FCC approves Skydance-Paramount $8B merger
July 24 (UPI) -- The Federal Communications Commission on Thursday announced its approval of Skydance's $8 billion acquisition of Paramount Global, ending months of uncertainty surrounding the deal but inflaming allegations of corruption directed at the Trump administration.
The FCC voted 2-1 in favor of Skydance's acquisition of Paramount and all of its subsidiaries, including Paramount Pictures, CBS television, Comedy Central and Nickelodeon.
Among the commitments Skydance made to the Trump administration was ensuring it will include news and entertainment programming that "will embody a diversity of viewpoints across the political and ideological spectrum" and that CBS News' reporting "will be fair, unbiased and fact-based," according to the FCC.
Skydance has also pledged that it will not establish any diversity, equity and inclusion policies -- ideology that seeks to create inclusive environments that the Trump administration has been seeking to remove from both public and private sectors on allegations of discrimination.
FCC Chairman Brendan Carr described the merger as a change that will instill public trust in media.
"It is time for a change," he said in a statement.
"That is why I welcome Skydance's commitment to make significant changes at the once storied CBS broadcast network."
Though the FCC said Skydance does not have any DEI programs, Carr said the agreement "marks another step forward in the FCC's efforts to eliminate invidious forms of DEI discrimination."
Skydance announced the deal in July of last year, but the merger has stalled amid frictions with the Trump administration, as President Donald Trump has sparred with CBS News.
Trump sued CBS News while campaigning for re-election in October for $10 billion in a lawsuit many saw as one he wouldn't win over editing of a 60 Minutes interview with his political opponent, Democrat Kamala Harris. He then upped the amount in damages to $20 billion after winning re-election.
Earlier this month, Paramount Global reached a $16 million settlement with Trump that Democrats and critics of the Trump administration are calling a bribe and an affront to free speech -- accusations that only intensified after Trump earlier this week said Skydance has pledged $20 million more in advertising, PSAs and "other Similar Programming, for a total $36 MillIon Dollars."
Paramount Global told UPI that the $16 million, minus fees and costs, will be allocated to Trump's future presidential library.
FCC Commissioner Anna Gomez, the only Democrat of the three commissioners and the only one not appointed by Trump, dissented to the merger, and described Paramount's settlement as "cowardly capitulation" and accused the FCC of losing its independence.
In her strongly worded dissent, Gomez warned that this merger will not be the last time the Trump administration threatens the First Amendment.
"The Paramount payout and this reckless approval have emboldened those who believe the government can -- and should -- abuse its power to extract financial and ideological concessions, demand favored treatment and secure positive media coverage," she said.
"It is a dark chapter in a long and growing record of abuse that threatens press freedom in this country."
Democrats were quick to lament their concerns online.
"Trump filed a sham lawsuit against CBS, but instead of fighting it CBS' parent company, Paramount, paid Trump $16 million to his future library. So, you got to ask, why did Paramount do that if the suit was quote 'meritless'?" Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., said in a video statement published online. "Well, maybe because they needed Trump to approve their multibillion-dollar merger, which Trump just did.
The appearance of this wink-wink deal basically let's every other company and every other billionaire know that Trump is open for business, apparently happy to accept offers in exchange for favors."
Warren has called for a full investigation into the deal.
Sens. Ed Markey, D-Mass, and Ben Ray Lujan, D-N.M., described Thursday as "a dark day for independent journalism" and called the approval of the merger "a stain on the storied history of the Federal Communications Commission.
"The FCC's approval of the Paramount-Skydance merger reeks of the worst form of corruption. The timing speaks for itself: Paramount settled with Trump for $36 million on Tuesday and the FCC approved the merger on Wednesday," they said in a joint statement.
"The stench of this transaction will linger over the commission for years."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
14 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Tesla Shares Tumble. Is It Time to Buy the Dip or Run for the Hills?
Key Points For a second straight quarter, Tesla posted weak auto deliveries and revenue. The company once again hyped its robotaxi and robot ambitions. The stock is largely valued based on future bets paying off, making it risky to own. These 10 stocks could mint the next wave of millionaires › Tesla (NASDAQ: TSLA) has long been a stock that's traded more on the vision of its founder Elon Musk than on its actual fundamentals. However, with the stock sinking following Tesla's lackluster second-quarter earnings report -- despite more big promises around robotaxis and robots -- reality might finally be catching up to it. Musk has done a lot of brand damage to Tesla over the past six months or so. His funding of President Donald Trump's campaign and overseeing the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) angered many liberal-leaning consumers. He then later got in a very public feud with the President he helped get elected, alienating himself and Tesla from many conservatives, as well. The fallout could be seen in Tesla's Q2 numbers, while tariffs also stung the company. Meanwhile, it will soon see an even potentially bigger headwind due to the expiration of the U.S. electric vehicle (EV) credit by the end of third-quarter 2025. Its core auto business is struggling For the second straight quarter, Tesla saw big declines in its core auto business. After a 13% drop in deliveries in the first quarter, deliveries fell by the same amount in Q2. Model 3 and Model Y deliveries decreased by 12%, while other models plunged by 52%. Tesla's auto revenue plunged 16% to $16.7 billion in the quarter. Within its auto revenue, its regulatory credits, which are pure gross margin, fell by more than half to $429 million. Not surprisingly, this affected Tesla's profitability in the quarter. Even worse for the company is that many of these regulatory credits will soon be going away. Trump's "Big Beautiful Bill" will eliminate the current federal $7,500 EV tax credit at the end of September. As a result, Musk admitted that the company could be in for a "few rough quarters" ahead. Overall, Tesla's revenue fell 12% to $22.5 billion. Its energy generation and storage revenue dropped 7% to $2.8 billion, while its service revenue climbed 17% to nearly $3.1 billion. Adjusted earnings per share sank 23% to $0.40, while its adjusted earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization (EBITDA) declined by 7% to $3.4 billion. Tesla's cash flow is also starting to take a hit. Its operating cash flow sank 30% to $2.5 billion, while its free cash flow cratered by 89% to $146 million. More big promises Given Tesla's poor operating results, it was not surprising that Musk and the rest of management directed the conversation toward Tesla's big bets on autonomous driving and robotics. Musk claimed that Tesla will expand its autonomous ride-hailing service to cover half of the U.S. population by the end of this year, pending regulatory approval. Now, of course, such a statement makes little sense. The company is currently only testing a small geofenced area in Austin, Texas, with safety drivers, and it has already had a number of safety issues in this small pilot. Its technology appears nowhere close to ready to be adopted in cities countrywide. But let's say, for argument's sake, that the technology and regulatory approvals work out. The company would then need hundreds of thousands of Level 4 autonomous driving vehicles on the road (not its current Level 2 vehicles). Beyond that, it would also need service and cleaning centers, as well as charging infrastructure in place to handle a fleet of that size. It would also need to have a consumer-facing platform that can handle things like pre-trip pricing, dynamic fare calculations, disputes, and refunds. There is no evidence that Tesla has any of this in place. Meanwhile, Musk continued to sing the praises of his Optimus robot, saying it will be Tesla's biggest product ever. He said Optimus 3 has an "exquisite" design with no significant flaws. He's looking to have a prototype of the new robot by the end of this year and then scale production next year. He then wants to be able to produce 1 million Optimus robots a year within five years. Once again, this seems ambitious. Amazon (NASDAQ: AMZN) is currently an AI robotics leader, and companies like Boston Dynamics have showcased robots with advanced mobility, so robots can be hugely useful. However, all Tesla has ever demonstrated is a humanoid robot that could only do carefully choreographed tasks. Today, most factory automation is done by specialized, fixed-purpose robots. The use case for a humanoid robot is still very questionable. Should investors buy the dip? Even after the stock pullback, Tesla's stock trades at a forward price-to-earnings ratio (P/E) of over 170x based on 2025 analyst estimates, while its profitable auto peers -- like Ford, General Motors, and Stellantis -- generally have multiples of 10 or less. With its core auto business struggling, this indicates that the bulk of Tesla's market cap is predicated on ambitions that may or may not pan out. Given the company's track record of overpromising and under-delivering, this is not a bet I'd make. Should you buy stock in Tesla right now? The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the for investors to buy now. The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years. Consider when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $636,628!* Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $1,063,471!* Now, it's worth noting Stock Advisor's total average return is 1,041% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 183% for the S&P 500. Don't miss out on the latest top 10 list, available when you join Stock Advisor. See the 10 stocks » *Stock Advisor returns as of July 21, 2025 Geoffrey Seiler has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends Amazon and Tesla. The Motley Fool recommends General Motors and Stellantis. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. Tesla Shares Tumble. Is It Time to Buy the Dip or Run for the Hills? was originally published by The Motley Fool Sign in to access your portfolio
USA Today
16 minutes ago
- USA Today
Republicans, Democrats are held captive by extremes. Americans need a new party.
Does America need a viable third political party? Republicans and Democrats alike sound off – and actually agreed on something – in our latest Opinion Forum. In June – which yes, feels like a lifetime ago – billionaire and former first buddy Elon Musk began floating the idea of an "America Party" on the social media platform he's colonized. Originally a response to President Donald Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which Musk viewed as an "insane spending bill," this new third party would "actually represent the 80% in the middle" and give voters back their "freedom." It's an interesting idea – and not necessarily new. America, as we're reminded every general election, does have more than two political parties, but those splintered factions rarely result in anything of consequence. Instead, our politics are an endless ping-pong match between Republicans and Democrats – which many Americans increasingly view as two sides of the same coin. So is a true multiparty system the way forward? And is Musk, as divisive as he is, the one to lead it? Those were some of the questions we asked USA TODAY readers for our latest Forum. We heard people from each political party and found some surprising consensus. Read their responses below. A third party isn't enough. America needs an entirely new system. America doesn't just need a third party – it needs a full-spectrum awakening. The system we're living in isn't just outdated ‒ it's misaligned with the reality of who we are today. Tradition has its place, but clinging to it out of habit keeps us locked into patterns that no longer serve us. The problems we face now are wildly different from those of the past, so why are we still trying to solve them with yesterday's blueprints? We need more than another political faction; we need a radical reimagining of how representation works. For too long, our politics have been stuck in black-and-white thinking: left or right, red or blue, us versus them. The idea that one person – usually male, usually from a singular political perspective – can fully represent an entire nation is outdated. Lived experience matters. And no matter how well-intentioned he may be, a man cannot truly fight for women the way a woman can. The same goes in reverse. Each brings something vital to the table, and that's why America needs more than just a third party – it needs a shared leadership model. Your Turn: President Trump, I supported you. Release the Epstein list – or resign. | Opinion Forum Imagine a presidency not defined by solo power but co-led by two individuals with contrasting yet complementary identities ‒ say, a woman and a man from different ideological spaces. Together, they could challenge groupthink, broaden empathy and offer layered approaches to complex issues. Conflict wouldn't be avoided ‒ it'd be used as a strength to build deeper solutions. Our most marginalized voices wouldn't be tokens ‒ they'd have champions on both sides. Sure, this idea may cause some readers to flip their lids. But history has shown us that progress doesn't come wrapped in comfort. It comes when someone says 'What if?' and dares to sketch it out loud. As for Elon Musk? He didn't build with a brain ‒ he built with money. He footed bills and took credit. He couldn't hold a thought together or support his own child for being themselves. That's not genius. That's cowardice. Power without empathy is a threat, not a solution. We don't need leaders who smile for the cameras while people suffer. We need firewalls, not figureheads. If you can't fight for people without cash behind them, you don't get to represent any of us. The Republican Party is consumed by extremism and fear tactics. The Democratic Party is fractured and too often indecisive. Both chase headlines while families struggle, health care costs explode and trust erodes. Neither party centers everyday people, and that's the core failure. — Kayleisha Miller, Coal Township, Pennsylvania Our political parties have been lost to oligarchs. We need a shake-up. We need a viable third party to shake up the status quo. Both the Republican and Democratic parties are being held hostage by the extreme right and left of their parties. We need a party that is not beholden to American oligarchs. It needs to govern with common sense and realize that compromise is not a four-letter word. As a nation, we used to value these traits. Now it's a take-no-hostage era. Do you want to take part in our next Forum? Join the conversation by emailing forum@ You can also follow us on X, formerly Twitter, @usatodayopinion and sign up for our Opinion newsletter to stay updated on future Forum posts. Musk is one of the oligarchs of the United States. He is a businessman whose sole raison d'être is to make a profit. One cannot run a nation like one runs a company. Both parties are being held captive by the extreme right and left wings of their parties. The Democrats have lost their focus on the issues that mean the most to the people. They have forgotten who the working people are in this nation. They need to realize people don't want a cradle-to-grave nanny state. The Republicans have come under the spell of authoritarian governance. As much as they profess to care about the working people, they care more about the American oligarchs. — Paul Tonello, Sparks, Nevada If we had better people in power, two parties would be enough. But we don't. If there were representatives who would vote to represent the people who elected them on different issues, rather than always being in lockstep, a two-party system works very well. A multiparty system that requires different coalitions on different issues would work better than what is happening in Congress. I believe that fiscal responsibility, compassion for those in need, smaller government and stewardship of national assets would win the greatest coalition's vote. Musk's resources are important, but getting moderates from each party to be involved would be more important. Also, getting more people who are not currently involved in politics could make it very powerful. Neither party is doing anything to make the future better for our children and grandchildren. I wish we had good people instead of people who thrive on power and ego. — LaMar Stephenson, Spanish Fork, Utah It's a matter of when, not if, a third party will emerge in America The existing two-party system limits the people's choices. They coexist in a symbiotic relationship. Much like defense and plaintiff attorneys. They need each other to exist. Loyalty among the members is first to their respective party, not the Constitution. In my sphere of connections across all of America, I have yet to meet a person who does not believe a third party is a necessity. It is my belief that the time of a two-party system has passed. A new political system is a necessity. If we have a third option, more fiscally conservative and socially moderate, this country will be better served. When, not if, this happens, the legacy parties might wake up and realize they have lost touch with the American system. It is incumbent on the news media, which has also polarized, to begin an honest reporting of this movement. A third party should be fiscally conservative and socially moderate, protecting the future of America and not buying votes by borrowing from the future. The youth of America will wake up and align with a new model. Musk has the resources to overcome the start-up challenges of a viable third party. He has clearly shown his commitment to improving government and its misdirected leadership. But he is not the person to lead the party. We need a charismatic younger leader who comes from the heartland, has been in the actual world and served his country. Service in the military is important. It's too easy to place young Americans in harm's way when they have not also made that choice. Look at how few elected officials have served or have children in service. Service can take many forms that reflect their passion for serving the United States. The two parties exist to support each other. Loyalty by their members is to the party, not the country. Congress demands this loyalty. Leadership punishes those with loyalty to country above party. — Bob Jones, Dadeville, Alabama We need a political party that isn't beholden to the rich The present political parties are beholden to the rich. We need a party that also hears the people. A better party would focus on middle-class needs, education, helping college kids with their future, present and past college bills. It would focus on the environment and upholding and advancing the ideals of the Declaration of Independence: life, liberty the pursuit of happiness and equality for all. We need a party that has a little nuance on issues and looks for ways to solve problems with compromise. Our young people need affordable housing. Medical care should not be tied to employment. And we need to restore the sense of community that we have lost in some places ‒ a sense that there is something greater than me. Musk is not the person to lead a third party. He has done too much damage by reelecting President Donald Trump and with DOGE, the Department of Government Efficiency. I suppose his money could be useful. The Republican Party is firmly under the control of Trump. He is corrupt, cruel and embraces chaos. The GOP should be renamed the CCCP. Most of the Democratic leaders do not know how to resist Trump. There needs to be a moral rebirth in our nation. Many are morally blind to Trump and his actions. Who are we? What does it mean to be an American? What is right and wrong? Many are under the influence of conspiracy theories and do not realize that they are being played for money. — Rick Jones, Mount Gilead, Ohio You can read diverse opinions from our USA TODAY columnists and other writers on the Opinion front page, on X, formerly Twitter, @usatodayopinion and in our Opinion newsletter.
USA Today
16 minutes ago
- USA Today
Trump isn't gutting Medicaid and food stamps. He's fixing our broken welfare system.
President Donald Trump has preserved the core of the safety net for the truly vulnerable. He and his fellow Republicans are helping millions of able-bodied adults leave welfare and find work. It's a simple question with an obvious answer: Should Americans work as a condition of receiving welfare? More than two-thirds of Americans respond with a resounding yes. But while the principle of the matter and popular opinion are clear, our country's welfare system has been a muddled mess for decades. The biggest welfare program − Medicaid − has been disconnected from helping its 84.6 million recipients find work. And while the food stamps program technically has work requirements, they're inconsistently enforced for the 42 million people who benefit from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. The result: Tens of millions of people, especially able-bodied adults, have been trapped in government dependency. But they deserve the chance to become self-sufficient. They deserve to fully share in our country's progress. And they deserve to shape that progress while pursuing their own American dream. Trump is fixing broken welfare system That is why President Donald Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill Act is so important. The president and Republicans in Congress have started to fundamentally fix America's broken welfare system. They're finally connecting welfare to work. Your Turn: Medicaid handouts only create dependency. Able-bodied adults should work. | Opinion Forum Unfortunately, many Americans haven't heard this side of the story. They've been told − by virtually every politician on the left as well as a few loud voices on the right − that Trump and his fellow Republicans are gutting the safety net that vulnerable Americans need. Nothing could be further from the truth. In reality, the president has preserved the core of the safety net for the truly vulnerable. He and his fellow Republicans are helping millions of able-bodied adults leave welfare and find work. That's the point of the safety net: to support people who've fallen on hard times, then help them move on to better times. It was never meant to be a hammock. Yet that's what it has become, trapping millions of people in generational dependency. Trump's welfare reforms are righting this wrong. To start, Medicaid now has its first federal work requirement in history. Able-bodied adults without children as well as those without young kids will now be required to work at least part time to keep receiving Medicaid. Will Trump's big bill kill people? Here's the truth about Medicaid cuts. | Opinion That is common sense. Medicaid was created to help the neediest people in society get health care. It wasn't intended to cover healthy adults who are capable of working but choose not to. It's good for them, and all of America, if they find jobs and raise their incomes. The same is true for food stamps. The president and Congress are closing loopholes that have allowed able-bodied adults to avoid work requirements. They've also put states on the financial hook for giving food stamps to those who aren't eligible. These reforms will help millions of people find work and boost their incomes. That's good for them and the rest of society. Work requirements will help people living in poverty Those who criticize these commonsense reforms aren't just missing the point. They're missing something profoundly American. We should want our fellow citizens to find good jobs, earn more income and put themselves on the path to everything from buying a car to buying a home. That's the ticket to a life of fulfillment − to the American dream. But we shouldn't want people to stay on welfare with no strings attached, especially able-bodied adults. We should want them to lead better lives. And we should believe in their incredible potential and innate ability to improve their lives. Opinion alerts: Get columns from your favorite columnists + expert analysis on top issues, delivered straight to your device through the USA TODAY app. Don't have the app? Download it for free from your app store. Trump's welfare reforms are grounded in this deeply American principle. They will move millions of people from welfare to work, transforming lives in powerful ways. Virtually everyone intuitively understands that this is a good thing for everyone, including those on welfare and those of us who pay for it. The real question is why some politicians and pundits think it's bad to empower people on welfare to rise through work. Hayden Dublois is data and analytics director at the Foundation for Government Accountability. You can read diverse opinions from our USA TODAY columnists and other writers on the Opinion front page, on X, formerly Twitter, @usatodayopinion and in our Opinion newsletter.
