Trump-loving network Newsmax is a hot stock on Wall Street
Conservative cable news channel Newsmax is getting a Trump bump on Wall Street.
The Boca Raton, Fla., outlet's stock price surged after its initial public offering Monday. Shares offered at $10 closed at $233 a share Tuesday afternoon, giving the company a market valuation of over $20 billion.
Newsmax itself tracked the stock's movement onscreen throughout the day.
The Newsmax performance is surprising, considering the company — whose business is pure-cable play — has scant revenue from pay TV operators, according to analysts. (Chris Ruddy, Newsmax founder and chief executive, told CNBC Monday that the network is getting carriage fees).
Newmax has no blue chip advertisers, making it largely dependent on direct-to-consumer marketers, many of whom sell Trump-related products. The commercials that air on Newsmax often have conservative TV personalities as spokespeople.
The IPO comes at a time when the traditional cable business is eroding, as consumers are bypassing pay TV subscriptions. A 10-K filing ahead of the public offering warned that 'changes in consumer behavior and evolving technologies and distribution platforms may adversely affect the company's business, financial condition and results of operations.'
The company does offer a direct-to-consumer digital product, Newsmax+, which subscribers can use to stream the network's programming for $4.99 a month.
The early performance of the stock is likely being driven by President Trump's enthusiastic supporters, who are super-served by Newsmax commentators providing a positive narrative for the White House throughout the day. Newsmax touted the IPO in its programming.
Wall Street saw similar movement with Trump Media Technology Group, the president's social media venture that owns Truth Social, which traded as high as $100 a few months after its IPO in 2022 but then fell dramatically. The stock rose again during his 2024 presidential campaign. It's now trading at around $20.
Newsmax had a brief period in 2020 and early 2021 when its ratings surged to all-time highs as it attracted conservative viewers despondent over Trump's loss to Joe Biden in the 2020 presidential election.
Many Trump supporters were angry with Fox News after it correctly called the state of Arizona for Biden several days before its rivals. Newsmax waited weeks before calling Biden the president-elect.
Fox News eventually bounced back and currently has 70% of the audience for cable news, its most dominant share ever, according to Nielsen.
Newsmax's audience grew last year and the company touts its position as the fourth most-watched cable news channel behind Fox News, MSNBC and CNN. In the first quarter of 2025, Newsmax averaged 305,000 viewers in prime time according to Nielsen, ranking 18th among all cable networks.
The network lost $72 million in 2024, despite an increase in revenue. Last year, Newsmax paid $40 million to voting software company Smartmatic to settle a defamation lawsuit. Smartmatic was also given an option to buy shares in the company.
Smartmatic's suit said Newsmax provided a platform for its hosts, Trump and his attorneys and allies to falsely claim that the company's software was manipulated to deliver the election for Biden.
Newsmax is facing a similar $1.6 billion lawsuit from Dominion Voting Systems. Dominion reached a $787.5 million settlement with Fox News in 2023 after it sued over the network's presentation of Trump's false claims.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
12 minutes ago
- Yahoo
New IBO Survey Reveals Major Cuts to Lab Budgets Amid NIH Grant Terminations
ARLINGTON, Va., June 10, 2025 /PRNewswire/ -- A new survey conducted by Instrument Business Outlook (IBO) has uncovered significant reductions in laboratory budgets across the U.S. academic and government research landscape, with lab product spending sharply impacted by recent NIH grant terminations. The findings, based on an exclusive IBO survey, shed light on the growing financial uncertainty facing scientific research labs in 2025. The results follow widespread disruptions in NIH funding, with more than 1,500 grants totaling $7.5 billion terminated as of May 20, according to data from Grant Watch. While the exact numbers remain fluid due to inconsistent reporting by federal agencies, the toll is undeniable: R01 research grants—a cornerstone of basic research—have been particularly hard-hit, with 322 grants worth nearly $790 million terminated. "The fallout from NIH funding changes is cascading through the research ecosystem," said Tanya Samazan, Editor-In-Chief. "Our survey shows just how deeply this uncertainty is affecting labs—from basic research to clinical trial infrastructure." Survey Highlights: Budget Cuts Across the Board Conducted by the Science Advisory Board (SAB) between mid- and late May, the survey collected 117 responses from U.S.-based labs, with 88 indicating their labs were impacted by NIH-related funding disruptions. Key findings include: 59% of labs report direct impacts from NIH-related grant or contract terminations, delays, or reductions. 47% report indirect impacts. Among affected labs, nearly 60% have reduced 2025 operating budgets by more than 10%. 51% report capital budget reductions exceeding 10%. When excluding labs that were uncertain or unaffected, the scale becomes even more dramatic: 71% of labs report operating budget cuts of over 10%. 71% report similar reductions in capital budgets. Lab Tools and Consumables Hit Hardest Every category of lab spending has been affected, according to survey data: 80% of labs have reduced their 2025 consumables budgets, making it the most impacted category. 63% have cut software/informatics budgets. 70% have reduced spending on devices under $50,000. Even high-end instrumentation (>$150,000) hasn't been spared, with 62% of labs trimming these budgets. Institutes Most Affected The survey findings align with NIH grant termination data indicating the hardest-hit institutions include: National Institute of Mental Health, with over $400 million in losses. National Institute of General Medical Sciences, which lost the highest number of grants (134). Institutes heavily reliant on lab instruments, including the National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering and the National Human Genome Research Institute. Medical schools and hospitals have borne a significant share of the burden, accounting for 50% of terminated grants and 55% of total terminated NIH dollars. A Shifting Landscape with No Clear Path Forward The rapidly evolving nature of NIH decisions—including ongoing terminations and reinstatements—has created a volatile funding environment. Labs are being forced to make difficult decisions with limited visibility into future funding. About Instrument Business Outlook (IBO)IBO is a leading newsletter providing market intelligence for the analytical instrument industry. Published by Strategic Directions International (SDi), a division of Science and Medicine Group, IBO offers in-depth coverage of technology, business, and market trends affecting the life sciences and lab tools sectors. View original content to download multimedia: SOURCE Instrument Business Outlook Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Washington Post
14 minutes ago
- Washington Post
Sending the National Guard is bad. Arresting 3,000 a day is worse.
ICE agents making arrests in the parking lot of a Home Depot helped set off mass protests in Los Angeles. But that wasn't an isolated incident. Immigration and Customs Enforcement is increasingly taking actions at courthouses, restaurants and other spaces it previously stayed away from. President Donald Trump and his top aides have long favored harsh immigration policies. But what's shifted in recent weeks is that the administration has set a specific goal of ICE arresting at least 3,000 people per a quota may help Trump accomplish his goals, but it is leading to overly aggressive tactics that are deeply unsettling Americans across the country. It was perhaps inevitable that a president who promised to deport more people than his predecessors would implement an arrest quota. In the first months of Trump's tenure, the number of deportations and ICE arrests wasn't that much higher than when President Joe Biden was in office. That reportedly frustrated Trump administration officials, particularly Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller. So last month, Miller and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi L. Noem privately gave ICE leaders — and then publicly confirmed — the goal of making 3,000 arrests per day. The administration also replaced ICE's leadership with people it felt would be more aggressive. That's a huge increase: The agency was making between 700 and 900 arrests per day at the end of Biden's term and the start of Trump's. And it appears this new policy is being carried out. ICE officials say they arrested 2,267 people on June 3 and 2,368 on June 4. It's possible these numbers are being inflated by the agency to please Trump and Miller. But there are articles in news outlets across the country about unprecedented ICE enforcement actions in their communities, so I believe the agency is going beyond its usual moves. But this policy is misguided. Quotas are problematic in many contexts. I support increased gender and racial diversity but am wary of organizations trying to hire a set number of women and people of color. In law enforcement, they are more troublesome. Police officers operating under quota systems feel pushed to make arrests for minor offenses. They sometimes target not the most dangerous people but those who are easiest to apprehend. That's what's happening now. Undocumented immigrants showing up to court hearings, working at clothing stores or looking to get Home Depot customers to hire them for day labor are probably not leading human trafficking organizations on the side. I am deeply concerned that ICE will soon start making arrests at schools and hospitals, since those are other places where you can arrest lots of people at once — few of whom will be armed or dangerous. I am opposed to these arrests in part because I don't support Trump's overarching goals of deporting 1 million immigrants a year and creating a climate in which other undocumented immigrants return to their native countries on their own. But you could argue that while Trump did not specifically campaign on 3,000 arrests per day, he promised to crack down on undocumented immigrants, and Americans elected him, so the public wants this. It's hard to determine why people voted for a candidate and what kind of mandate that gives them. But even if Trump campaigned explicitly on arresting 3,000 people a day, we should be wary of that policy — and not just because quotas generally aren't smart. This particular quota is excessive. If ICE arrested 3,000 a people a day, that would add up to about 1.1 million arrests after a year. There are about 11.7 million undocumented people in the United States. So if no individual was arrested more than once, about 9 percent of undocumented immigrants would be arrested in a given year under this policy. Arresting 9 percent of any group would almost certainly result in the other 91 percent being constantly worried about being arrested or jailed. And because about three quarters of undocumented immigrants are from Central or South America, some U.S. citizens and authorized residents who are Brown almost certainly will be unjustly arrested or questioned by ICE. This arrest quota echoes stop-and-frisk policies many police departments used to employ. At the height of that approach, there were about 350,000 stops of the 1.9 million Black New Yorkers. Basically every Black New Yorker had to be on guard for being stopped and frisked, and a judge invalidated the program on the grounds that it was racially discriminatory. Miller and Trump may want all 11.7 million undocumented immigrants to live in terror. But the rest of us shouldn't. The overwhelming majority of those people came to the United States seeking a better life. If we want to deter future immigrants, cracking down on employers who hire undocumented people and making it harder to enter the country in the first place are obvious solutions. Making life excessively difficult for people already here will probably discourage future migrants, but the U.S. government should not be in the business of rushing into restaurants and courthouses with guns to arrest people for the purpose of scaring others into leaving the country. Many Democratic politicians and political commentators have criticized Trump for deploying the National Guard over the objections of California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, to stop the protests of ICE's actions in Los Angeles. But Presidents Dwight D. Eisenhower and Lyndon B. Johnson rightly invoked the National Guard, without support from governors, to integrate schools and defend civil rights marches respectively. The problem isn't that Trump is using the National Guard; it's that he's using the National Guard to defend a policy that will target people of color indiscriminately and inhumanely. The quota must go.
Washington Post
14 minutes ago
- Washington Post
Democrats ignored border politics. Now the consequences are here.
Democrats have gotten the border issue so wrong, for so long, that it amounts to political malpractice. The latest chapter — in which violent protesters could be helping President Donald Trump create a military confrontation he's almost begging for as a distraction from his other problems — may prove the most dangerous yet. When I see activists carrying Mexican flags as they challenge ICE raids in Los Angeles this week, I think of two possibilities: These 'protesters' are deliberately working to create visuals that will help Trump, or they are well-meaning but unwise dissenters who are inadvertently accomplishing the same goal. Democrats' mistake, over more than a decade, has been to behave as though border enforcement doesn't matter. Pressured by immigrant rights activists, party leaders too often acted as if maintaining a well-controlled border was somehow morally wrong. Again and again, the short-term political interests of Democratic leaders in responding to a strong faction within the party won out over having a policy that could appeal to the country as a whole. When red-state voters and elected officials complained that their states were being overwhelmed by uncontrolled immigration over the past decade, Democrats found those protests easy to ignore. They were happening somewhere else. But when red states' governors pushed migrants toward blue-state cities over the past several years, protests from mayors and governors finally began to register. But still not enough to create coherent Democratic policies, alas. It's open season on former president Joe Biden these days, and he doesn't deserve all the retrospective criticism he's getting. But on immigration, he was anything but a profile in courage. Security advisers including Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas wanted tougher border policies starting in 2021. But political advisers such as chief of staff Ron Klain, who sought amity with immigration rights progressives in Congress and the party's base, resisted strong measures. Though Biden was elected as a centrist, he leaned left — and waited until the last months of his presidency to take the strong enforcement measures recommended earlier. Throughout the 2024 campaign, Trump played shamelessly on public anxieties about the border. Some of his arguments, like claims that hungry migrants were eating pets, were grotesque. They were simply provocations. But Biden and Kamala Harris didn't have good answers, other than indignation. They had straddled the issue through Biden's term, talking about border security but failing to enact it, and the public knew it. Democrats finally came up with a bipartisan border bill in 2024 that would have given the president more authority to expel migrants and deny asylum claims, and more money to secure the border. Republicans, led by Trump, were shameless opportunists in opposing the bill. They didn't want Biden to have a win. In the end, Democrats didn't have the votes — or, frankly, the credibility on the issue. Biden took executive action in June 2024, limiting entry into the United States. But it was too late. He could have taken that action in 2021. Since Trump took office in January, he has been building toward this week's confrontation in the streets. ICE raids have steadily increased in cities with large migrant populations, as have nationwide quotas for arrests and deportations. Trump declared a national emergency on Inauguration Day that gave him authority to send troops to the border to 'assist' in controlling immigration. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi L. Noem seized every photo opportunity to convey a militarized approach to the coming clash. Over these months, the immigration issue has been a car crash skidding toward us in slow motion. Since his first term, Trump has clearly wanted a military confrontation with the left over immigration or racial issues. Gen. Mark A. Milley, then chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, helped talk Trump out of invoking the Insurrection Act in 2020 to contain the unrest that followed the death of George Floyd. But this time, Trump faces no opposition. He is surrounded by yes-men and -women. The saddest part is that Democrats still have no clear policy. Some blue-state mayors and governors have pledged to provide 'sanctuary' for migrants, but they don't have good arguments to rebut Trump's claim they're interfering with the enforcement of federal law. In some cases, sanctuary has meant refusing to hand over undocumented migrants convicted of violent crimes, former DHS officials tell me. That's wrong. The courts have limited Trump's most arbitrary policies and his defiance of due process, but not his authority to enforce immigration laws. California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) this week chose sensible ground to fight, by filing a lawsuit challenging Trump's authority to override gubernatorial power by federalizing National Guard troops when there isn't a 'rebellion' or 'invasion.' There is no evidence of such extreme danger — or that local law enforcement in Los Angeles can't handle the problems. But Newsom's smart pushback doesn't get Democrats out of addressing an issue they've been ducking for more than a decade: Do they have the courage to enforce the border themselves? Over the long run, taking border issues seriously means more immigration courts, and more border-control people and facilities — and a fair, legal way of deciding who stays and who goes. But right now, it means Democratic mayors and governors using state and local police to contain protests, so that troops aren't necessary — and preventing extremists among the activists from fomenting the cataclysm in the streets that some of them seem to want as much as Trump. Yes, of course, we need new bipartisan legislation to resolve the gut issue of how to protect the 'dreamers' and other longtime residents who show every day that they want only to be good citizens. But on the way to that day of sweet reason, Democrats need to oppose violence, by anyone — and to help enforce immigration policies that begin with a recognition that it isn't immoral to have a border.
