement before the official start of Yom Kippur this weekend.

Word is also out there that New York AG Letitia James isn’t as “in step,” according to a source, with Bonta as she was when it came to burying the hatchet with Paramount. There is also the wildcard of the WGA, which joined the AGs’ July 13 suit after filing an anti-merger action of its own.

“This is such bullsh*t,” an industry insider told Deadline this morning of the ParaBros talks. “Bonta should have called their bluff, instead he caved,” she added, noting such tactics are typical of Democratic politicians in the MAGA era.

Block the Merger, with its support from such names as Bryan Cranston, Hannah Einbinder, Bradley Whitford, W. Kamau Bell, Kristen Vangsness, Jane Fonda and Rati Gupta, wasn’t quite as blunt today in its statement, but the vibe was much the same.

“Thousands of industry leaders took a risk when they spoke out publicly about the harm the Paramount-Warner Bros. merger would cause,” said the outfit, which also counts Noah Wyle, Denis Villeneuve, Atsuko Okatsuka, Damon Lindelof and Sofia Coppola among its backers. Claiming that more than 75,000 people have joined them to tell the state AGs to stand strong including national leaders like Warren, the group said, “We know a bad deal when we see one. AG Bonta and his fellow state AGs should reject this deal, stand strong, and fully block the merger with no concessions.”

That mention of Warren may have greater significance this weekend than initially apparent. Like everyone else, Paramount is keenly aware of what the polls are projecting going into November’s midterms. If the midterms actually occur and if the new Congress is actually seated (two big ifs in America right now), a projected Democratic majority in the House and Senate have promised to probe and even break up mega media mergers.

Even with Oracle founder Larry Ellison the primary backer of his son’s ParaBros dreams, the even older Ellison’s net worth, which has been declining of late, may not be able to handle the strain of months and months of such probes. So perhaps it is the first week of November, not October 1, that is the calendar date the younger Ellison is hoping to beat this weekend.

Paramount has been in “no comment” mode for weeks since the Melrose lot got burned on allegations of leaks detailing past preliminary talks with Bonta’s gang.

Bonta’s office did not respond Saturday to Deadline’s request for comment on Warren and Block the Merger’s opposition to the talks.

Whatever the true state of settlement talks this weekend among Paramount, a coalition of state Attorneys General and the Writers Guild of America to end the antitrust action over the $111 billion Warner Bros Discovery merger, the people against the deal from the beginning are not going quietly.

“As Trump tries to ban CNN from the White House, it would be a massive mistake to cave on the Paramount merger,” Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) said Saturday morning as the current WBD-owned CNN and MS Now journalists were denied access to the Executive Mansion. “The last thing we need is another Trump-controlled media conglomerate abusing its power to stomp out competition. This is a dangerous merger.”

Compared to Warren, the A-list-supported Block the Merger is truly angry and feeling betrayed.

“The rumored ‘deal’ to usher the Paramount-Warner Bros. merger forward is an insult to everyone who has stood up against this harmful transaction and to the hundreds of thousands of workers, journalists, and consumers who will be hurt if it goes forward,” the DC-based group told Deadline today of reported behind-closed-doors negotiations underway right now. “Let’s be very clear: an agreement based on unenforceable concessions is a win only for David Ellison. It is an L for everyone else.”

As leaks of talks between the AGs, led by California’s politically ambitious AG Rob Bonta, and the Ellison-run Paramount flooded the media late Friday, the possible L (loss) that BTM are spotlighting could include guardrails around CNN editorial independence, some selloffs and job assurances. The hope down on Melrose is such a deal would render moot the March 2, 2027, trial start date currently on the calendar in federal court — and all the financial and political blast radius that comes with it for the Trump-friendly Ellisons.

To that, with massive job, production and tax-revenue losses on the table, Paramount’s plan B for the last eight weeks has been to pressure Bonta from all sides to make a deal. Two days of court-ordered settlement talks have already been set for mid-October, but that’s procedural in the judicial system and widely expected to go nowhere fast.

Also, mid-October doesn’t quite line up with Ellison’s balance sheet.

Looking at an October 1 date in which a $7 million-a-day ticking fee to WBD shareholders begins, as well as a September 24 hearing on a Hail Mary desire for a $1.88 billion bond from the states and the WGA, Ellison’s crew has been leaking more than ever threats to exit California for a red state.

Even as the likes of outgoing California Gov. Gavin Newsom acknowledged privately at the recent Primetime Emmys that the Ellisons were being too heavy-handed, the multi-pronged pressure campaign seems to have paid off. Whereas Bonta once accused Paramount of “blackmail” with its threats and theatrical promises, the reelection-seeking AG now has his lieutenants in the room with Ellison’s execs.

The latest word on the wire is the parties could have an agreement before the official start of Yom Kippur this weekend.

Word is also out there that New York AG Letitia James isn’t as “in step,” according to a source, with Bonta as she was when it came to burying the hatchet with Paramount. There is also the wildcard of the WGA, which joined the AGs’ July 13 suit after filing an anti-merger action of its own.

“This is such bullsh*t,” an industry insider told Deadline this morning of the ParaBros talks. “Bonta should have called their bluff, instead he caved,” she added, noting such tactics are typical of Democratic politicians in the MAGA era.

Block the Merger, with its support from such names as Bryan Cranston, Hannah Einbinder, Bradley Whitford, W. Kamau Bell, Kristen Vangsness, Jane Fonda and Rati Gupta, wasn’t quite as blunt today in its statement, but the vibe was much the same.

“Thousands of industry leaders took a risk when they spoke out publicly about the harm the Paramount-Warner Bros. merger would cause,” said the outfit, which also counts Noah Wyle, Denis Villeneuve, Atsuko Okatsuka, Damon Lindelof and Sofia Coppola among its backers. Claiming that more than 75,000 people have joined them to tell the state AGs to stand strong including national leaders like Warren, the group said, “We know a bad deal when we see one. AG Bonta and his fellow state AGs should reject this deal, stand strong, and fully block the merger with no concessions.”

That mention of Warren may have greater significance this weekend than initially apparent. Like everyone else, Paramount is keenly aware of what the polls are projecting going into November’s midterms. If the midterms actually occur and if the new Congress is actually seated (two big ifs in America right now), a projected Democratic majority in the House and Senate have promised to probe and even break up mega media mergers.

Even with Oracle founder Larry Ellison the primary backer of his son’s ParaBros dreams, the even older Ellison’s net worth, which has been declining of late, may not be able to handle the strain of months and months of such probes. So perhaps it is the first week of November, not October 1, that is the calendar date the younger Ellison is hoping to beat this weekend.

Paramount has been in “no comment” mode for weeks since the Melrose lot got burned on allegations of leaks detailing past preliminary talks with Bonta’s gang.

Bonta’s office did not respond Saturday to Deadline’s request for comment on Warren and Block the Merger’s opposition to the talks.

Whatever the true state of settlement talks this weekend between Paramount, a coalition of state Attorneys General and the Writers Guild of America to end the antitrust action over the $111 billion Warner Bros Discovery merger are, the people against the deal from the beginning are not going quietly.

“As Trump tries to ban CNN from the White House, it would be a massive mistake to cave on the Paramount merger,” Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) said Saturday morning as the current WBD-owned cabler newser and MS Now journalists were denied access to the Executive Mansion. “The last thing we need is another Trump-controlled media conglomerate abusing its power to stomp out competition. This is a dangerous merger.”

Compared to Sen. Warren, the A-list supported Block the Merger is truly pissed off and feeling betrayed.

“The rumored ‘deal’ to usher the Paramount-Warner Bros. merger forward is an insult to everyone who has stood up against this harmful transaction and to the hundreds of thousands of workers, journalists, and consumers who will be hurt if it goes forward,” the DC-based group told Deadline today of reported behind closed doors negotiations underway right now. “Let’s be very clear: an agreement based on unenforceable concessions is a win only for David Ellison. It is an L for everyone else.”

As leaks of talks between the AGs, led by California’s politically ambitious Rob Bonta, and the Ellison-run Paramount flooded the media late Friday, the possible L (loss) that BTM are spotlighting could include guardrails of CNN editorial independence, some selloffs, and job assurances. The hope down on Melrose is such a deal would render moot the March 2, 2027, trial start date currently on the calendar in federal court – and all the financial and political blast radius that comes with it for the Trump-friendly Ellisons.

To that, with massive job, production and tax revenue losses on the table, Paramount’s Plan B for the last eight weeks has been to pressure Bonta from all sides to make a deal ASAP. Two days of court-ordered settlement talks have already been set for mid-October, but that’s procedural in the judicial system and widely expected to go nowhere fast.

Also, mid-October doesn’t quite line up with Ellison’s balance sheet.

Looking at an October 1 date in which a $7 million a day ticking fee to WBD shareholders begins as well as a September 24 hearing on a Hail Mary desire for a $1.88 billion bond from the states and the very not flush WGA, Ellison’s crew has been leaking more than ever threats to exit California for a red state.

Even as the likes of outgoing CA Governor Gavin Newsom acknowledged privately at the recent 78th Primetime Emmys that the Ellisons were being too heavy handed, the multi-pronged pressure campaign seems to have paid off. Whereas Bonta once accused Paramount of “blackmail” with its threats and theatrical promises, the reelection-seeking AG now has his lieutenants in the room with Ellison’s execs.

The latest word on the wire is the parties could have an agreement before the official start of Yom Kippur this weekend.

Word is also out there that New York AG Letitia James isn’t as “in step,” according to a source, with Bonta as she previously was when it came to burying the hatchet with Para. There is also the wildcard of the WGA, who joined the AGs’ July 13 suit after filing an anti-merger action of their own.

“This is such bullsh*t,” an industry insider told Deadline this morning of the ParaBros talks. “Bonta should have called their bluff, instead he caved,” she added, noting such tactics are typical of Democratic politicians in the MAGA era.

Block the Merger, with its support from such names as Bryan Cranston, Hannah Einbinder, Bradley Whitford, W. Kamau Bell, Kristen Vangsness, Jane Fonda and Rati Gupta, wasn’t quite as blunt today in its statement, but the vibe was very much the same.

“Thousands of industry leaders took a risk when they spoke out publicly about the harm the Paramount-Warner Bros. merger would cause,” said the outfit, which also counts Noah Wyle, Denis Villeneuve, Atsuko Okatsuka, Damon Lindelof and Sophia Coppola among its backers. Claiming that more than 75,000 people have joined them to tell the state AGs to stand strong, including national leaders like Warren, the group said, “We know a bad deal when we see one. AG Bonta and his fellow state AGs should reject this deal, stand strong, and fully block the merger with no concessions.”

That mention of Warren may have greater significance this weekend than initially apparent. Like everyone else, Paramount is keenly aware of what the polls are projecting going into November’s midterms. If the midterms actually occur and if the new Congress is actually seated (two big ifs in America right now), then a projected Democratic majority in the House and the Senate have promised to probe and even break-up mega-media mergers.

Even with Oracle founder Larry Ellison the primary backer of his son’s ParaBros dreams, the even older Ellison’s net worth, which has been declining of late, may not be able to handle the strain of months and months of such probes. So perhaps it is the first week of November, not October 1, that is the calendar date the younger Ellison is hoping to beat the clock on this weekend.

Paramount has been in “no comment” mode for weeks since the Melrose lot got burned on allegations of leaks detailing past preliminary talks with Bonta’s gang.

AG Bonta’s office did not respond Saturday to Deadline’s request for comment on Warren and Block the Merger’s opposition to the talks.

The FCC Paramount‘s proposed merger with Warner Bros. Discovery cleared an FCC review of its foreign ownership stake.

Paramount has disclosed that total foreign ownership of the combined company would be 49.5%, including 38.5% from investment funds from Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Abu Dhabi. Paramount had petitioned the FCC to sign off on the foreign investment, as any foreign ownership stake above 25% requires agency approval.

In its declaratory ruling, the FCC said that it believed that the “public interest would be served by granting the Petition.” Foreign owners are restricted from holding broadcast licenses, so the FCC had a role in the regulatory review of the transaction because of Paramount’s holding of CBS stations.

Paramount contends that the foreign investments do not pose national security, law enforcement, foreign policy or trade policy concerns. They noted that the Ellison family will retain a majority of the voting interests and control, while the foreign investors will not have voting control or governance.

The FCC ruling included a provision that the company said must obtain permission if “Paramount’s foreign voting interests in the aggregate exceed 25%, or if it proposes to change the voting interests of any of the approved Foreign Investors under this Declaratory Ruling.”

Anna Gomez, the sole Democrat on the FCC, along with Democrats on Capitol Hill, have raised issues about the foreign ownership stake in the transaction.

A Paramount spokesperson said, “When the proposed transaction with Warner Bros. Discovery closes, the Ellison family and RedBird will collectively hold the largest equity stake in the combined company and 100% of the voting shares, with no other equity participant having any governance rights.”

The spokesperson noted that the ruling came after a national security review by the Committee for the Assessment of Foreign Participation in the United States Telecommunications Services Sector. Paramount submitted a letter of agreement related to protections for data and provisions that formalize restrictions on the rights and access of foreign investors.

In a statement, Gomez said, “The FCC just let some of the most repressive governments in the world indirectly control nearly all of a combined Paramount-Warner Bros. An investment this large in one of America’s biggest media companies doesn’t just buy equity, it secures influence over what gets said and what gets made.

“That’s why I called for this new and novel issue to go to a full Commission vote given what’s at stake. Instead, the FCC snuck this ruling out as a staff-level decision, with no public vote and no accountability for a call of this magnitude.”

ABC responded to the FCC‘s justification for calling in its eight owned station licenses for early renewal, arguing in a new legal filing that the agency had failed to refute “substantial evidence” of a Trump administration “retaliatory motive.”

The network filed a First Amendment lawsuit against the FCC in August, claiming that its rare order that the stations’ licenses be reviewed early was part of an effort to chill its speech, citing statements made by President Donald Trump attacking its news coverage and late-night host Jimmy Kimmel, and warnings from FCC Chairman Brendan Carr, who was appointed by the president.

The FCC is seeking to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing, among other things, that its early renewal order was tied to an investigation of Disney’s diversity, equity and inclusion practices. ABC is seeking an injunction to halt the early renewal proceeding.

U.S. District Judge Loren L. AliKhanhas has set a hearing for Oct. 6.

Read the latest ABC filing.

In its filing, ABC’s legal team wrote that FCC officials “again improperly conflate the nature of Plaintiffs’ retaliation claims with the underlying substance of the early license renewal proceeding.”

ABC does “not ask this court to determine whether there was any violation of FCC rules. Instead, plaintiffs contend that the commission initiated the early renewal proceeding to retaliate against plaintiffs in violation of the First Amendment. And defendants have not legitimate expertise on that issue.”

The network’s legal team wrote, “The Commission ordered an unprecedented early license renewal proceeding to punish Plaintiffs for media coverage that the Administration dislikes. Defendants do not—and cannot—dispute that the First Amendment prohibits the government from exercising its regulatory powers to retaliate against a media organization for disfavored speech. And nothing in their brief refutes the substantial evidence of Defendants’ retaliatory motive.”

In complaining about network content, Trump has called for the revocation of ABC’s licenses and that of other broadcasters.

The network’s lawyers contend that the FCC offers “no response” to Carr’s own “statements indicating that he will use the early license renewal proceedings to review” ABC’s editorial decisions, including its decision not to broadcast Trump’s presidential address in July.

As for the DEI investigation, the network’s legal team argued that in response to a routine discovery dispute, the agency ordered the license review, an “unprecedented proceeding” that is the “broadcaster equivalent of the death penalty.” The first of the ABC licenses was not scheduled to come up for renewal until 2028.

Carr has launched multiple investigations of the broadcast networks, but has issued few if any actual sanctions or resolution. The network’s brief said that the regulatory threat has continued to have a “chilling effect,” noting that last week, Kimmel’s “interview of Texas candidate for U.S. Senate James Talarico was made available on YouTube rather than as part of the normal broadcast, with Kimmel specifically citing the FCC’s retaliatory campaign against Plaintiffs as the reason for this decision.”

Carr has said that he is enforcing an equal time rule that doesn’t prevent network talk shows from featuring candidates; they just may be on the hook for providing time to those candidates’ rivals. An FCC spokesperson did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Several groups have filed amicus briefs in support of ABC, including the Foundation for Equal Rights and Expression, and another amicus brief from a group of former FCC chairmen, commissioners and staffers. They include Dennis Patrick, chairman under President Ronald Reagan: Al Sikes, chair under George H.W. Bush; and Tom Wheeler, chair under Barack Obama.

Their brief argued, “Woven throughout the Chairman’s specific retaliatory actions are broad threats and ominous warnings to the entire media ecosystem. Invoking a deliberately vague notion of licensee’s ‘public interest obligations,’ the Chairman has created a regulatory regime in which any broadcaster, including ABC, can be found guilty of transgressions at any time for seemingly any thing. The effect is an unconstitutional chilling of the broadcast press.”

More to come.