Business
Paramount’s Delrahim slams ‘fear-mongering’ and partisan politics clouding Warner Bros. deal
Paramount Chief Executive David Ellison has been circling the globe, meeting government regulators who will ultimately decide the fate of his controversial $111-billion takeover of Warner Bros. Discovery.
Last week, Ellison spent two hours answering questions from U.S. Justice Department antitrust lawyers in a bid to secure a key government approval — one that few people believe is in doubt because of President Trump’s strong support of tech billionaire Larry Ellison and his son’s ambitions to amass more power.
Throughout his travels, David Ellison has been accompanied by a savvy wingman: Makan Delrahim.
Delrahim, Paramount’s chief legal officer, served as the nation’s top antitrust regulator in the Justice Department during Trump’s first term. The 56-year-old Iranian American, who grew up in Los Angeles, is the architect of shrewd moves that have brought Paramount within reach of its blockbuster merger that would redefine Hollywood.
Politics have permeated the process — even before Trump announced he would get involved. Opponents have been suspicious of the Ellisons, given the family’s ties to Trump and programming changes to redefine Paramount’s CBS, including last month’s departure of late-night comedian Stephen Colbert and a shakeup at “60 Minutes,” CBS’ newsmagazine.
Buying Warner Bros. Discovery would give the Ellisons control of both CBS News and CNN.
Paramount’s bid for Warner Bros. has sparked dread in Hollywood for another reason, too: Thousands of jobs already have vanished through a string of media mergers.
More than 5,000 artists and entertainment industry workers have signed an open letter, calling on California Atty. General Rob Bonta to try to block the deal on antitrust grounds.
In an interview with The Times, Delrahim responded to concerns and criticisms. This interview has been edited for length and clarity:
Where does the regulatory process stand?
We are still going through the regulatory approval process. We actually started planning for the regulatory approval filings last summer. We knew we were going to be pursuing this transaction but it took a few months longer to sign the transaction than we thought. There were some interveners [Netflix, Comcast], but we planned ahead.
Do you have a commitment from Trump or his administration that you’ll get a thumbs up?
There are no deals with the president. We have a deal with the Warner Bros. shareholders. We’ve submitted [applications] to the governments of Europe, Canada, U.K. and the U.S., and that’s where it is.
You got a head-start because you filed a regulatory approval in December — months before Paramount had a deal with Warner. Why so soon?
We were always very skeptical [the Netflix deal] would ever go through. The only way to really show the [Warner] board that our deal would get through — because it doesn’t have antitrust problems — was to move as fast as we could.
One of the benefits being a former [DOJ] enforcer and having a team of outside lawyers who are also former colleagues and enforcers was that we anticipated what the government would ask for. Those were questions that we would have asked, and so we provided those answers.
Your timeline is aggressive. Some suggest Paramount wants this deal done before the mid-term elections.
I don’t think it’s aggressive. It has nothing to do with the midterms. The midterms do not change the officials at the Justice Department or the FCC — we have that minor application there. The midterms have no effect on the European Commission or anybody else. We’ve been very transparent and proactive with members of Congress and with the state attorneys general and the federal authorities.
Are you preparing to defend a potential antitrust challenge from Atty. General Bonta?
Well, no matter what field you’re in, whether it’s antitrust or whether you’re preparing for a football game, you always prepare the best you can for the worst, and you hope it never gets there. So, we’re preparing for challenges from anybody and everybody. But I don’t think any serious antitrust enforcer who looks at the facts, the law, the economics of this transaction will see an antitrust violation.
Why are you so confident?
There’s no element of this merger that is anti-competitive. Once you look at it, it’s incredibly pro-competitive. It increases output, it increases jobs, and it lowers the cost to the consumers. If you actually try to block this deal, you’re going to harm consumers, you’re going to harm creative talent, because you’re going to harm the creative ecosystem — the vision that David [Ellison] is trying to deploy here. It’s transformative from the efficiencies that it creates.
David Ellison has promised to release 30 films a year. Was that commitment to show that this merger will not be a repeat of Walt Disney Co.’s 2019 purchase of Fox?
I’m quite familiar with that one because I was at the Justice Department and reviewed it. Disney-Fox was a transaction with a different thesis. Disney wanted to get into streaming and they wanted to get scripted series. It wasn’t about studios trying to increase output.
Our transaction, as David has described, is motivated to create more content to feed the theaters, then streaming. We have a natural economic incentive to create more content. We’ll still be in fourth place after this transaction on the streaming side — almost half the size of Netflix.
David Ellison hasn’t made any commitments on the television side or pledged pledge to keep the various TV studios intact. Why?
I don’t think there’s much of an overlap on the television studios. Look, you have incredible studios in HBO, Warner Bros. Television, certainly our own studio. We’re not paying money to limit supply. It’s the exact opposite.
There is overlap between CBS News and CNN. How are regulators looking at that issue?
We’re very proud of CBS News and hopefully CNN, post-transaction. There is very limited overlap. Why? Because CBS News only airs a few hours a week of programming whereas CNN is 24/7, and it has international reach.
Antitrust regulators are going to see that it’s going to create synergistic effects. You might be able to cross-program and more people will be exposed to the incredible programming of CBS News. They’ll benefit from each other’s independent strengths.
During the first Trump administration, you said merger conditions were problematic because it’s difficult for the government to enforce behavioral remedies. Has your thinking changed?
No, I’ve been quite consistent. If there’s an antitrust problem, you need a divestiture [selling assets]. I don’t think there’s a remedy needed in this transaction. But having said that, we’re happy to engage with regulators to discuss where they see a problem and a possible solution. We’re always wanting to engage in constructive dialogue.
Would Paramount spin off CNN?
I don’t see that. I can’t see any antitrust reason to do so. That would be a weaponization of the antitrust law, and that would not be appropriate.
Many people in Hollywood view the merger with trepidation because of the prospect of more job losses. Others see it through a political lens. How do you evaluate the politics?
Politics is part of life. It’s part of the beautiful process of democracy. Generally, we are very empathetic to the folks in Hollywood, but this transaction will actually create more and better and exciting jobs. David is an absolute lover of films; he’s a filmmaker himself. For the first time, you are getting an owner who comes from the creative side.
Let’s be honest. There’s a lot of fear-mongering, particularly from people in Washington, D.C. They are running a political campaign. Some of these people are trying to inflict harm on this transaction really because of their own antisemitic views. Regulators and law enforcement officials will see right through that.
Do regulators share others’ concerns about the merger debt — $79 billion — for the combined company?
Some regulators appropriately have asked about it. They say: ‘This is what we have heard, that you guys are not going to be around because of this debt,’ which is just silliness. David and his family are owner-operators. They’re not rented CEOs. They have over 50% ownership. They put their money at stake and my money is on them.
California, the epicenter of the artificial intelligence boom, continues to grow its economy faster than the nation, but more people are losing their jobs and the cost of living remains high.
New economic indicators released this week show how the Golden State is grappling with the effects of the Iran war, as well as an AI explosion, which is driving huge investments as well as layoffs.
The state’s unemployment rate reached 5.3% in April, roughly 1 percentage point higher than the nation’s. California’s unemployment rate is expected to peak at 5.6% later this year, according to the UCLA Anderson Forecast released this week.
The state outpaced the nation in economic growth in the fourth quarter of 2025. It probably continued to outgrow the country in the first three months of this year, the report said.
“Income and output will continue to grow faster than the U.S. even as employment growth is tepid,” senior economist Jerry Nickelsburg wrote in the forecast. “Once past the current weakness, expected by the middle of next year, a tech, durable goods manufacturing, and construction resurgence should lead to superior growth in both employment and income in the Golden State once again.”
The state’s growth is being bolstered by many local companies that are attracting and spending hundreds of billions of dollars in the race to build the software and infrastructure needed for AI. However, there are signs that the same race may be leading to fewer jobs in some sectors.
From January to May, U.S. tech employers announced 123,653 job cuts, up 66% from the same period a year earlier, according to a report Thursday by global outplacement and executive coaching firm Challenger, Gray & Christmas. California had close to 77,000 job cuts across all sectors, double the number of any other state.
Although AI was cited more often than any other reason for cuts, the layoffs haven’t been as bad as the pessimists feared, said Andy Challenger, a labor and workplace expert and chief revenue officer of Challenger, Gray & Christmas.
“AI isn’t yet the jobpocalypse some predicted,” he said in a statement. “Like spreadsheets and email before it, the technology will ultimately make workers more productive.”
California has seen job growth in sectors including healthcare and social services. But entertainment, tech and manufacturing businesses have been cutting back.
UCLA’s outlook paints a mixed picture of California’s future, one filled with uncertainty as the Iran war pushes up fuel prices, inflation rises, government policy changes and tariffs disrupt supply chains.
The state is particularly vulnerable to the effect of the war on Iran because it uses pricey low-emissions gasoline, and California ports accept cargo on ships that require large amounts of more expensive oil, according to the forecast.
California also is more dependent on oil from outside the country than other states.
The Iran war has caused gas prices to jump. Above, prices are at and over $6 a gallon at a station in Los Angeles on June, 2, 2026.
(Justin Sullivan / Getty Images)
It’s still too early to predict the fallout from the war on Iran, but economists expect it to negatively affect employment by the end of this year and into 2027, the quarterly forecast from UCLA said. It projected that national real GDP growth would shrink from around 2.3% this year to 1.8% next year.
The UCLA report did not provide a state GDP forecast, but said early indicators suggest California continues to outperform the country. Last year, the national real GDP growth rate was around 2%, the report said. California’s was closer to 2.5%, according to data from the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis.
Some are concerned that AI could worsen what’s called a “K-shaped” economy, in which the rich see growth and most other people struggle with stagnating opportunities. In California, it could also lead to an “E-shaped” economy, in which low, medium and high-income people each see slight growth.
That depends on whether AI ends up helping workers or replacing them, economist William Yu said.
“If it’s labor substitution, we are going to see this [as] more of a K-shaped economy. If it’s more of labor augmentation, we’re going to see more of [an] E-shaped economy,” he said at a conference about the report.
Tech companies say they are using AI to do more with fewer people. Yu said a lot of the AI spending is going into building out AI data centers rather than hiring.
Citing data from job search website Indeed, AI appears to be slowing down growth in software, information technology, marketing and media job postings, he said. But demand for civil and electrical engineers remains high. AI might not be affecting those roles, or reindustrialization policies are boosting hiring in those areas.
The Kars4Kids jingle is back on the air in California after being ordered off the airwaves last month.
The catchy jingle that has been getting stuck in heads for nearly three decades was pulled from the air after a California man took Kars4Kids to court for false advertising.
The man said he donated an old car to the charity, believing it would be used to benefit children in need. He was unaware that Kars4Kids gives the donations to another organization, Oorah, that uses the money to fund Jewish youth trips to Israel.
The Orange County court originally ruled the jingle a violation of California’s false advertising law for failing to disclose its religious affiliations, and it was subsequently pulled from the airwaves. Kars4Kids filed an appeal, and the court has ruled the jingle can stay on the air throughout the appeals process.
“Kars4Kids applauds today’s court ruling allowing its ads to continue airing in California while the appeals process continues,” a spokesperson for Kars4Kids said. “The uninterrupted airing of its ads will enable the charity to continue funding its programs for children and families. We believe the lower court’s findings on the facts and the law were deeply flawed, and we look forward to pursuing a broad appeal of that decision.”
Kars4Kids has run into allegations of false advertising before. Oregon and Pennsylvania also took the charity to court over the misleading jingle in 2009, resulting in a $130,000 fine and a requirement to disclose its affiliations in all advertisements.
A Kars4Kids spokesperson said last month that its website clearly states its Jewish affiliation.
“We believe this case was nothing more than a lawyer-driven attempt to siphon off charitable funds for their own gain,” the spokesperson said. “The law and the facts are clearly on our side.”
The nonprofit using the funds gathered by Kars4Kids has also previously used the donations for a matchmaking program for Jewish young adults and to purchase a $16.5 million building in Israel.
While the jingle could be pulled from the air again depending on the result of the appeal, for now, it will remain a part of your morning commute in California.
Texas has dethroned California as the state with the most Fortune 500 companies.
The Fortune 500 list ranks the largest U.S. companies by revenue. This year, 57 of the top companies are headquartered in Texas, compared with California’s 56. It’s a reversal from two years ago when the Golden State had the pole position.
The Lone Star State was quick to claim the victory.
“Texas is the undisputed headquarters of headquarters,” Texas Gov. Greg Abbott said in a news release responding to the ranking, which was announced Wednesday. “The world’s leading businesses invest with confidence in Texas because of our welcoming business climate, predictable regulatory environment, and skilled and growing workforce. People and businesses are choosing Texas because Texas works.”
California’s corporate haters say they try to avoid the state’s high costs, income taxes and strict regulations, but the western state is still a top money maker.
“California dominates on nearly every other measure: its Fortune 500 companies are the most profitable ($647 billion), most valuable ($20 trillion), and employ more people than any other state (2.8 million workers),” Fortune said in a news release.
Indeed, despite the naysayers, Californian companies have been leading the world in developing artificial intelligence technology as well as the latest in space and defense tech.
The state is home to nearly 400 “unicorns,” or billion-dollar startups — more than any other state, according to CB Insights. It also gobbled up nearly two-thirds of U.S. venture capital last year, with San Francisco Bay Area startups such as OpenAI leading the way, according to the business information platform Crunchbase.
Texas and California have been in a tug-of-war for the crown. In 2024, after a decade, California bagged the top spot with 57 companies on the list, while Texas and New York tied in second with 52 companies each.
Healthcare giant McKesson, and oil companies Exxon Mobil and Chevron, were the top three Texas companies on the list. Apple, Alphabet, and Nvidia took the top positions in California.
Tesla, which relocated to Austin from Palo Alto in 2021, ranked 43rd on the list. Other major Fortune 500 companies that left California included Oracle, Charles Schwab and Chevron.
California’s population exodus has yet to fully recover from the pandemic times in 2020. The state’s high cost of living and regulatory environment are often cited as reasons for residents opting to move.
More recently, California’s proposal for a one-time tax on billionaires prompted some, including Peter Thiel and Larry Page, to open new offices outside the state.
Some smaller companies are also leaving the state, but nearly the same number are being set up. From 2011 to 2021, the state lost a net 2% of its total of around 47,000 headquarters, according to the Public Policy Institute of California.
“There is some indication of an uptick in headquarters leaving California, but it is really small in comparison to other firm trends,” said Sarah E. Bohn, vice president of the Public Policy Institute of California. “The rate of leaving is slightly higher among bigger firms.”
Bohn, in a recent report, cautioned that focusing solely on relocations overlooks the range of positive and negative forces driving headquarters activity and can misrepresent businesses’ desire and ability to operate headquarters in California and the broader impact on jobs.
Behind Texas and California was New York, home to 53 Fortune 500 companies this year. The fourth spot was tied between Illinois and Ohio, with 29 companies each.
Amazon was the top company on the list, ending Walmart’s 13-year reign at the top of the annual Fortune 500 companies list. Amazon’s 2025 revenue was $716.9 billion, compared with Walmart’s $713.2 billion.
Seattle-headquartered Amazon joined Exxon Mobil, General Motors, and Walmart as the only four companies to have ever held the top position since Fortune began publishing the data in 1955.
Together, the 500 companies on the list roped in $21 trillion in revenue and $2.1 trillion in profits last year, employing 30.5 million people worldwide.
-
Crypto2 minutes agoBitcoin’s Stumble Looks Graceful Next to Zcash’s Faceplant — Week in Review
-
Finance9 minutes agoHow this week’s inflation data and interest rates affect your money
-
Fitness12 minutes agoFitness: Does high blood pressure limit your exercise options?
-
Movie Reviews24 minutes agoFilm review #5: The Life and Times of Allen Ginsberg
-
World27 minutes agoSoccer-Iran World Cup Players Granted Visas to Enter the US, Says White House Official
-
Lifestyle1 hour agoSummer TV season has arrived — here’s what you shouldn’t miss
-
Technology1 hour agoJMGO’s N3 Ultimate projector is the new portable 4K champ
-
World1 hour agoPro-US conservative faces leftist in Peru’s high-stakes presidential runoff
