When considering major media mergers, Donald Trump's decision-making is more likely to be swayed by a company's perceived strength and 'winner' status than by political loyalty. He disdains neediness, making a dominant player like Netflix more appealing than allies who appear thirsty for a deal.
Related Insights
Media expert Dylan Byers frames the three-way battle for Warner Bros. Discovery as intensely personal. The motivations of key players like David Ellison (proving himself) and David Zaslav (controlling his exit) are rooted in personal relationships and reputation, making it more than a straightforward M&A negotiation.
Despite his public comments and desire to be seen as a kingmaker, Donald Trump has almost no actual influence on who wins the bidding war. His power is limited to post-acquisition regulatory review, a process that would likely occur under any administration.
As traditional economic-based antitrust enforcement weakens, a new gatekeeper for M&A has emerged: political cronyism. A deal's approval may now hinge less on market concentration analysis and more on a political leader’s personal sentiment towards the acquiring CEO, fundamentally changing the risk calculus for corporate strategists.
The bidding war isn't between equals. Paramount, a smaller and weaker legacy media company, sees the acquisition as a necessity for future relevance. For the much stronger Netflix, it's an opportunistic play to cement its market leadership.
Unlike post-presidency ventures, lucrative commercial deals offered to a sitting first family function as a form of bribery. A studio's multi-million dollar offer is not a bet on creative talent but an investment in gaining favorable regulatory outcomes, such as merger approvals, from the administration.
Trump's seemingly chaotic approach is best understood as a CEO's leadership style. He tells his staff what to do rather than asking for opinions, uses disruption as a negotiation tactic, and prioritizes long-term outcomes over short-term public opinion or procedural harmony.
M&A activity is not constant; it ebbs and flows with the political climate. Administrations perceived as "anti-M&A" can significantly slow deals. Founders looking for a strategic acquisition should consider the current political cycle as a key factor in their exit timing.
Political resistance to deals like a Paramount-Warner Bros. merger isn't about consolidating entertainment franchises like Batman. The core fear is the potential for one entity to control major news outlets (CNN, CBS), creating a perceived "monopoly on truth" and wielding outsized political influence.
While Netflix is a market leader, its uncharacteristic pursuit of a massive M&A deal suggests its organic growth model may be reaching its limits, forcing it to acquire legacy assets and IP to maintain dominance.
In its hostile takeover bid for Warner Bros., Paramount's key pitch for regulatory approval stems from its financing. The deal is funded by Trump-allied figures like Larry Ellison, Jared Kushner, and Middle Eastern sovereign wealth funds, creating a belief that a potential Trump administration would favor their acquisition over Netflix's.
