On the Media: "Trump Guns for the FTC. Plus, Are We the Losers in the Paramount v Netflix Battle?"

Aired: December 13, 2025
Hosts: Brooke Gladstone, Michael Loewinger
Guests: Noah Rosenblum (NYU Law), Oliver Darcy (Status), Joel Simon (Journalism Protection Initiative)

Overview

This episode of On the Media grapples with high-stakes battles over the independence of federal agencies and the future of American media. The first segment analyzes a pivotal Supreme Court case that could redefine the president’s power to fire FTC commissioners, with direct implications for the balance of governmental power. The second segment dissects the potential Paramount v. Netflix takeover of Warner Brothers—with CNN as a pawn—and what these mega-mergers mean for workers, journalism, and the broader public. The final portion explores the blurred boundaries of journalism in the Perez Hilton legal saga.

1. Supreme Court & Presidential Power: Trump v. Slaughter and the Fate of the FTC

Main Theme

A Supreme Court case, Trump v. Slaughter, examines whether President Trump can dismiss an FTC commissioner (Rebecca Slaughter) without cause—threatening the historic independence of regulatory agencies.

Key Points and Insights

• Constitutional Ambiguity (07:12, 08:00)

  • Noah Rosenblum explains the Constitution's lack of specificity over firing appointees—delegating much structural decision-making to future generations.
  • "The original conception of the Framers was that they had less experience of democratic government than they knew we would have under the Constitution they themselves were framing." (08:00, Rosenblum)

• Historical Precedents and Shifting Theories (09:26–16:03)

  • Historical debate: From 19th-century cronyism to the progressive era’s focus on expertise and independence.
  • Supreme Court’s Myers (1926) and Humphrey’s Executor (1935) cases—distinguish roles presidents can/can’t influence. Taft (Myers) advocates limited removal; later, FDR’s attempt to fire an FTC commissioner rejected unanimously.
  • “The FTC is applying law to facts… it’s acting in these quasi-adjudicative and quasi-legislative ways; it’s totally fine for it to be independent of the President.” (15:06, Rosenblum)

• Current Court’s Originalism vs. Presidentialism (17:21–19:11)

  • Rosenblum: The conservative majority’s ‘originalism’ is closer to “presidential democracy.”
  • “Every scholar of the 18th century knows that’s not true. And the Court at this point has to know that that’s not true as a matter of history as well. I think they’ve become fetishists…” (18:11, Rosenblum)
  • Leading originalist Caleb Nelson, cited by conservatives, argues "historical evidence... for giving the President unlimited power to fire officials is, quote, far more equivocal than the current court has been suggesting." (18:42, Gladstone)

• Potential Consequences (19:28–22:08)

  • The decision could allow Trump to fire officials for policy differences—jeopardizing the independence of agencies like the FTC and Federal Reserve.
  • "That... theory—the idea government should be able to operate as an extension of the personality of the chief executive... is the administrative theory of fascism... That's not hyperbolic, it's scholarly." (20:04, Rosenblum)
  • Reference to the mass “No Kings” protests—addressing fears of a creeping monarchy.
  • "The Supreme Court seems to be confusing the President's power over the government with the kind of power monarchs exercise... Whereas the key feature of the American Republic is that the President, like other officers... is nothing more than a creature of law." (23:20, Rosenblum)

Notable Quotes

• "You're asking us to destroy the structure of government and to take away... Congress’ ability to protect... with some agencies that are independent." (04:26, Justice Sotomayor)
• "He [Trump] wants the removal power so that he can threaten government officials, tell them to do what he wants them to do, and if they fail to do it, he'll fire them.” (06:39, Rosenblum)
• “That’s just not how the founders would have thought about this at all.” (18:26, Rosenblum)

2. Paramount v Netflix: Mega-Mergers, Presidential Influence, and the Decline of Competition

Main Theme

A possible acquisition of Warner Brothers Discovery—parent of CNN—by Netflix or Paramount-Skydance, is entangled with political influence, media consolidation, and foreign investment. At stake is not only industry structure but the integrity of journalism itself.

Key Points and Insights

• Deal Mechanics & White House Involvement (26:17–30:10)

  • Netflix pursues Warner Brothers Discovery, but Paramount-Skydance, led by David Ellison (son of Trump ally Larry Ellison), offers a hostile bid—including CNN, which Netflix doesn't want.
  • Trump is believed to favor the bidder willing to "neuter" CNN (28:24, Darcy), with Ellison reportedly promising editorial changes to the news network.
  • Ellison’s bid includes financing from Middle Eastern sovereign wealth funds (Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE), and possible involvement of Jared Kushner as a backer.

• Conflicts of Interest & Press Freedom Worries (30:48–31:32)

  • “Essentially, Donald Trump’s own son-in-law is a financial backer of a merger that the President is potentially on the hook to green light. How is that not... a disqualifying conflict of interest?” (30:48, Loewinger)
  • "This is more of what you’d expect in Russia... not how business has normally been conducted under Republicans or Democrats in the US.” (31:04, Darcy)

• Impact on Journalism (32:53–33:32)

  • New CBS management (under Bari Weiss) after Ellison/Skydance’s takeover: resignations, integration of The Free Press, shift toward Trump-aligned editorial priorities.
  • "I think you’ve seen some worrisome signs happening at CBS since Bari Weiss took over." (32:53, Darcy)

• Hollywood’s Lose-Lose Dilemma (33:32–36:20)

  • Netflix seen as anti-theatrical-release; Paramount promises layoff-inducing “synergy.”
  • Workers, creators, agents fear fewer buyers = less bargaining power.
  • “When you have only a few studios in town, that reduces competition, which favors the studios, but it certainly doesn't favor the talent and the entire infrastructure that supports Hollywood.” (34:34, Darcy)
  • Monopsony concerns: “much less competition for scripts and IP, much less bargaining power for workers.” (35:17, Loewinger)

• Editorial Influence & Cultural Impact (36:20–37:38)

  • Paramount releases Rush Hour 4 after Trump’s request, despite #MeToo allegations against the director and previous shelving.
  • "Donald Trump cares... about Brett Ratner, who's directing this Melania Trump documentary... I think that's likely what's happening here." (36:54, Darcy)

• Regulatory and Political Hurdles (37:38–38:48)

  • Both deals face scrutiny from the EU, states, and political opposition—may not happen, leaving Netflix as a likely indirect winner.

• Media Coverage and the Autocracy Warning (38:56–40:10)

  • “The behavior you’re seeing from Donald Trump is the behavior of an aspiring autocrat. It’s wildly abnormal.” (38:56, Darcy)
  • "Every time he's pushed... they've caved." (39:20, Darcy) — noting capitulations by tech and media giants.
  • "It's natural, I guess, for someone who just wants power to continue to push the envelope; someone needs to say no to him." (39:43, Darcy)

Notable Quotes

• “Trump is going to bless whichever deal neuters CNN the most... I suspect if David Ellison gets his hands on CNN, Bari Weiss will lead that news organization as well.” (28:24, Darcy)
• “If you have just a... handful of gatekeepers... in the pocket of Donald Trump, that’s problematic.” (35:36, Darcy)

3. Is Perez Hilton a Journalist? Edge Cases and Legal Protections

Main Theme

Perez Hilton, notorious gossip blogger, becomes a legal test case: do his First Amendment protections as a "journalist" cover him in legal actions? The case spotlights blurred boundaries in today’s journalistic landscape.

Key Points and Insights

• Perez Hilton Subpoenaed (41:47–44:17)

  • Sued as part of a high-profile case involving Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni; Lively’s team sought evidence suggesting Hilton was complicit in a smear campaign.
  • Perez switched sides based on legal filings; “I changed my mind and I’m allowed to do that.” (44:05, Simon)
  • Coverage included critical, mocking content and legal scoop reporting.

• Legal Jeopardy and DIY Defense (46:05–47:25)

  • Hilton, served in Nevada (strong shield law state), is subpoenaed in NY (weaker shield law). Judges rule NY law governs, potentially forcing Hilton to comply.
  • He represents himself (“pro se”), relies on ChatGPT for legal briefs, which hallucinate fake case citations.

• Shield Laws & Who Counts as a Journalist (47:25–51:22)

  • Legal protections for journalists vary state-by-state; debate pivots on institutional affiliation, type of coverage, and traditional vs. new media roles.
  • The ACLU agrees to represent Hilton, seeking to expand recognition/legal protection for non-traditional journalists.

• Bigger Implications: Who Gets Press Freedom? (52:36–54:25)

  • Joel Simon's stance: “Sometimes when I hear these edge cases, I kind of resist and say, well, that person is not a journalist... But as I dig deeper... who gets to decide that?... We have to be generous with these rights.” (53:07, Simon)
  • Case dropped by Lively’s team once the ACLU intervened—no legal precedent set, but the episode highlights the ongoing dilemma for the courts and First Amendment advocates.

Notable Quotes

• “It’s a critically important edge case with broad implications for press freedom.” (53:07, Simon)
• “If that means that a certain number of journalists who maybe don’t practice the profession with the highest ethical standards also receive some level of legal protection, so be it. That is a trade off I am willing to make.” (54:16, Simon)

Timestamps for Notable Segments

• Supreme Court / FTC segment: [01:46]–[24:15]
• Paramount vs. Netflix segment: [26:05]–[40:12]
• Perez Hilton “Is he a journalist?”: [41:05]–[54:28]

Memorable Moments and Quotes

• “That theory… is the administrative theory of fascism... If you were to go talk to fascist public lawyers in the 1930s… they would say, under fascist government, administration is… an extension of the personality of the chief executive.”
  — Noah Rosenblum (20:04)

• “This is more of what you would expect in a country like Russia… not how business has normally been conducted under Republicans and Democrats in the United States.”
  — Oliver Darcy (31:04)

• “We have to be generous with these rights.”
  — Joel Simon (53:07)

Episode Takeaway

This episode navigates the converging crises of governance and media, demonstrating the fragility of institutional independence in the face of aggressive presidentialism, rampant media consolidation, and shifting definitions of journalism. Whether it’s the Supreme Court potentially upending agency independence, Hollywood’s slide toward a few politically entangled mega studios, or the edge-case legal battles dictating who counts as a journalist, the show underscores how the media “sausage” is made—and why it matters so deeply for American democracy.