Tag: Deadline News

EXCLUSIVE: With a very hard out of less than two weeks, state legislators in Sacramento are either going to be Scrooge or Santa with California’s film and TV tax incentives for the near-moribund L.A. industry.  

It’s a mixed result right now with a lot of good intentions, a lot of cooks in the kitchen and the legislative session ending on August 31. In the past few hours alone, with studios and indies panicked about effectively losing lucrative annual $750 million industry incentives by 2030, a mission to fix the mega-measure that’s already signed into law and caps out business and corporate tax credits over $5 million went from launch to being stuck on the legislative tarmac.

A deal was in place Thursday morning that would have carved out an exception for independent productions and some studio/streamer productions. In fact, with an anticipated backlash from Silcon Valley, the deal looked so done the MPA late last night circulated a talking points one-pager on it to stakeholders and media outlets. However, as the final language was being put in place by Assemblymember Rick Chavez Zbur’s office today, legislative leadership told the Hollywood Democrat they were now taking a “different approach,” I hear.

A move that pulled the plug, hard.

There are no definitive details on what that new approach is, or whether it could end as a fast-tracked trailer bill, a policy carve-out or something else. But sources tell me there were “indications” from Gov. Gavin Newsom’s “team” that Zbur’s proposal wasn’t what they had in mind.

Officially, probable 2028 POTUS candidate Newsom’s office did not have anything to say about any deal or the end of any deal on SB 122. Insiders privately are referring to the effort to fix the harms of SB 122 as a “work in progress.”

As elections for City Hall and a new governor heat up, that process may not land so well in SoCal.

Wildfire-ravaged City of Angels also has seen production flight from the home of Hollywood and around 50,000 film and TV jobs lost in the past four years. Even without projected big cutbacks from a merged Paramount and Warner Bros Discovery or a red state relocation by David Ellison if California Attorney General Rob Bonta and others don’t back down on their antitrust lawsuit, that blast radius has wiped out vendors and delivered a blow to the tax base.

RELATED: Don’t Believe Paramount’s Hype: California AG Rob Bonta Claims David Ellison Muddying WBD Merger Waters With Misinformation & Side Deals; “We Intend To Win” – Guest Column

Amidst all that, Zbur, whose District 51 spans all the way from Glendale to Santa Monica, says he is keeping up the fight against SB 122 with that August 31 drop-dead date front and center.

“We’re working very hard with the governor, legislative leadership and our partners in the Senate, and I’m optimistic that we are very close to reaching a solution that helps address the impact of SB 122 on California’s Film and Television Jobs Program,” the two-term member told Deadline today.

While staying mum about what went down earlier today and acknowledging the harsh calendar, Zbur — a lawyer in a past life — offered optimism that the legislative tax credits snafu could be fixed in the next week.

“Our priority throughout these negotiations has been protecting the thousands of workers and small businesses that depend on this iconic industry and preserving the progress we’ve made to bring production and good-paying jobs back to California,” he said. “There are still details being worked through, but I’m encouraged by where the conversations are and hopeful we can reach an agreement very soon.”

Besides the limits of SB 122, which was enacted in June but has seen pushback from the likes of Tinseltown unions and CAA boss Bryan Lourd, there’s also the long-desired effort to enact a wide-ranging post-production tax credits program.

Offering a 35% incentive aimed at stiffening up jobs here and enticing post-production to relocate to the Golden State, AB 2319 is racing toward a vote in the state Senate by next week once the bill is in final shape.

All of which means what ends up on outgoing Gov. Newsom’s desk to be signed or vetoed by September 30 could prove an inflection or infection point for the entertainment sector.

“The next seven days are critical,” declared Assemblyman Nick Schultz, who is one of the primary pols behind the post-production tax credits legislation along with Sen. Ben Allen.

“We’re literally in the period of speak now and forever hold your peace,” added the Democratic rep of studio-heavy District 44. “There’s no more time to wait. Now is the time for Hollywood to activate and be as loud as they possibly can to get this thing passed.”

If everything goes to schedule, under the rules of the California Legislature, once final amendments are added to the bill, it has to sit “in print” for 72 hours. Then the legislation can head to a Senate floor vote – where it certainly has the votes, I hear.

RELATED: Editors Guild Offers Praise & Warning For California Post-Production Incentives Initiative

Earlier this year, state representatives talked about the post-production credit reaching up to $100 million in allocated incentives across VFX, scoring, mixing and more. That sky-high number is now more realistically envisioned at around $35 million for the first year.

Yet, as close as the post-production credit might be to being added to the incentives program administered by the California Film Commission, the reality is there is still no actual funding in place for it.

The borderline-baroque $352 billion state budget is so tightly wound with its zero-deficit demands that money for such a new credit is nowhere to be seen, no matter how hard Hollywood has advocated for it and, truth be told, desperately needs it to turn the job losses around.

RELATED: List Of Hollywood & Media Layoffs From Paramount To Warner Bros Discovery To CNN & More

“We are gratified that the Senate Appropriations Committee overwhelmingly voted in favor of a standalone post-production tax credit, and we are pushing hard for its broad bipartisan support in the Senate floor vote,” Editors Guild Local 700 president F. Hudson Miller states. “We need to make sure that AB 2319 is passed and also that it is fully funded.”

Like a true seasoned politician, the union leader went on to say: “Additionally, we are calling on lawmakers to defend the Film and TV Tax Credit Program 4.0, which would be devastated by the recently imposed caps on tax credits. All three moves are vital and essential to keeping film and TV jobs, and their positive economic effect, from leaving California.”

Said Schultz about the finances of the post-production flex: “Certainly, we would rather be in the spot where we have some funding and we’re going back to secure the rest of it. But versus like having absolutely nothing and having to go back fresh next year asking for some initial funding, we’re going to be going through this process of advocating and hopefully negotiating with the governor’s office between January and June of next year.” 

Present deadlines in hand, a lot of this will end up with the next governor.

To that, Deadline reached out to both the campaigns of Steve Hilton and Xavier Becerra for comment on both the efforts to undo the tax credits cap and the ambitions for a post-comprehensive production credit. Neither the Republican and ex-Fox News host nor the Democrat and ex-Biden Cabinet secretary replied.

We will update if and when we do hear from them.

UPDATE: A federal judge orders 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 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 on Sept. 3, ABC’s reply on Sept. 17 and the agency’s response by Sept. 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.

PREVIOUSLY: 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 on 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.”

When the board of the Kennedy Center met last week to decide on the future of the complex, they took up a resolution to restore Donald Trump‘s name to the front facade of the complex.

The vote by the Trump-controlled board was not just one designation for the president, but three.

According to a copy of the resolution filed in federal court late on Tuesday, Trump’s name would be returned to the front facade, just below its official name, “The John F. Kennedy Memorial Center for the Performing Arts.” Below that lettering, a new one would be added to read, “Restored and Renovated by President Donald J. Trump.”

That’s not all. The resolution also provides for another Trump designation, just below “Restored and Renovated by President Donald J. Trump.” Once a $100 million threshold is met for an endowment the board set up for the center, per the resolution, a line would be added to read, “Endowed by the Trump Kennedy Center Fund.”

So the facade of the Kennedy Center would read:

The John F. Kennedy Memorial Center for the Performing Arts

Restored and Renovated by President Donald J. Trump

Endowed by the Trump Kennedy Center Fund

There’s more. The board resolution also designated “the physical site and grounds upon which the center sits” as the “President Donald J. Trump Plaza.”

The resolution said that the purpose in recognizing Trump was that he “has successfully engaged in raising hundreds of millions of dollars for the Center, both in appropriated funds and private funds, and brought it back from the brink of disaster.” In a prior legal document, the center’s attorneys acknowledged that ticket sales fell last year, when Trump took control of the institution, while artists canceled performances.

The board is chaired by Trump and includes administration figures like Sergio Gor and Dan Scavino and Fox News personalities Maria Bartiromo and Laura Ingraham. In December, they voted to add Trump’s name to the center and, the next day, the facade was changed to read “The Donald J. Trump and The John F. Kennedy Memorial Center for the Performing Arts.”

Rep. Joyce Beatty (D-OH), an ex officio member of the board, sued, and in May U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper ruled that only Congress could make such a change to the center’s name.

That forced the center to remove references of the “Trump Kennedy Center” from its website and other materials, and, most prominently, from the front facade. On the night of the deadline to remove Trump’s name from the facade, a crowd gathered and watched as workers installed scaffolding and, in the middle of the night, a tarp. That concealed the actual removal of the lettering for POTUS. The tarp has remained there ever since.

In response to the latest effort to return Trump’s name multiple times to the front of the building, Beatty’s attorneys argued that the board seems intent “on defying the court’s decision.”

Her attorneys, Nathaniel Zelinsky and Norm Eisen, wrote, “Adding the words ‘Restored and Renovated by,’ or ‘Endowed by,’ before President Trump’s name, and renaming the ground on which the building sits, provides no lawful basis to ignore this Court’s decision and impose Donald Trump’s name on a memorial dedicated by the Congress exclusively to a different President.”

They cited a statute that “no additional memorials or plaques in the nature of memorials shall be designated or installed in the public areas of the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts.” The board’s resolution seemed to suggest that renaming the plaza would fall outside of the statute.

The center has committed to forego attempts to install the Trump designations until September 8. Beatty’s attorneys want the judge to rule by then.

A Kennedy Center spokesperson did not return a request for comment.

As for the tarp, the center’s attorneys cited a declaration from executive director Matthew Floca and wrote that the covering “was and is a necessary element of the ongoing construction activities at the Center—during the removal of the name, it served as a safety barrier for ongoing construction activities and helped safeguard the marble facade of the building in light of reported panel damage.” They added that the center will use the existing scaffolding to “assess, investigate and engineer structural repairs to the overhead soffit.”

“Final removal of the scaffolding and its barrier is contingent upon the scope of any repairs required at present to the marble facade, as well as any other necessary repairs,” the center’s attorneys wrote.

Beatty’s attorneys called the explanation a “pretextual justification.” “Defendants state they intend to use the scaffolding to examine the roof overhang,” the wrote. “But the soffits are some twenty feet or more above the scaffolding. Defendants imply that they will erect more scaffolding around the rest of the Center, presumably to examine other portions of the roof. But Defendants tellingly have not done so for months, leaving only the Center’s iconic name obscured—a strong indication that this structure has nothing to do with the roof and is, instead, meant to defy a return to the status quo.”

Beatty’s team also wrote that they were concerned that the center “may have damaged the historic marble that lines the facade” when they attached Trump’s name in December. “Adding another inscription or inscriptions, in naked defiance of this court’s ruling, obviously would do further damage,” the wrote.

Congress last year passed $257 million in public funds to renovate the Kennedy Center, as part of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act.

In his May ruling, the judge also halted plans to close the center for two years for the renovations, concluding that the board had been “derelict” in moving to shutter the complex because they “neglected to consider the full range of its statutory obligations and potential adverse consequences of closure on programming and memorial functions.” He noted that the board could still move to close the complex, but only after there was a fuller consideration of impacts.

Last week, the board again voted for a two-year closure plan, while keeping limited programming at The Reach, an extension that opened in 2019.

In the latest filing, the center’s legal team argued that it had conducted an independent analysis, with Delta Consulting Group presenting two options: the closure plan that was ultimately approved, and another plan for a partial closure. The analysis concluded that the partial closure would take longer — four years — and would mean that the center “would suffer a reduction in both revenue and fundraising ability” and “reputational damage that would result from the proximity of construction activities to performance venues.”

Beatty’s team, though, argued that the board “fell short by a country mile” in its analysis.

“The only materials that purport to examine the costs and benefits of the closure was a 5-slide PowerPoint presentation prepared by the Delta Consulting Group, which was subsequently displayed at the Board meeting,” they wrote. “Excluding two cover slides and one slide describing the lead consultant’s biography, the substance of the presentation deck is just two slides long.”

Beatty’s team is calling for a discovery process rather than an expedited briefing on a motion to grant summary judgment, which the center wants. The center also is appealing Cooper’s May ruling.

The results of a court hearing in Oakland on Wednesday might be a little to close for comfort for Paramount and David Ellison. Additionally, the findings of a report submitted to the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors might prove very scary in terms of potential job losses and more if the $111 billion merger with Warner Bros Discovery goes through.

As fellow billionaire Mark Zuckerberg’s Meta faces 29 states down the street in California court over potentially trillions in penalties and allegations that his social media platforms violated child privacy laws and are constructed to be addictive, lawyers for CEO Ellison were in federal court Monday hoping to get their recent $1.88 billion bond request addressed ASAP.

With a trial in the 12-state antitrust case against the melding Paramount and Warner Bros Discovery already set for March 2027, it all turned out to be a session of hurry up and wait.

Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin decided this morning that nothing is going to happen in that big flex by Paramount until September 24.

That’s just days before the $7 million a day ticking fee to WBD shareholders kicks in on October 1. A stipulation of the agreement from earlier this year between Team Ellison and the David Zaslav-run WBD that could rack up close to $1.3 billion in payouts (if the deal goes south or is pushed back) for the still Melrose lot based company. Fees that, along with some regulatory hoops Paramount will have to rejump through in February, that make up a significant portion of Para’s request August 17 motion for the big money to offset the  “extraordinary losses” the state’s July 13 filed case could cause the company.

There’s also a June 4 deadline for the expiration of a deal, with Paramount obliged to pay a $7 billion termination fee. Not cheap, even for the scion of one time world’s richest man Larry Ellison (who has committed some very big bucks to guaranteing the debt heavy WBD deal).

The Oracle founder was nowhere to be seen or heard today, but plaintiffs’ lead attorney California’s Ashley Kaplan, plus fellow lawyers James Weingarten, Bren Nakamura, Richard Parker, Kellie Lerner, Julia May, Nicole Gordon, Divya Rao, Joseph Alioto, and Christina Black were onboard virtually for CA AG Rob Bonta, NY AG Letitia  James, 10 other blue states and the Writers Guild of America in the hearing. Beth Wilkinson (maybe the busiest lawyer in Tinseltown this summer), Rakesh Kilaru, Jeffrey Kessler, Marguerite Sullivan, Dan Petrocelli, Pete Herrick, Julia Schiller, Maggie Sullivan and Jennifer Parsigian were there for Paramount and WBD.

The bond may be a long overdue grown up move by Paramount in the bitter battle in court and the court of public opinion. However, it could also ultimately prove an empty gesture too. In a TRO ruling last month, the Joe Biden-appointed judge cast aside the need for a bond, $1.88 billion or otherwise. “Plaintiffs have demonstrated that Plaintiff States bring suit to enforce important public interests,” she said in a pretty heavily implied rejection of the security requirement.

Still, courts like casinos are full of wild card moments, so that could all shift by late September, or not.

With all that playing out in Northern California, the L.A. County Department of Economic Opportunity to today built on its already ominous June 18 report to the board of supervisors on a Para-WBD merger with even harsher data.

If the $82 billion debt carrying ParaBros was to be real, David Ellison’s dream will be a nightmare for Paramount and WBD staff, the “Assessing the Effects of the Proposed Paramount Skydance Acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery on the Los Angeles County Economy and Workforce” entitled dense document predicts.

There will be “a potential loss of 15,567 corporate roles that overlap across both companies, with 6,099 shared, and 2,495 jobs specifically in Los Angeles County,” today’s report says.

Read the L.A. County Department of Economic Opportunity report on possible consequences of a Paramount-WBD merger here.

Getting very specific in the realm of some of the worst fears of both critics and boasters of the merger, the DEO document goes on to cite:

• If the merger goes through, about 4,500 film and TV jobs in Los Angeles County could be lost
over the three-year period when the companies combine operations

• In total, 10,360 job years could be at risk, including:
— 2,661 indirect jobs at small businesses that support production — such as prop houses, printers, transportation companies, and other vendors.
— 3,204 induced jobs that exist because film and TV workers spend money in the local economy including restaurants, retailers, and service providers.

• The economic impact of losing these jobs is significant. At stake:
— $1.26 billion in wages
— $2.78 billion in economic value
— $4.06 billion in total business output
— $547 million in tax revenue, including $78.6 million in local taxes — most of which (63%) comes from property taxes.

With initial details from two months ago in mind, the report notes:

These estimates measure employment capacity at risk, not a forecast of layoffs. One job
sustained for one year equals one job-year, so the impact may be distributed across different
workers, projects, and positions over the three-year integration period.

• The impact extends beyond direct film and television employment. An estimated 2,661 indirect job-years are at risk among businesses that support production, including independent artists, agents and promoters, sound recording, employment services, and equipment rental. A further 3,204 induced job-years reflect reduced household spending across the County economy.

• The economic impact extends well beyond employment. The modeled losses correspond to approximately $1.26 billion in labor income, $2.79 billion in value added, and $4.06 billion in economic output over the modeled period.

• The fiscal impact extends across federal, state, and local government. The modeled losses correspond to approximately $547 million in tax revenue, including $78.6 million in local tax revenue.

• Impacts would emerge over time, not at closing. Evidence from six completed media mergers shows workforce actions unfolding over several years following a transaction, supporting continued monitoring of employment and production activity rather than a single point-in-time assessment.

To put this into perspective, the direct jobs at risk account for nearly 9% of the 52,016 film and TV
jobs California has already lost since 2022 — and almost all those losses (99.6%) occurred in Los
Angeles County.

Do the math, all of it.

Paramount had their own POV on the DEO report.

“LA County’s own economic report underscores what we have been saying all along: our industry is in decline, production is down and jobs are being lost — and lost for good if we don’t act,” a company spokesperson told Deadline Wednesday. “Our plan to invest $30 billion annually in production and release at least 30 films a year is how we regain that ground: more production that supports more jobs over time, and ultimately, a stronger, more durable entertainment industry for generations to come.”

In a posting on X, Bonta said of the latest L.A. County report: “As I have said repeatedly, the proposed unlawful Paramount-Warner Brothers merger will lead to significant job loss and massive damage to the economy.”

Meanwhile, back in Oakland, as various exhibitors, guilds and pundits opine on the pros and cons of one big ParaBros, and Team Ellison leaks threats to adiós California and jump to a friendlier Red jurisdiction, today’s 21-minute case management conference before Martinez-Olguin had some other topics on the agenda too.

For one thing, all sides said in an August 13 filing they “are having constructive discussions regarding the identification of two alternative magistrate judges to preside over a settlement conference for the Actions and will provide a further update to the Court as soon as possible.” Now, this is standard operating procedure in matters such as this, and leans not much at all to the desires of the DGA, the suddenly corporately compliant IATSE and others for a deal to avoid a trial. To that, Magistrate Judge Ajay Krishnan, who took on his role in January,  has been named to oversee discovery.

No judge has been picked “for mediation,” but filings (AKA suggestions) from the AGs/WGA and Para/WBD are due on August 26.

Neither Paramount nor Golden State AG Bonta’s office responded to Deadline’s request for comment on today’s hearing.

Paramount shares closed down a hair Wednesday at $10.60, off more than 20% year to date (despite gaining over the past few weeks) and half of where they were trading at their 52-week high of over $20.

Overall, the $31-a-share cash deal is funded by mix of equity and debt. Larry Ellison is personally guaranteeing $45.7 billion in equity commitments (with much of that syndicated out to Middle East investors); the debt package of about $49 billion is run through a group of banks led by Citibank, Bank of America and Apollo. Para would assume WBD’s debt, reported at about $30 billion net as of June 30.

Jill Goldsmith contributed to this report

ABC has been pushing back on FCC for several months now, but on Tuesday, it filed a First Amendment lawsuit, claiming that the agency’s regulatory actions and investigations were part of a Trump administration effort to punish it for its speech.

The lawsuit goes through a narrative of Donald Trump‘s attacks on the network, including his calls for the revocation of FCC licenses. In fact, the third paragraph of the ABC complaint features a screenshot of a Trump Truth Social post in which he calls for licenses to be terminated because of “100% negative” coverage on newscasts and late-night shows.

The central part of the lawsuit is the FCC’s order that ABC’s eight owned broadcast stations file for early license renewal, a very unusual regulatory demand, given that the first of the licenses wasn’t set to expire until 2028. While the FCC tied its order to an ongoing investigation of the network’s diversity, equity and inclusion practices, ABC lawyers noted that it came just after Trump blasted Jimmy Kimmel over jokes on his show.

The FCC issued a statement on the ABC lawsuit. with a spokesperson saying, “All broadcasters have a legal obligation to operate in the public interest—even Disney.  The FCC has been examining claims that Disney engaged in illegal DEI discrimination for over a year.  Disney is obviously very concerned about the FCC’s proceeding, as evidenced by their ongoing campaign of disinformation as well as their decision to ask a court to stop the FCC from further pursuing matters.”

ABC, however, contended that the consequences of the Trump administration’s actions go beyond ABC. The network stated in the lawsuit, “If the Administration gets its way, the message to every media company in the country will be unmistakable: tell only the stories the Administration deems favorable, or face the coercive machinery of the federal government. In such a world, the press could in no way be described as free.”

Here are five of the standout claims that ABC made in its lawsuit to try to bolster its point:

FCC “confirmed the connection” to Trump’s threats: A challenge to ABC’s First Amendment claim will be in proving that there is a causal link to the president’s remarks and FCC action.

Among other things, the network noted the timing of the FCC’s order for early license renewals, coming a day after Trump called on ABC to fire Kimmel over a comment he made about First Lady Melania Trump.

But the network also cited a more recent example they claimed “confirmed the connection” between the White House and the FCC. In July, Trump gave a primetime address, but ABC and NBC decided not to broadcast it, amid concerns that the president would use the platform to make unfounded claims about election rigging.

The network’s legal team wrote, “ABC was aware that the President wanted the address to be broadcast live, and considered the risk of resulting Administration retaliation. ABC ultimately decided to livestream the speech on ABC News Live, which it ordinarily would not have done.”

Trump was aware of the decisions to bypass the address, and during the speech called for ABC and NBC to lose their licenses. ABC noted in the lawsuit that after the Trump threat, the FCC “promptly confirmed the connection: following the President’s demand, the Chairman stated that the Commission would consider ABC’s decision not to broadcast the July 16 address as part of its review of the Stations’ renewal applications.”

Returning Kimmel to the air invited “further reprisal from the administration”: Few incidents involving the FCC drew the level of attention than what happened last September, when ABC put Kimmel on suspension amid furor among one of his jokes about the reaction to the assassination of Charlie Kirk.

As noted in the ABC lawsuit, FCC Chairman Brendan Carr warned the network’s stations that “we can do this the easy way or the hard way.” “These companies can find ways to take action on Kimmel, or there is going to be additional work for the FCC ahead,” he said on Benny Johnson’s podcast.

Hours later, ABC suspended Kimmel. In the lawsuit, its legal team said that the network was exercising its editorial judgment in suspending the late-night host, but they also noted that the president “celebrated” the decision, writing on Truth Social, “Congratulations to ABC for finally having the courage to do what had to be done.” The lawsuit also noted Carr’s comment to a reporter about the Kimmel suspension: an animated image of two characters from The Office celebrating.

Then, the network’s legal team wrote, ABC made the decision to return Mr. Kimmel to the air “with full awareness that doing so was likely to invite further reprisal from the Administration.”

They added, “The reprisal was swift to manifest: the following day, the President posted on Truth Social: ‘I can’t believe ABC Fake News gave Jimmy Kimmel his job back. . . . I think we’re going to test ABC out on this. Let’s see how we do.’”

Carr later insisted that his comments were not a threat. “What I’ve been clear about is that if you look at the full context, not only what I said, but what the companies themselves have said about their decision. It was a business decision,” he told reporters after the incident.

Brendan Carr takes Trump’s social media posts “as his directives”: While the lawsuit runs through a gallery of Trump’s attacks on ABC and other networks, it also cites numerous comments made by the FCC chairman.

The ABC lawsuit cites this as further evidence that Carr is taking cues from Trump. The network claimed that Carr “takes the president’s social media posts as his directives.”

The network’s legal team wrote, “First, replying to a post by the President expressing frustration at news coverage of the Iran conflict, the Chairman warned that stations airing ‘fake news’ had ‘a chance now to correct course before their license renewals come up,’ explaining that ‘they will lose their licenses if they do not.’”

“Similarly, when the President called for NBC to fire late-night television host Seth Meyers, the Chairman reposted the President’s post to his official X account, thereby throwing the weight of NBC’s chief regulator in support of the President’s attempt to influence NBC’s editorial discretion.”

Carr has defended his comments, often citing the obligation of broadcasters to uphold a public interest standard. But Anna Gomez, the sole Democrat on the commission, has said that the FCC has been using an “undefined” concept as a “roving mandate to police speech.”

The FCC demanded records of political donations from The View hosts and ABC News personnel. According to the lawsuit, as part of the FCC’s investigation into The View, the agency’s Media Bureau made an extensive list of demands last month for information from the network’s Houston station. The investigation is into whether The View much comply with the FCC’s equal time rule, which requires that broadcasters who feature political candidates as guests must offer comparable time to rivals, if requested.

Per the lawsuit, the FCC issued a letter of inquiry last month directing the station to “produce all internal communications among The View’s booking staff, its segment producers, its Executive Producer, and its on-air co-hosts discussing any candidate over a two-year period, together with the messages that two named co- hosts had sent to the program’s Executive Producer about a single booking decision.” The FCC also demanded the disclosure of political donations of employees and co-hosts, including a list of every donation over the past four years and the date of each, according to the suit.

According to ABC, the Media Bureau issued another inquiry two weeks later that “demanded the standards and policies in place across all ABC programs relating to ‘journalistic integrity, newsworthiness, fairness, impartiality, objectivity, partisanship, [and] bias,’ as well as the political donations of on-air talent and producers, naming Good Morning America, This Week with George Stephanopoulos, and ABC World News Tonight with David Muir.”

The network’s legal team argued that that Communications Act’s equal time provisions do not include a provision that “permits the government to demand a journalist’s or on-air anchor’s messages to her producer, to inventory her political contributions, or to audit the editorial standards of an entire news division.”

The targeting of The View already has forced the show to avoid political candidate guests. ABC is asking for immediate action from the court, including a temporary restraining order to prohibit the FCC from taking any further moves in its early license renewal proceedings.

The network’s legal team emphasized the urgency of the situation by citing instances where editorial decisions are being impacted. They noted that The View has not booked a political candidate since February, when U.S. Senate candidate James Talarico’s appearance triggered the agency’s investigation. The show also has passed on clips to air during the Hot Topics segment on The View and the cold open of the program, out of concern of triggering the equal time requirement, per the lawsuit.

Carr has denied that he is censoring the program, and merely enforcing a rule on the books that doesn’t prevent the show from featuring candidates, albeit they would be on the hook to offer equal time. ABC, however, argued that The View falls under an exemption for bonafide news programming, and that the FCC affirmed as much in 2002.

The network’s legal team argued, “Since the Bureau’s inquiry began, Plaintiffs must now evaluate any invitation to a political candidate for its potential consequences, including whether it might later be cited by the Commission as a basis for non-renewal in the Stations’ impending license renewal process.”

UPDATED: ABC filed an unprecedented First Amendment lawsuit against the FCC on Tuesday, claiming that its investigations and regulatory actions are part of a Trump administration “retaliatory campaign” to curb the network’s free speech.

The lawsuit, filed in federal court in Washington, D.C., also seeks to halt a proceeding in which the agency and its chairman, Brendan Carr, demanded that it put its eight stations up for early license renewal. That followed Donald Trump‘s attacks on the network, including its late night host, Jimmy Kimmel.

“Acting through the Federal Communications Commission, the Administration has waged a retaliatory campaign against ABC for a single reason: it disapproves of what ABC broadcasts,” the lawsuit stated.

The lawsuit is heavy in references to Trump’s attacks on the network and calls for it to lose its licenses, including his complaints over the way that ABC News moderated the 2024 presidential debate, during an attack on a news reporter who asked about releasing the Jeffrey Epstein files, and in a Truth Social post in which the president complained about late-night shows being “100% negative” to him.

The lawsuit also cited Carr’s warning to ABC last September, after Kimmel made a joke tied to the investigation into the assassination of Charlie Kirk. On a podcast, Carr said that “we can do this the easy way or the hard way,” adding that companies could take action “or there is going to be additional work for the FCC ahead.” Two major station groups with network affiliates said that they would not air the show, and ABC pulled Kimmel from the air for several days before restoring him to the air.

In the lawsuit, the network said that it anticipated the FCC taking action soon following a public comment proceeding on whether to renew the stations licenses. Bloomberg reported that the FCC may issue a hearing designation order this month, a regulatory move that would kick off an agency adjudication process to determine the fate of the licenses.

ABC stated in the lawsuit, “Any FCC adjudication would be a charade. The Commission cannot lawfully grant renewal this early in the license terms—the only outcomes on the table are adverse to Plaintiffs. At one extreme, the Commission may intentionally prolong the adjudicative process, miring ABC in years of costly litigation, with the threat of adverse action ever present and with every editorial judgment shadowed by the prospect of provoking the Administration into further retaliation.”

The network’s legal team added, “At another extreme, the Commission may use the hearing to deny license renewal or immediately revoke the Stations’ licenses, forcing Plaintiffs off the air entirely, as the President has repeatedly demanded. In either scenario, the Administration accomplishes its goal of eliminating a perceived media critic: either it gets Plaintiffs to fall in line, or it silences them if they refuse.”

An FCC spokesperson did not immediately return a request for comment. In ordering the early renewal of broadcast licenses, the agency and Carr cited an ongoing investigation of The Walt Disney Co.’s diversity, equity and inclusion policies. The network called the investigation “pretextual,” arguing that it has cooperated but that “simply begat increasingly aggressive demands.”

ABC also cited more recent comments from Carr, including that the network’s decision not to air a primetime address from Trump last month would be part of the review of the broadcast licenses.

“The Commission’s true target is not the Stations’ employment practices or their carriage of a single presidential address; it is the content of Plaintiffs’ programming—and thus their speech,” the lawsuit stated.  “Because the Commission cannot regulate that content directly, it has used its review of the Stations’ licenses as an instrument to the same end.”

The FCC under Carr has launched a series of investigations against the networks, including Comcast and NBCUniversal over its DEI practices, and CBS over the way that 60 Minutes edited an interview with Kamala Harris.

Up to now, no network had directly challenged the FCC via litigation, amid warnings that the agency under Trump was overstepping its authority by delving into content and editorial choices. The lawsuit cited the recent warning from Sen. John Kennedy (R-LA), who told an FCC official that the agency “scares me right now” and is “getting into the foothills of violating the First Amendment.”

ABC’s legal team wrote that the network was the “the visible target and suffers the most immediate harm, but the message is addressed to every broadcaster in the country, and the ultimate cost is borne by the press as a whole.” The lawsuit warned that “news organizations throughout the country are also watching and waiting to see the extent to which ABC and the Stations will be punished, as promised, for coverage that the Administration has deemed unfavorable—because if it happens to ABC, they could be next.”

After the suit was filed, Gigi Sohn, former counselor to FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler, wrote on X, “People need to understand what a big deal this is. Disney is doing what many of us had urged for many months – taking on the FCC’s weaponization of its regulatory power.”

The lawsuit names the FCC, Carr and its two commissioners, Olivia Trusty and Anna Gomez. The inclusion of Gomez, the sole Democrat, appears to be for litigation reasons, as the complaint also cites her criticisms of the Republican-controlled agency as waging a “sustained, coordinated campaign of censorship and control.”

The network is seeking a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction to halt further action on the early license renewals, as well as an order that the FCC be prohibited from taking actions “to coerce or threaten” the network “with sanctions in an effort to alter their exercise of editorial discretion.”

Its lead attorney on the complaint is Beth Wilkinson, who is also representing Paramount in its defense against an antitrust lawsuit brought by state attorneys general challenging its proposed merger with Warner Bros. Discovery.

Also cited by the network is a separate FCC investigation into The View. The agency is reviewing whether the show should be exempt from equal time rules, which require that broadcasters who feature presidential candidates provide comparable time to rivals, if requested. The network has argued that the FCC signaled back in 2002 that it fell under an exemption for news programming, only to have Carr threaten to reverse course earlier this year.

The first of the eight ABC stations were not set to face license renewal until 2028. As Carr opened proceedings in which the public could comment on The View investigation and the station licenses, the network launched an on-air campaign to elicit filings. More than 78,000 have commented so far on The View and more than 153,000 in the license renewal proceeding. The network said an analysis showed that the comments overwhelming supported its side.

Ariel Levy, a staff writer at The New Yorker, is joining CBS News‘ 60 Minutes as a contributor.

Executive Producer Nick Bilton wrote: “Ariel is an astonishingly original writer and reporter, fearlessly going to far-flung places and exploring sensitive topics that have driven consequential debates. For nearly three decades, first at New York magazine and then at The New Yorker, she has reported on culture, gender, sexuality, health and the people and ideas shaping modern life in a way that is entirely unique.”

Levy will be the newest addition to the newsmagazine after an overhaul in May, which saw the executive producer replaced and three correspondents fired, including Sharyn Alfonsi, Cecilia Vega and Scott Pelley.

Last month, Bilton announced the hiring of Ross Douthat as correspondent, and Sebastian Junger, Trevor Phillips and Gianna Toboni as contributors. Norah O’Donnell will be a correspondent after contributing to the show.

Levy is the author of a memoir, The Rules Do Not Apply, and Female Chauvinist Pigs, about the rise of raunch culture. She also hosted the podcast The Just Enough Family.

Donald Trump fumed at CNN‘s Kristen Holmes as she tried to ask him about his communications with North Korean Leader Kim Jong Un.

In the Oval Office on Monday, Trump had been defending his relationship with Kim, saying that “I understand him. He understands.” The president posted on Truth Social on Sunday that he was ordering the military to reduce joint military exercises with South Korea.

Holmes attempted to ask a follow-up, but Trump lashed out at her. “Quiet, quiet. You’re very disrespectful in front of this young man.”

The president gestured at Nathaniel Rai, a 10-year-old who was rescued from rough surf in Santa Cruz by lifeguard Ryder Williams, who sat across from him in the Oval Office.

“Okay, don’t you find her disrespectful?” Trump said to the boy. “He understands. Quiet.”

Trump asked Holmes which outlet she was with. When she said CNN, he said, “Fake news. You’re fake news. You’re a loud, boisterous person. You’re fake news. Be quiet…You’re a fake reporter, and you report fake news.”

Holmes is CNN’s senior White House correspondent.

Earlier in the Oval Office availability, Holmes had asked Trump about a comment made by Sen. Jon Ossoff (D-GA), who in a speech over the weekend said that the president would rather travel with his aide, Natalie Harp, and build the White House ballroom, than do his job as president.

“What is your response?” Holmes asked.

Trump called Ossoff a “Pee Wee Herman lookalike” before defending the ballroom.

The White House’s rapid response account, though, blasted Holmes and called her “a disgraceful, humiliating embarrassment to her alleged profession. @POTUS hosts a hero lifeguard in the Oval Office and she uses it as an opportunity to take a cheap shot about one of President Trump’s staffer.”

In another post, the White House wrote to Holmes, “Someday, your children will come across your disgusting and inhumane question. They will be sickened and embarrassed to have a parent be so callous and vindictive. It’s quite troubling.”

The network said in a statement, “Kristen Holmes is one of the most respected and accomplished journalists covering the White House. This afternoon, she did her job and asked the President of the United States a tough, relevant and newsworthy question on behalf of the American people. Public officials are free to challenge reporting they disagree with, but personal attacks on journalists for asking question are beneath the office and inconsistent with the principles of a free press. We stand firmly behind Kristen and reject these attacks in the strongest possible terms.”

Trump said that the North Korean leader had responded to his request to have a conversation. “I get along with him. He didn’t like Biden. He didn’t like Obama. He didn’t like anybody. But I get along with him very well.” He criticized South Korea, the U.S. ally, for not helping with the war with Iran.

President Trump says the reported issues with the USS Lincoln is a “CNN fake report” and that he talked to a retired admiral with acquaintances on the Lincoln, who tell him it is “beautifully maintained and beautifully taken care of.” pic.twitter.com/AG4SKTvlmq

— CSPAN (@cspan) August 17, 2026