The unfolding struggle for control of Warner Bros. Discovery has become more than a corporate clash—it has evolved into a political drama with the potential to reshape the American media landscape, particularly the future of CNN. At the center of this storm are billionaire Larry Ellison and his son, David Ellison, whose company, Paramount Global, is mounting a $108 billion hostile takeover bid to outmaneuver Netflix’s competing offer. According to individuals familiar with private conversations in Washington, the Ellisons have directly assured President Donald Trump that, if they succeed, they plan to remake CNN from top to bottom. Trump, who has spent years railing against the network as “fake news,” is said to view their plan as a long-awaited opportunity for sweeping reform. Their bid stands in stark contrast to Netflix’s $72 billion agreement to purchase WBD’s film and HBO holdings—a deal that would spin CNN off entirely. Paramount, though, wants the network included, and the Ellisons have been unambiguous about their intention to transform it. Their moves have placed them at the center of not only a corporate power play but also a moment of political significance, as the president’s Antitrust Division will ultimately decide whether either merger can proceed.
The Ellisons’ strategy appears to be as much political as it is financial. Larry Ellison and his son have worked actively to reinforce their relationship with Trump, recognizing that federal regulators answer to the executive branch. Both men were seen alongside the president in the Kennedy Center Honors box just two days before Paramount unveiled its offer, signaling a degree of proximity that competitors cannot match. Reports indicate that during private meetings, David Ellison emphasized that a Paramount-owned CNN would undergo what he called a “fundamental cultural and editorial overhaul.” Larry Ellison reportedly went further, discussing the potential dismissal of several high-profile anchors—among them Erin Burnett and Brianna Keilar, both of whom Trump has publicly criticized. White House aides, speaking anonymously, have said Trump welcomes the prospect of a change in ownership and leadership at CNN, believing the network’s current management is openly biased against him. Shortly after Netflix announced its agreement with Warner, Larry Ellison reportedly called Trump personally, warning that the deal would grant Silicon Valley—and Netflix in particular—outsized influence over the future of streaming media. In his telling, such dominance would stifle competition and further consolidate power among a small group of tech giants.
At the heart of the Ellisons’ vision is the creation of a unified news operation combining CNN and CBS News, forming a single division built around what they describe as a renewed commitment to trust and neutrality. David Ellison has outlined this idea publicly, saying that Paramount aims to build a “scaled news service” centered on truth and designed to appeal to the wide swath of Americans who do not identify with partisan extremes. Under the proposed structure, editorial leadership for both CNN and CBS would fall under Bari Weiss, the former New York Times columnist who recently became editor-in-chief of CBS News. Weiss has already begun rebranding CBS with what she calls an “anti-woke” approach—an effort intended to differentiate the network from what she views as polarized or activist-leaning newsrooms. Her first significant staffing decision was hiring Matt Gutman, formerly of ABC News, to serve as chief correspondent across multiple CBS platforms, including CBS Mornings, CBS Evening News, and 48 Hours. But this early move has already been overshadowed by controversy. While reporting on the fatal shooting of Charlie Kirk, Gutman described certain messages exchanged between the alleged shooter and his romantic partner as “very touching” and “intimate,” comments many viewed as overly sympathetic given the gravity of the crime. The criticism was swift, prompting Gutman to issue a public apology within a day, in which he expressed deep regret and insisted he unequivocally condemns both the act and the pain inflicted on Kirk’s family and supporters. The Ellisons’ plan would bring CNN under the same editorial philosophy that Weiss has begun implementing at CBS—one centered on what the family describes as restoring viewer trust through a “post-woke” sensibility.
Despite the recent controversies within CBS’s news division, aides say Trump remains intrigued by the Paramount proposal, largely because it includes CNN—a detail Netflix’s plan avoids entirely. For years, Trump has publicly attacked the network and privately told advisers he wants “real reform,” expressing frustration that the organization has remained unaltered despite multiple changes in leadership. People close to the president say he sees the Ellisons’ ambitions as a chance to hold the network accountable and finally bring about the transformation he has long demanded. At a White House roundtable, Trump refrained from endorsing either deal outright but acknowledged that he is familiar with the companies involved. He said he intends to evaluate the mergers with consumer impact and market share in mind, emphasizing that none of the parties are personal allies but that he wants to ensure any decision is “the right one.” His remarks underscored the unusual reality of this moment: both bidding companies appear convinced that their prospects hinge on presidential approval, which has elevated what would normally be regulatory considerations into matters of political strategy and influence.
Public reaction to the proposed mergers has highlighted rare bipartisan unease. Critics on the left and right have expressed concern about the consequences of allowing already massive corporations to expand their influence even further. Sen. Elizabeth Warren, a longtime advocate for aggressive antitrust enforcement, labeled both merger proposals “anti-monopoly nightmares,” arguing that they would concentrate too much media power in the hands of too few companies. From across the aisle, Rep. Darrell Issa warned that such consolidation would narrow consumer choice and potentially silence independent voices. These concerns reflect broader anxieties about the shrinking diversity of ownership in American media, where mergers have steadily reduced the number of major players. The specter of a politically sensitive takeover involving CNN—long one of the most watched and politically symbolic networks—only intensifies those fears. Even within the industry, executives and observers note that the idea of a multibillion-dollar deal depending so heavily on the president’s disposition is a striking sign of how intertwined media and politics have become. The Wall Street Journal captured the mood succinctly in a recent political newsletter: “Both Netflix and Paramount are acting like the fate of any multibillion-dollar deal runs through the Oval Office—because it does.”
As the competing bids unfold, the situation has come to symbolize a larger struggle over who will shape the future of American journalism and streaming entertainment. Should Paramount succeed, CNN could undergo a dramatic ideological transformation under the Ellisons’ ownership and Weiss’s editorial leadership, potentially altering the broader media environment. Should Netflix prevail, CNN would be separated from its parent company and face an uncertain future as a standalone entity. Either outcome represents a seismic shift in an already turbulent media industry, where legacy networks are fighting to reinvent themselves, streaming giants are racing to dominate global markets, and political actors are increasingly entangled in decisions once governed primarily by corporate strategy and shareholder interest. For now, the Ellisons continue pressing their case, pairing a political pitch with a business proposal and positioning themselves as agents of both reform and competition. Whether regulators—and the president to whom they answer—ultimately endorse their vision remains to be seen. But what is clear is that the contest has become far more than a corporate power struggle; it has evolved into a defining moment for the governance, direction, and ideological identity of American news media.
