Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

State Attorneys General Agree to Settle Paramount Merger Lawsuit; Trump Says Proposed Triumphal Arch Will Double as Military Complex; CNN, MS NOW, Politico Sue Trump Administration Over White House Access. Aired 1:30-2p ET

Aired September 21, 2026 - 13:30   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

[13:30:00]

ROB BONTA, CALIFORNIA ATTORNEY GENERAL: This settlement takes into account workers' needs and concerns on the impacts of the industry, impacts to the industry and to their lives. At the end of the day, though, this was an antitrust case, plain and simple. I have said before, I'll say it again, this is just a black-and-white meat and potatoes antitrust case.

And before I get into the terms we've agreed to, I want to recognize the months of tireless work DOJ's antitrust enforcement section has put into this case, many late nights, many long days. They've shown up each and every day to stand up for the people of California and that's exactly what we are doing with this resolution we're announcing today.

So some more details about the settlement, the terms. With this settlement, Paramount has made an enforceable commitment to significantly increase domestic production, production in the United States and necessarily production right here in L.A., in Hollywood. More jobs, more economic activity, better for workers, more output when it comes to movies. Today, we know that the vast majority of the company's global production takes place abroad and only a small fraction, about five percent only of the company's films are made here in this country, in the United States.

With today's settlement, Paramount is required to move production back to the United States by spending as a floor at least $300 million more each year in domestic production, in jobs and economic activity and productions right here in this country and including of course in the state. The company will also produce 30 movies in each of the first two years of the deal and then 32 movies in each of the following three years, so it is tiered.

30 movies released in each of the first two years, then 32 in the back three. Each year at least four of those films must be independent films to provide more variety of perspectives, more storytelling, more original insight and inspiration from our indie filmmakers and at least 20 percent of those must be blockbusters. That adds up, that investment of $300 million to $1.5 billion more at minimum for film and T.V. production right here in our country, right here in America.

Importantly, that is the baseline, that is the minimum. If there are upsides, that have triggers where there could be 300 percent more production in the United States, 500 percent, and 700 percent, so let me walk you through that. If Congress passes a federal film tax credit, and as you know because you're following, they are considering that as we speak, Paramount has agreed that 20 percent of all film production must be in the United States for the first two years and then 30 percent for the next three, remember five percent of their global film production is in the United States. With the film tax credit, it goes up 300 percent to 20 percent. It's a 300 percent increase, so 20 percent of all films from five to 20, and then in the back three years from five to 30 percent, that is a 500 percent increase in domestic production.

And then if California or New York pass an uncapped state film tax incentive, Paramount will increase its domestic production so that at least 40 percent of production happens in the United States. So with the federal film tax credit, staffed with the tax credit, we will go from a five percent of all global theatrical film production being in the United States to 40 percent, that's a 700 percent increase. Massive increases in domestic production, in jobs, in workers, in the economy in California, in Los Angeles.

And I am committed to making that enhanced California film tax credit happen. In the coming session, I will work closely with the legislature to find the best path forward to strengthen the California film and television tax credit, and build on the progress that we've already made. As you know, our governor, who has been a strong supporter of Hollywood and the California -- more broadly the California economy of course, I recently signed into a California film tax credit with a cap of $750 million.

I intend to sponsor legislation working with my colleagues in the legislature and our new governor to have an uncapped California film tax credit that is competitive with the strongest film tax credits across the country. Since 2009, the legislature and the governor have repeatedly invested in and expanded the tax credit, rightfully so, something I was proud to champion as a co-author when I was in the California State Assembly, had the honor of serving as a legislator.

[13:35:00]

That credit has helped green light 899 T.V. and film projects, relocate 46 T.V. series to California and hire 220,000 cast and crew. It helped bring one battle after another, everything, everywhere, all at once, and once upon a time in Hollywood to the big screen and to the Oscars, and helped bring "The Pitt", "Euphoria," and "Paradise" into our living rooms and to the Emmys.

More productions mean more work here at home and more movies for theaters to play that brings in more business. In addition to domestic production, Paramount must also honor previously established collective bargaining agreements and bargaining in good faith with unions in years to come, strong protections for our workers who make Hollywood go. It must establish an independent film fund that it contributes to annually for purchasing indie films.

It's important that we have those special perspectives and viewpoints and stories that are told only the way indie films can. It must pay $9.5 million annually for workforce training and career development in film and T.V. production, and for film programs and community arts organizations. It must establish a News Editorial Independence Board to support CBS News' and CNN's continued editorial independence, to ensure independent, objective, fact-based reporting at CBS News and at CNN.

The settlement also puts guardrails around negotiations with cable providers and theaters, which will help ensure that consumer prices are fair and affordable. Paramount and Warner Brothers are required to continue negotiating their cable packages separately, a negotiate separately condition. Preserving the competition that exists between them today, it will mimic them being separate companies, even post- merger.

And finally, together, we'll select a trustee to monitor Paramount's compliance with these terms. And if they ever fail to comply with the many critical terms we have in our settlement, we can go to court and enforce it through court and court orders. So I want to stress --

BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN CO-ANCHOR OF "CNN NEWS CENTRAL": We've been listening to California Attorney General, Rob Bonta, as he details a settlement that his state and 11 other states, a coalition of 12 in total, have reached with Paramount in order to acquire Warner Bros. Discovery, the parent company of CNN.

There, Bonta is saying that they wanted to protect not only Hollywood as an industry, bringing more production domestically into the United States, but also saying that in terms of CNN and, of course, CBS News as well, that the settlement requires that Paramount establish a News Editorial Independence Board to ensure editorial independence, independent, objective fact-based reporting at CNN and CBS.

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN CO-ANCHOR OF "CNN NEWS CENTRAL": That's right. He did say, I want to be clear about something right up front. This settlement is not a vote of support for this merger. It is not a blessing for the broader merger. But he stressed that he would rather resolve something in the boardroom than in the courtroom.

He said that's what happened here, and he's always willing to come to the table for honest, good faith negotiations.

SANCHEZ: Yeah. Notably, he said that a settlement in not being a blessing for a merger, that further consolidation in markets does not serve the American economy, consumers, or competition.

Let's get the latest from CNN's Brian Stelter, because Brian, you now have a response from the owners of Paramount.

BRIAN STELTER, CNN CHIEF MEDIA ANALYST: Yes, that's right. Paramount CEO, David Ellison responding to Bonta moments ago. Let me pull it up in just a minute. I'm actually looking here at the court filing that's just been made in California. This is a court filing that is by Paramount and WBD and by Bonta's office, basically resolving the lawsuit officially, notifying the court that the lawsuit is dissolving and that this merger is moving forward. So that paperwork has just been filed as Bonta has been speaking. Let's take a step back here, because I understand we're talking about a merger that involves CNN. But even beyond the media industry, this is one of the biggest mergers in American history, just by the sheer amount of money that's involved here, $110 billion and the involvement of one of the richest men in the world, Larry Ellison.

This is also being financed in part by three Middle Eastern countries, by the royal families of Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the UAE. So this is a deal that is in some ways going to reshape the media world.

[13:40:00]

And it is something that spans well beyond just the media industry, because it is one of the biggest deals in big business in any industry. So, with that context, here's what David Ellison, the CEO of Paramount, has just said in a statement. He's expressing gratitude to Bonta, as well as California Governor Gavin Newsom, for working through this and holding good faith talks.

He says, quote, "Our goal has always been to build a better, stronger Hollywood, one with more stories told, greater choice for consumers, and stronger competition. He points out that the deal was already blessed by regulators in many different markets, the U.S., the federal government, the Trump administration, but also in many other countries."

And then he goes on to say, "Having now addressed the state AG's concerns and the Writers Guild's concerns, we have complete clearance for this merger and look forward to putting these commitments into action. Bringing Paramount and Warner together will build that stronger Hollywood, creating expanded opportunity for our people, and even more great entertainment for audiences around the world."

Let me contextualize that for a moment. This deal will now take effect in the next couple of weeks. I'm told probably in early October. Paramount will take control of the Warner assets, like HBO and CNN and the Warner Bros. movie studio. And then there will be layoffs and other cost-cutting moves in order to achieve the kind of financial synergies that Paramount has promised.

But it's notable to hear Bonta and Ellison talking about the theatrical commitments and the commitments to Hollywood, because ultimately this has been about -- mostly about the entertainment side, about worker protections and about the commitment to keep theaters full of blockbuster movies. So there's the news side of this, and we should talk about CNN and CBS News. I have a bit more reporting about that.

But it's notable here, Ellison's focus and Bonta's focus has been primarily on the Hollywood piece, because this will be a merger of two of the biggest Hollywood studios.

KEILAR: All right, Brian, thank you so much for that. Obviously, big development as we're watching the California attorney general and also for spelling out that timeline for us. We'll be back with more Breaking News here in just a moment. (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[13:46:33]

SANCHEZ: So President Trump is offering a new justification and function for his proposed Triumphal Arch that he wants to build in the nation's capital. He now says it's going to double as a top-grade military complex.

KEILAR: The President wants to build this, this 250-foot tall structure on a traffic circle which is on the avenue that serves as the ceremonial promenade into Arlington National Cemetery. In a social media post, Trump now says the arch will serve as this military site and will be used to store military ammunition and drones with also the ability to have snipers on the roof and plaza areas.

We're joined now by Rebecca Miller. She's the Executive Director of the D.C. Preservation League. Rebecca, your father is also buried at Arlington National Cemetery as well, right?

REBECCA MILLER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, D.C. PRESERVATION LEAGUE: He is. He was buried there in 2011.

KEILAR: OK, and so your group opposes the arch. I wonder how you're seeing this new assertion. It is new. We need to be clear about that. President Trump's that these are national security purposes that the arch will also be serving, something that has not previously been included in plans despite the fact that there have been months of these formal reviews going on.

MILLER: That's true. This is the first that we've heard of that as of the social media post yesterday.

KEILAR: So, I mean, what's your reaction to that? Do you think that it is valid? Do you think that -- I mean, do you take him at his word on that?

MILLER: I don't think it's valid. I think we look for a purpose and need when it comes to the Section 106 review under the National Historic Preservation Act. And unfortunately, we've been going through this process now for about six months where it's been reviewed by the Commission of Fine Arts, it's been reviewed before the National Capital Planning Commission, and now this is an entirely different complex to what we've been reviewing.

And in DCPL's opinion, the Section 106 process needs to start over again.

SANCHEZ: So, we saw the president make a similar shift when it came to the White House Ballroom. He eventually came around to saying that it would have anti-drone features on the roof and effectively a bunker underground.

Do you view this as part of a legal strategy, this kind of addendum to what the arch is going to do so that this kind of gains more favor, his legal argument? MILLER: We do believe that. I know in the decision with regards to the ballroom case, it is cited about the military complex underneath. I'm not sure what this military complex would have, especially from a visitor experience coming into it.

What does it mean for the traffic circle? What are the other issues that go along with all of this if it's going to be a military bunker of some sort?

KEILAR: Veterans who are suing to stop its construction argue that, and families have concerns as well, that the construction would interfere with daily funerals. They go on all day at Arlington Cemetery and the construction schedule that's expected for this would be almost nonstop. That the observation deck could result in tourists peering over into these military funerals.

And they also say that the arch would disrupt the sight line from the Lincoln Memorial to Arlington House and the cemetery, obviously, going through that. Tell us about why those things are so animating for folks.

MILLER: Well, it's obviously a very somber place, Arlington National Cemetery. It's where the best of us are buried. It's where my father's buried. It's where my mother will be buried, and my uncle, many members of my family. From a preservation perspective, you are obstructing a view that was very intentional through the McMillan Commission.

[13:50:00]

And it was to bring attention to the North and the South and the reunification over Memorial Bridge, because you have Arlington House up on the Hill, and you have the Lincoln Memorial on the Mall.

SANCHEZ: The administration is signaling that they want to fast-track this Section 106 review. Your group obviously has been participating in that. Are you anticipating that both sides are going to sign off on this at some point?

MILLER: Nobody has foreclosed signing off on a memorandum of agreement. Actually, comments were due at noon today, but with the president making this announcement that this is going to be a different structure entirely, I don't see any reason that the D.C. State Historic Preservation Office or the Virginia State Historic Preservation Office were to sign off on this at this point, because there are too many unanswered questions.

And not -- mitigation that has been offered at this point that would adequately mitigate the issues that we have when it comes to this arch and what it compromises from a viewshed perspective and many of the historic resources around it.

KEILAR: Rebecca Miller, thank you so much for being with us to talk about this.

MILLER: Thank you. KEILAR: Still ahead, CNN partnering up with MS NOW and Politico to take legal action after President Trump's decision to ban all three news outlets from the White House.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SANCHEZ: New today, CNN, MS NOW, and Politico have filed a First Amendment lawsuit against the Trump administration to restore their access to the White House. The president is not only denying the three news outlets access to the Press Room, he's banning them from the White House grounds.

He also revoked CNN's pool coverage position today. Major T.V. networks are standing with CNN by refusing to fill that void. President Trump posted on his social media site that the White House is not instituting an assault on the free press, rather what he called the fake news.

[13:55:00]

CNN has learned his decision to ban the three news outlets came after his aide, Natalie Harp, showed him several news clips about his recent string of losses in the courts regarding the Kennedy Center and mail- in ballots, as well as reports about the Fed's decision to raise interest rates, skyrocketing gas prices, the war with Iran now nearly in its seventh month, and the cloud hanging over the Republican Party just weeks before the midterm elections.

We're joined now by Katie Fallow. She's a First Amendment lawyer and the Deputy Litigation Director for the Knight First Amendment Institute.

Thank you so much for being with us, Katie. So do you think the White House, in your estimation, has violated the First Amendment and due process with this decision?

KATIE FALLOW, FIRST AMENDMENT LAWYER: Absolutely. The First Amendment, if it means anything, means that the government cannot punish speakers, including members of the press, in retaliation for their viewpoints.

And the courts in D.C. and elsewhere have long held that the White House press passes and the press facilities that are on White House grounds where reporters go to report the news and attend briefings and ask questions are a kind of public forum. And the First Amendment prevents the White House from excluding journalists from that forum based on viewpoint. And it is clear from Trump's own statements that that's exactly what he's doing.

He doesn't like their, what he believes is, negative coverage. And so he's kicking them out and sending a message to other news outlets that if they do something that he doesn't like, he'll do the same thing to them.

SANCHEZ: Yeah, Trump said that he banned the outlets over, in his words, negative stories. When this goes to court, as we presume it will, how does that reasoning, how do his public statements ultimately work their way through what a judge is going to decide?

FALLOW: Yeah, well, it would certainly be Exhibit A in any motion for an injunction. And I looked at the complaint and in the very first few pages of the complaint, they describe what the president has said. I mean, in some instances, you'll have a government trying to punish disfavored press outlets and they try to hide the fact that they're going after viewpoints.

But here, the president is not even hiding it. He's basically saying, I don't like -- calling them fake news and saying, I don't like what these reporters are reporting about me. And so I'm going to ban your access.

But the courts have just repeatedly held. That's exactly what the government can't do, because we care about the right to criticize our government officials and to report negatively or critically about them so that the public can hold their representatives to account. And that's why this is so important that the courts uphold these rights in these instances.

And, you know, I'm pretty confident that they will.

SANCHEZ: Well, I want to ask you about something that a Trump administration official put forward as a defense of Trump's decision. The U.N. Ambassador, Mike Waltz, cited a 1965 Supreme Court ruling that said the right to publish does not carry an unrestrained right to gather information.

I imagine you reject that argument.

FALLOW: Yes, I absolutely do reject that argument. I'm not sure what case that is, but there are decades of Supreme Court cases holding that when the government controls bases like the White House and opens up those spaces to allow members of public or members of the press to come in and engage in expressive activities like asking questions of the president or his representatives, that that is a kind of public forum.

And that kind of case law has been developed by the Supreme Court over the past 50 years. It's a robust area of First Amendment law. And the D.C. Circuit, which is the court of appeals that would be in charge of any of these complaints, have just in the past 10 years reiterated that the White House press facilities, which includes issuance of the press passes and the ability to go in with that pass into areas of the White House, are public forums and that the big rule is you can't exclude people based on their viewpoints.

As you mentioned, there's also a due process claim, which the courts have recognized again for decades, which is that press pass holders or reporters that have a press pass have a right of due process to get that pass and not have it taken away without any explanation or rationale. And the reason why they're probably not giving a rationale is because it's an illegitimate one, which is punishing them for their viewpoints.

SANCHEZ: And Katie Fallow, thanks so much for sharing your expertise. FALLOW: Thank you.

SANCHEZ: Of course, a new hour of "CNN News Central" starts right now.

KEILAR: It's the biggest event in world diplomacy. President Trump heading --