Bold claim: a high-stakes merger plea hinges on foreign money, hush-hush pacts, and the sway of a president’s inner circle. But here’s the twist you’ll want to unpack as you read on. Jared Kushner, three Arab monarchies, and Paramount’s aggressive bid for Warner Bros. Discovery sit at the center of a controversy that blends celebrity finance, geopolitics, and potential regulatory overreach. The deal, valued at about $108 billion, was spearheaded by Paramount Skydance under David Ellison, whose father, Larry Ellison, is a well-known Trump donor and ally. Earlier in the competition, Netflix won a prior bid, but President Trump signaled that his administration would review the Netflix deal, arguing that Netflix’s already-dominant position in U.S. streaming could pose a problem for competition.
A critical detail appears buried in the fine print: the Paramount offer is not just a money bid. It includes funding from Kushner’s Affinity Partners and investments from three Middle Eastern monarchies—Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates. These Gulf states have extensive, ongoing ventures with the Trump organization and related entities, a fact that regulators and observers say should be disclosed prominently due to potential conflicts of interest. The disclosure surfaced only in regulatory paperwork filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
In a CNBC interview, Paramount’s chief executive, David Ellison, argued the bid would attract lighter scrutiny because Paramount is smaller than Netflix and has a level of proximity to the Trump administration. The arrangement also benefits from Kushner’s close ties to his father-in-law and from the oil-rich Gulf states that have pursued lucrative deals with the Trump network, creating a web of intersecting business and political relationships.
Traditionally, presidential officials should avoid steering regulatory reviews of mergers. Yet the Trump administration has shown a willingness to blur lines between state power and private advantage, elevating personal access above formal process. This pattern—where personal connections and favors appear to shape outcomes—has drawn comparisons to governance styles seen in some autocratic systems.
Kushner’s involvement raises alarms because of his significant international financial ties, particularly with the three autocratic Gulf governments that have funneled billions into his private equity vehicle, Affinity Partners. After serving as a top White House adviser, Kushner stepped back from an official role in the second Trump term, citing a desire to focus on business. Nevertheless, since September, he has reemerged as an informal peace envoy for Trump, mediating in major conflicts and, more recently, engaging with negotiations around Ukraine and Gaza. His unofficial diplomacy raises the question of whether his private interests intersect with national policy, especially when foreign funds are financing major U.S. media deals.
The same trio of Gulf financiers is now part of Paramount’s bid for Warner Bros., a move that again places Kushner at the center of influential, cross-border negotiations. If regulators accept the premise that these foreign investments come with waived governance rights, Paramount contends there is no national-security concern. However, the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) can still opt to review any deal for potential risks associated with foreign control of critical media assets.
Several Democratic lawmakers have voiced concern about Kushner’s role and the broader implications of foreign influence on a deal with such high visibility. Elizabeth Warren has urged officials to judge the transaction on law and facts, not on who has cultivated the best access to Trump’s circle. Meanwhile, Kushner is tied to another major foreign deal—the planned $55 billion purchase of Electronic Arts by Saudi wealth funds—which also requires CFIUS scrutiny and has previously prompted congressional probes into foreign funding in U.S. sports and media.
The geopolitical tilt of this bid aligns with Trump’s transactional worldview: a Paramount victory could hypothetically tilt media influence in a pro-Trump direction, especially if CNN’s parent company were to come under more favorable ownership. There have been reports of high-level discussions about reshaping CNN’s lineup and managing on-air personnel that have fed worries about editorial independence and political bias.
Beyond the headlines, the Ellison-led push at Paramount has already influenced strategic moves within the company, including acquisitions aimed at reshaping CBS News. In parallel, the involvement of the three Gulf states and Kushner’s fund underscores a broader pattern: foreign capital, coupled with a high-profile political figure, can shift the optics and regulatory calculations of a major media consolidation.
If you’re following this, ask yourself: To what extent should foreign investment in U.S. media be scrutinized beyond mere ownership stakes? Do personal loyalties and political access deserve as much weight as formal antitrust and national-security tests when examining deals of this scale? Share your view below on how you balance economic interests, national governance, and media independence in complex cross-border mergers.
Mohamad Bazzi is director of the Center for Near Eastern Studies and a journalism professor at New York University.
