Tag: Deadline News

UPDATED: Donald Trump paid tribute to Dolly Parton shortly after her death was announced, indicating that he planned to order U.S. flags lowered to half staff to honor the entertainer.

Trump posted on Truth Social, “Very sad to report that Dolly Parton, one of the greatest Country singers, and far beyond, EVER, has just passed away. This is a true loss for millions of people. There has never been anyone like her, and never will. In her honor, I am lowering the American flag throughout the United States for a one week period beginning tonight at 6:00PM. Rest in Peace, Dolly! The World loves you.”

Parton will be one of the few entertainers to get such an honor, as lowering of U.S. flags is typically ordered following the passing of major political and military figures or a national tragedy.

RELATED: Dolly Parton Dies At 80: Tributes, Career Photo Gallery, Obituary & Deadline’s Full Coverage

Parton died in Nashville on Tuesday. She had been dealing with health issues for the past year and was forced to postpone a planned Las Vegas residency in September before canceling the shows in May.

All of Trump’s living predecessors also paid tribute to Parton.

Former President Bill Clinton said that Parton was “one of a kind—a great songwriter and performer who told the stories of everyday Americans with honesty, humility, and heart. She rose high from her East Tennessee roots and never forgot where she came from. And she always believed in giving back, especially in her efforts to promote literacy. Hillary and I were big fans and first saw her in 1974, and will always be grateful for the music and the memories. Our thoughts and prayers are with her family, her legion of fans, and everyone who loved her.”

Dolly Parton was one of a kind—a great songwriter and performer who told the stories of everyday Americans with honesty, humility, and heart. She rose high from her East Tennessee roots and never forgot where she came from. And she always believed in giving back, especially in…

— Bill Clinton (@BillClinton) August 25, 2026

Former President George W. Bush said, “Laura and I, along with thousands of her fans, mourn the passing of Dolly Parton. We loved her music and her style. She was a great entertainer and even greater person. We respected her work to promote literacy, advance health, and strengthen communities. Dolly was a talented and hardworking American who will be missed.”

“Laura and I, along with thousands of her fans, mourn the passing of Dolly Parton. We loved her music and her style. She was a great entertainer and even greater person. We respected her work to promote literacy, advance health, and strengthen communities. Dolly was a talented…

— George W. Bush Presidential Center (@TheBushCenter) August 25, 2026

Former President Barack Obama wrote, “It’s hard to imagine many people having a bigger impact than Dolly Parton. Born in a one-room cabin, she earned 11 Grammys and an Emmy, built a business empire, helped millions of kids learn to read, and — as if that wasn’t enough — helped accelerate the research that led to the Moderna COVID vaccine. What a life. Michelle and I are thinking of Dolly’s family and her many, many fans.”

It’s hard to imagine many people having a bigger impact than Dolly Parton. Born in a one-room cabin, she earned 11 Grammys and an Emmy, built a business empire, helped millions of kids learn to read, and — as if that wasn’t enough — helped accelerate the research that led to the… https://t.co/gl4KGm4vnk

— Barack Obama (@BarackObama) August 25, 2026

Former President Joe Biden wrote, “Simply put, Dolly Parton was an American original. She was an inspiration to millions. She was a relentless advocate for women and for equality. Through her Imagination Library, she placed the gift of reading into the hands of millions of children because she understood literacy is the foundation of opportunity. But perhaps most importantly, Dolly treated everyone with kindness and respect. She lived her values with a flair and vitality for life that was uniquely her own. She was a trailblazer in every sense of the word, and she will be missed by millions around the world.”

Simply put, Dolly Parton was an American original. She was an inspiration to millions. She was a relentless advocate for women and for equality. Through her Imagination Library, she placed the gift of reading into the hands of millions of children because she understood literacy…

— Joe Biden (@JoeBiden) August 26, 2026

Other tributes came from former vice presidents Kamala Harris and Al Gore, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and California Governor Gavin Newsom. Tennessee’s two U.S. senators, Marsha Blackburn and Bill Hagerty,also paid tribute, and the state’s governor, Bill Lee, also ordered flags at half staff.

With friends like Iowa Attorney General  Brenna Bird, does Paramount and David Ellison really need enemies?

In an op-ed penned for the conservative Daily Wire Tuesday, the Hawkeye State ally of Donald Trump is threatening to take California to the Supreme Court. Declaring that “California is once again trying to be the country’s regulator,” Bird wants to stop the antitrust lawsuit from the Golden State, New York and 10 other states against Paramount’s $111 billion purchase of Warner Brothers Discovery.

“Just like California should keep its hands off America’s bacon, California needs to understand that it doesn’t get to decide what Americans can choose to watch or stream,” the reelection seeking Bird states of the state and its AG Rob Bonta.

“If California believes a transaction that 68 regulators approved is nevertheless illegal, it is free to make that argument,” she notes, lamenting the $7 million a day ticking fee and more Paramount will have to start paying WBD shareholders starting October 1. “But it should make it in the one court with the authority to bind all of us, and it should make it now, before the bill for the delay comes due,” Bird claps, leaving out any reference to the Empire State’s Letitia James and other AG.

Yet, for all her rallying to the ParaBros cause, as well as some variations on what Bonta and gang are actually alleging in the March 2, 2027 trial starting case before a federal judge in Oakland, Bird doesn’t seem to have actually filed anything with SCOTUS.

It also seems hard to see how even if Iowa did take California to the conservative majority Supreme Court, how they could get a hearing before next spring or even October, with the John Roberts-led high court not back in session until October 5.

However, let’s sidestep Bird getting a perch on SCOTUS’ fast tracked interim relief docket (AKA the emergency docket or shadow docket) for a second, and look at a possible route under the provisions of Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution. Even if the case fell within the “original jurisdiction” criteria and passed muster with the Justices, any ruling would likely still be drawn out — likely beyond the March 2027 trial already on the calendar. In the rare case SCOTUS picks up such a state to state battle, it would generally appoint a “special master’ to review the matter before getting directly on it.

All of which, like Paramount CEO Ellison accused Bonta in an August 4 NYT op-ed, makes Bird’s flag planter reek of politics.

Bird, who filed a brief in 2024 support of the former Apprentice host’s ultimately successful bid to gain significant immunity from prosecution for acts taken while POTUS, sidesteps most of the meat of the actual antitrust suit the 12 states and the WGA are pursuing. A suit that Bonta, in an August 10 guest column for Deadline, paints as “a straight up antitrust enforcement case. One that is very cut and dry.” Instead, Bird, while giving the DOJ the benefit of the doubt, moves to blast Bonta and colleagues as “more hostile to this pro-competition merger than Europe and China.”

The ‘To Save American Movies, I’m Taking California To The Supreme Court’ entitled piece in the Ben Shapiro-founded outlet insists a ParaBros combo is good for high streaming subscription paying Iowans, competition and the movie and TV businesses. “The merger could create a company to compete: an estimated $6 billion in savings to reinvest, and a public commitment to release at least 30 movies in theaters every year. More movies mean more entertainment — and more competition means lower prices,” Bird says.

There is no mention by Bird of the $80 billion debt load a ParaBros will carry, the ongoing blame game settlement talks (or lack thereof) skirmish, nor the $1.88 billion bond Paramount desires to offset the “extraordinary losses” the court challenge poses.

Bird also makes no mention of possible layoffs or other cuts from a Paramount and WBD melding. Cuts that every such M&A deal has seen. Cuts that the likes of the WGA SAG-AFTRA and theTeamsters warn of. Cut that reports in both late June and last week to the LA County Board of Supervisors warned could see thousands pink slipped, and cost the region billions in wage and hundreds of millions in tax revenue.

Touting a Hollywood that few who live here may recognize, the Iowa AG chooses echoes the findings of earlier this year from Trump’s DOJ approving the merger. To that, right now, she says “more movies are being made, and more workers are being hired.”

While seemingly concurrently stressing that a joint “Paramount+ and HBO Max together are smaller than Netflix, smaller than Disney and smaller than Amazon,” Bird also throws out there that “a successful Paramount-Warner Bros. merger would change that.” Later in the op-ed, the long time pol says: “That is the opposite of a monopoly problem.”

Singing the tunes of the growing MAGA chorus that seeks to turn Bonta into the new Nancy Pelosi punching bag, Bird asserts “California is just dreaming up something radical” to go to war with Trump and his admitted “good friends” David Ellison and his Oracle founding father Larry Ellison.

“California argues that the Department of Justice waved this through as a political favor to Paramount’s owners,” Bird wrote Tuesday in a smudging of what is actually in the July 13 filing by the colalition of blue states. Then someone should explain how the Department managed to get approval in China, Europe, Canada, and the other 60-plus jurisdictions. When regulators in 68 jurisdictions with different laws, different politics, and no stake whatsoever in American elections all reach the same conclusion, the outlier is not the consensus.”

Again, no filing seems to have occurred today so far at the Supreme Court from Iowa or Bird. Rob Bonta and Brenna Bird’s office do share the fact that neither of them responded to Deadline’s request for comment on the Iowa AG’s threat.

An independent arbitrator has ruled that The Washington Post must reinstate columnist Karen Attiah with backpay and benefits, concluding that her firing violated a collective bargaining agreement, the union and legal team representing her said on Monday.

In September, Attiah said that she was terminated over social media posts in the aftermath of the assassination of Charlie Kirk.

“This decision confirms what we’ve said from the start: I was doing my job as an opinion journalist, and doing that job is not misconduct,” Attiah said in a statement.

A Washington Post spokesperson said that they respect the arbitration process, but declined to comment further.

Attiah was a member of the Post Guild and covered by its collective bargaining agreement. Per the guild, she could only be terminated as the “result of progressive discipline” or if it rose to the level of “gross misconduct.”

A couple of hours after the shooting of Kirk, Attiah posted on social media, “I wish I had hope for gun control and that I could believe ‘political violence has no place in this country.’ But we live in a country that accepts white children being massacred by gun violence. Not just accepts, but worships violence.”

“Part of what keeps America so violent is the insistence that people perform care, empty goodness and absolution for white men who espouse hatred and violence…Again. I don’t care for empty rhetoric.”

She also posted one of Kirk’s quotes, that “Black women do not have the brain processing power to be taken seriously. You have to go steal a white person’s slot.” Social media has been rife with claims of what Kirk has said in the past, but Snopes rated the Black women quote, from a podcast in 2023, as true.

Attiah continued to post in the days after the assassination, defending what she wrote.

At the time of her firing, the Post declined to comment on personnel matters. The Post has pointed to its policies and standards, including its social media policy.

The guild contended that Attiah’s firing was pretextual, and that she was being penalized for speech that fell within her job description. Attiah was the last full-time Black opinion columnist at the publication.

Post Guild Chair Natalie Vineberg said in a statement, “Journalists can’t work at an organization where they must live in fear of being arbitrarily fired for doing their jobs — which, in Karen’s case, was writing her opinion.” The New York Times first reported on Attiah’s reinstatement. The guild defended Attiah in arbitration, with support from the Democracy Defenders Fund.

Attiah joined the Post in 2014 and served for a period as global opinions editor. She was a prominent voice speaking out on the killing of columnist Jamal Khashoggi by agents of the Saudi regime. 

The Supreme Court ruled that construction could continue on Donald Trump‘s White House ballroom, sidelining lower court orders to halt the project.

Chief Justice John Roberts signed an order on Friday that stays a preliminary injunction issued by a district court judge in April. The stay will be in effect “pending further order of the undersigned or of the court,” per the document. There was no explanation for the court’s reasoning.

The Trump administration asked for a stay as it faced a lower-court deadline on Friday to halt construction.

In April, U.S. District Judge Richard Leon, an appointee of George W. Bush, ruled that construction of the ballroom required congressional approval. He made an exception for below-ground construction of a below ground bunker for national security needs, as well as other elements to protect the president.

The Trump administration appealed, and construction was allowed to continue until there was a ruling from the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. In a 2-1 decision earlier this month, the appellate court affirmed that the president needed congressional approval.

“Each President is a temporary tenant, not the owner, of the White House and its Executive Residence,” the judges wrote. “The President has no—and claims no—constitutionally assigned authority over that property, which is designed and maintained for the use of all Presidents, current and future, and for the American people.”

The ballroom is perhaps the most cherished of all projects Trump has taken around the White House complex and in Washington, D.C. He has defended the ballroom project as long overdue, given the limited space of other entertaining facilities in the complex. Lately, he has also taken to referring to the construction as a “military complex,” as the administration’s legal team has argued that the entire project is needed for purposes of national security.

But the plaintiffs in the case, the National Trust for Historic Preservation, have argued that the administration cannot bypass congressional input for a project of such magnitude — 90,000 square foot. And from a design standpoint, the trust said that the project will dwarf the main residence of the White House, at 55,000 square feet, while disrupting to symmetry of the structure and the surrounding buildings.

“The Constitution vests Congress with sole and preclusive authority over federal property,” the National Trust’s legal team wrote in a Supreme Court filing.

They argued that an injunction was needed because the Trump administration has tried to “outrun judicial review,” with an accelerated construction timeline and a 250-person crew working 20 hours a day and seven days a week on the project. Essentially, the National Trust contended, the Trump administration was making the case that the ballroom construction was so far along that they were “on the brink of a fait accompli.” They noted that the administration has said that the project would be substantially complete by November.

Without obtaining congressional approval, Trump ordered that the East Wing of the White House be torn down last fall. Also demolished was an east colonnade and a garden dedicated to Jacqueline Kennedy, as well as a movie theater.

Trump has said that the ballroom would be funded by private donations, with corporations like Comcast and Amazon among the donors covering the costs. The Washington Post reported in June that the entire project was estimated to cost $600 million, with more than half coming from taxpayers, per a contractor’s project estimate.

The editor in chief of Stars And Stripes, the publication that covers the U.S. military and is partially funded by the U.S. government, said that he was was being fired following an interview he gave to CBS News Sunday Morning in which he talked of censorship being a “red line” for him.

Erik Slavin told the network on Friday that he was “being fired for stating in a CBS interview that censorship of news for service members would constitute a red line. The Pentagon‘s public affairs office has charged me with insubordination.”

“I stand by the principle that Stars and Stripes must remain editorially independent, as required by law and by the department’s own policies,” he said.

Also getting termination notices was publisher Max Lederer, who recently announced his retirement, and reporter Lara Korte, who also sat for the CBS News interview, which aired on Sunday Morning, per the network.

Korte posted on X, “Today, I was informed that the Department of Defense is firing me for insubordination after I told a CBS reporter that I work for Stars and Stripes – not the Pentagon, not any administration, and not any policy maker.”

A Pentagon official confirmed the separation notices, but the department declined to comment.

Published continuously since World War II, Stars and Stripes gets about half of its funding from the Pentagon and the remainder from advertising and subscriptions. It is set up to maintain its editorial independence from the military and government.

On Friday, Navy Capt. Bill Urban wrote in a notice posted on the Stars and Stripes website that he was the new military deputy to the publisher. He wrote that in meeting with the Office of the Secretary of War, he received “multiple assurances” that they were committed to “the editorial independence of Stripes.”

He wrote to staffers, “There are no external editorial curbs on our journalists searching out and reporting significant stories. Carry on and ignore the noise. Stay professional and committed to the highest journalistic standards.” He pointed to recent Stars and Stripes reports on the conditions of the USS Lincoln, and noted that there “was plenty of time between the initial report and the subsequent reporting for OSW to shut us down on the subject if they were not committed to our editorial independence.”

He also called for a bigger push into digital and social media. He wrote, “My vision for the future of Stars and Stripes is simple: More eyeballs on our content and more impact on our service members while maintaining the highest standard of professional journalism with the credibility that comes with editorial independence.”

The CBS Sunday Morning report detailed concerns that Pentagon was chipping away at the independence of the publication, including the rescinding of a federal regulation that Stars and Stripes operate “without news management or censorship.” The ombudsman, Jacqueline Smith, was fired in the spring, and she told the network she worried that “the endgame is turning Stars and Stripes into a public affairs propaganda machine.”

Mark Schoeff Jr., president of the National Press Club, said in a statement, “In firing the editor of Stars and Stripes, Pentagon leadership is making clear their view that the newsroom should exist not as an independent outlet whose reporting serves to benefit U.S. troops, but as a mouthpiece to parrot Pentagon talking points.”

He added, “Our service members deserve news and information they can trust, not narratives that are shaped solely by their own employer.”

Will Creeley, legal director of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, called the firings “an ugly, un-American attack on our free press.”

“America’s brave servicemembers swore an oath to defend the Constitution. They deserve the free and independent press our Founders fought for 250 years ago, not Pravda-style propaganda.”

UPDATED with hearing date and FCC comment: A federal judge had ordered a hearing in ABC‘s First Amendment lawsuit against the FCC for sometime during the week of October 5.

But U.S. District Judge Loren L. AliKhan signaled that there would a hearing sooner than that if the FCC took action on its review of ABC station licenses.

The network is seeking a temporary restraining order to halt the FCC’s early renewal proceedings for broadcast licenses for the network’s eight owned stations. ABC claims in its lawsuit that the FCC’s regulatory action is Trump administration retaliation over its content, including late-night host Jimmy Kimmel and ABC News reporting.

The FCC has yet to take action, but in its lawsuit ABC suggested that the agency was close to issuing a hearing designation order, which would put the license renewals up to an administrative judicial process. The network said that such an action would in and of itself be punitive, as it will bog down the station renewals for an extended period of uncertainty.

The judge wrote in her order that if the FCC were to issue such a hearing designation order, she would hold a hearing on the TRO the next business day.

The judge also set a briefing schedule for next month, with the FCC’s defense due September 3, ABC’s reply on September 17 and the agency’s response by September 24.

The judge’s schedule aligns with that proposed by the FCC; ABC had requested a hearing as soon as Friday. But given the judge’s order, the FCC may hold off on any action as it would face an earlier hearing and as it seeks to dismiss the lawsuit.

An FCC spokesperson said, “We are pleased that the judge has now rejected Disney’s meritless attempt to rush into court.  The court also sided with the FCC over Disney on the schedule going forward and has declined Disney’s request for an immediate injunction.  The FCC will continue to follow the facts and the law wherever they lead.”

PREVIOUSLY, August 20 AM: ABC is proposing a hearing as soon as Friday on its request for a temporary restraining order in its First Amendment lawsuit against the FCC, while the agency signaled that it plans to challenge the litigation as premature.

The plans were laid out Thursday on in a joint status report from the parties, as requested by the federal judge in the case, Loren L. AliKhan.

The network sued the FCC on Tuesday, claiming that the agency’s order for an early renewal of its eight station broadcast licenses was highly unusual and part of a pattern of using regulatory threat to retaliate on content and news coverage the Trump administration disfavors. In the immediate term, they are asking for a temporary restraining order to halt the renewal proceedings, characterizing them as a threat that chills the network’s free speech rights.

In the filing, ABC’s legal team proposed a hearing for Friday or next week, on Aug. 24 and 25, and the FCC said that its lawyers would be available on those dates.

In the meantime, the FCC’s lawyers, calling ABC’s schedule “highly expedited,” proposed a briefing schedule for next month, and also wrote that they planned to file a motion to dismiss. They argued that the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, not the district court, had jurisdiction, and that the network had to allow the regulatory process to play out.

The agency’s legal team claimed that the network was trying to “circumvent an administrative proceeding followed by judicial review in a court of appeals.”

They wrote, “Although framed as a First Amendment retaliation claim, Plaintiffs’ chief concern appears to be the Commission’s exercise of its statutory authority to ensure that broadcast licensees operate in the public interest, and its conduct of an administrative process that could include (but has not yet been determined to require) a hearing on Plaintiffs’ license qualifications and, depending on the results of any such hearing, hypothetical future license revocations.”

In its lawsuit, ABC’s legal team indicated that they were taking action in anticipation of the FCC designating the license renewals for an administrative hearing, a potentially lengthy process that only added to the uncertainty of whether the stations’ licenses would be revoked.

In the latest filing, its legal team wrote that they have “raised a textbook First Amendment retaliation claim. Courts in this District have already recognized that such claims belong in federal court, not before the very agency accused of engaging in First Amendment retaliation.”

The network’s legal team argued that they have already “documented the irreparable harm [ABC is] suffering, and Defendants’ proposed solution would further exacerbate those harms.”

The network also referred to the potential of the FCC designating the license renewal for a hearing as “sanctions.” The FCC said that it would give the court 48 hours notice before doing so.

“Defendants effectively seek permission to impose draconian sanctions with only 48 hours’ notice, while continuing to hang the threat of those sanctions over Plaintiffs’ heads and remaining free to engage in other forms of retaliation,” the network’s lawyers wrote in the filing.

The FCC said that a hearing designation order would not be a “sanction,” but “would simply set in place a further administrative process in which Plaintiffs would have the opportunity to make their case.”