The Brief

Orange County supervisors on Tuesday voted 4-0 to censure their fellow board member Andrew Do amid serious questions over what happened to millions in taxpayer funds directed by Do to a little-known nonprofit.

Supervisor Vicente Sarmiento, who brought the resolution forward, said it was "intended to demonstrate our collective condemnation of misconduct demonstrated by Supervisor Do."

"And even under the best light, there are undisputed acts of nepotism, reckless disregard of public funds by a fiduciary and an abrogation of responsibilities by a sitting supervisor," he said.

For a third time in a row, Supervisor Do was not at the board meeting Tuesday.

Supervisor Katrina Foley said at the meeting that not only was the censure warranted, "it's not far enough, given the stain that Supervisor Do has left on his legacy for the County of Orange."

"Supervisor Andrew Do brazenly exploited his position of power to enrich his family and friends under the guise of feeding the elderly, caring for veterans, hosting cultural events, and the list goes on and on," she said. "This criminal minded operation dates back many years."

The supervisors also approved transparency reforms, as well as updates to the current contract policy manual, in response to the Do allegations.

In November 2023, LAist began investigating how millions in public taxpayer dollars were spent. In total, LAist has uncovered public records showing more than $13 million in public money that was approved to Viet America Society (VAS), which records state was led on and off by Rhiannon Do, the now 23-year-old daughter of Supervisor Do. Most of that money was directed to the group by Supervisor Do outside of the public’s view and never appeared on public meeting agendas. He did not publicly disclose his family ties. Much of the known funding came from federal coronavirus relief money.

The censure motion on Tuesday stated that the Board of Supervisors “strongly and publicly” condemn Do for “the reckless judgment and favoritism he has demonstrated in directing millions of dollars” in federal coronavirus dollars and discretionary funds to the nonprofit groups — “organizations with no proven track record” — while not disclosing his familial ties.

Sarmiento, who introduced the item, told LAist before the vote that the formal rebuke allows the supervisors “an opportunity to publicly condemn the actions that we know make it difficult for Supervisor Do to carry out his responsibilities and serve his constituents.”

The supervisors also approved the following measures in an effort to increase transparency:

• A review of all county contracts, including those funded by federal COVID dollars
• A new disclosure policy when it comes to family ties to entities awarded public funds

The internal auditor has 90 days to bring a review of all county contracts to the board. The review is to "ensure all oversight measures are in place for contracts, large and small, and that there is compliance," Foley said.

The updates to the manual will bring the county in line with AB 3130, a new bill signed into law by Gov. Gavin Newsom that will require county supervisors across the state to disclose any family ties they have to a nonprofit’s employees or officers before awarding any contracts. The new law goes into effect Jan. 1, 2025, and was inspired by LAist reporting.

"These corrective measures are so important because we are that last line of making sure that monies are expended thoughtfully," Sarmiento said.

The supervisors also unanimously approved disclosing whether a nonprofit has filed its 990 with the IRS and if they have performed an audit on agenda staff reports for additional oversight into the nonprofits the county is contracting with.

How we got here

LAist has uncovered more than $13 million in public funds directed by Supervisor Do to Viet America Society. Most of that money came from federal COVID relief funds earmarked to help people during the pandemic. County officials filed a lawsuit against VAS and its leaders, including Rhiannon Do, Supervisor Do’s daughter, alleging they “brazenly plundered” funds Supervisor Do directed to the nonprofit. Supervisor Do is not named as a defendant in the county lawsuit.

In August, LAist broke the news that federal agents searched Rhiannon Do's home in Tustin. Later that day, Supervisor Do's home, and other properties connected to VAS, were also raided.

Supervisor Do has declined to comment dozens of times since LAist first began reporting on the money he directed to Viet America Society.

Attorneys Paul Meyer and Craig Wilke, who represented former Anaheim Mayor Sidhu on federal corruption charges, are now representing Do. They have previously said in a written statement that their client “looks forward to a thorough and fair investigation.”

“Out of respect for the process, there is no further statement that can be made at this time,” they added. “We ask that judgment be reserved by all pending the completion of the investigation.”

The moves on Tuesday came after the supervisors voted earlier this month to remove Supervisor Do from his committee assignments, including his position on the Orange County Transportation Authority Board of Directors.

His board colleagues Katrina Foley and Vicente Sarmiento have also called on him to resign. They have also asked California Attorney General Rob Bonta to intervene and remove him from office.

Catch up on the investigation

In November 2023, LAist began investigating how millions in public taxpayer dollars were spent. In total, LAist has uncovered public records showing more than $13 million in public money that was approved to a little-known nonprofit that records state was led on and off by Rhiannon Do, the now 23-year-old daughter of Supervisor Do. Most of that money was directed to the group by Supervisor Do outside of the public’s view and never appeared on public meeting agendas. He did not publicly disclose his family ties.

Much of the known funding came from federal coronavirus relief money.

• Read the story that launched the investigation here.
• Since LAist started reporting, we’ve also uncovered the group was two years overdue in completing a required audit into whether the meal funds were spent appropriately.
• And LAist found the amount of taxpayer money directed to the nonprofit was much larger than initially known. It totals at least $13.5 million in county funding — tallied from government records obtained and published by LAist. 
• After our reporting, O.C. officials wrote demand letters to the nonprofit saying millions in funding were unaccounted for. They warned the nonprofit that it could be forced to repay the funds.
• And, LAist found the nonprofit missed a deadline set by county officials to provide proof about how funding for meals were spent.
• On Aug. 2, LAist reported O.C. officials were demanding the refund of more than $3 million in public funds awarded by Do to VAS and another nonprofit, Hand to Hand.
• Six days later, LAist reported Orange County officials had expanded demands for refunds of millions in tax dollars from the nonprofits and threatened legal action.
• On Aug. 15, LAist reported O.C. officials sued VAS and its key officers and associated businesses, including Rhiannon Do. The lawsuit alleges that county money was illegally used to purchase five homes and was converted into cash through ATM transactions. 
• Then, on Aug. 19, LAist reported O.C. officials had announced a second lawsuit against Hand to Hand and its CEO to recover millions of taxpayer dollars that were directed by Supervisor Do.
• LAist broke the news on Aug. 22 that federal agents were searching Rhiannon Do's home in Tustin. Later that day, Supervisor Do's home, and other properties, were also raided.

How to watchdog local government

One of the best things you can do to hold officials accountable is pay attention.

Your city council, board of supervisors, school board and more all hold public meetings that anybody can attend. These are times you can talk to your elected officials directly and hear about the policies they’re voting on that affect your community.

• Read tips on how to get involved.
• The next scheduled board meeting is Tuesday, Oct. 8. You can check out the O.C. Board of Supervisors full calendar here.
• Learn how to submit a public comment to the O.C. Board of Supervisors.

A city commission on Thursday recommended increasing the size of the Los Angeles City Council from 15 to 25, a change long sought after by advocates who said the panel was too small for a city of nearly 4 million people.

The Charter Reform Commission also recommended moving to a ranked-choice voting system for city elections, a method in which voters choose multiple candidates in order of their preference. If no candidate wins a majority of votes, then the last-place finisher is eliminated and their supporters' second choice is counted.

Each of those moves would require changing the city’s charter, the basic set of rules and procedures by which the city operates. And any change to the charter would require voter approval.

The recommendations will go to the City Council, which will decide whether to place the proposals on the June ballot.

Born out of corruption

The commission has been meeting for six months to take input from the public and to consider charter changes. It was created in the wake of the 2022 City Hall tapes scandal, where members of the council were heard on audio discussing how to hold onto power. The conversation was laced with crude and racist remarks, triggering calls for resignation and reforms.

Council President Nury Martinez resigned.

Expanding the size of the council has been suggested as one way to help guard against corruption in local government. Supporters say making the council larger would make it better reflect the diversity of L.A.

The idea is “to have a city council that is bigger, more representative of Los Angeles and gives minorities across the city [power] to elect candidates of choice,” Commissioner Diego Andrades said at the meeting.

Several other major cities have far larger councils. New York, with 8 million people, has a 51-member City Council. Chicago, with 2.7 million residents, has a 50-member council.

The current size of the Los Angeles City Council was established nearly a century ago, when Angelenos approved the 1924 Charter. At the time, each of the 15 council members represented on average a little more than 38,000 residents.

Today, the city has grown to more than 3.9 million residents, with each councilmember now representing on average 265,000 Angelenos, according to Fair Rep LA, an advocacy group.

Increasing the size of the L.A. council to 25 would mean each member would represent 159,000 residents each.

Commissioners debated increasing the size to 29, but voted down that number amid concerns the voters would reject it as too high.

A new way of voting

The committee made several other reform recommendations during a five-hour meeting Thursday evening. The panel recommended that the city change the way it conducts elections, moving to a ranked-choice voting system for city elections starting in 2032.

With ranked-choice voting, if a candidate receives more than half of the first choices, that candidate wins outright — just like in any other election.

But if there is no majority winner after counting the first choices, the race is decided by an instant runoff. The candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated and candidates who ranked that candidate as their first choice will have their votes counted for their second choice. The process continues until one candidate has a majority of the vote.

New York conducts ranked-choice elections.

“The Charter Commission took a big step in empowering Los Angeles voters,” said Michael Feinstein, a former mayor of Santa Monica and a Green Party candidate for secretary of state.

“Ranked-choice voting allows voters to express their preferences over more than one candidate, it gets rid of the spoiler issue and gives voters a much greater voice,” he said. It also saves money because the city is required to conduct one election instead of a primary and runoff elections.

The commission also recommended the city create a chief financial officer position to replace the chief administrative officer position.

City Controller Kenneth Mejia disagreed with the recommendation, saying the CFO role should be placed in his office.

The panel also voted against giving the controller the ability to hire outside counsel and turned down Mejia’s request that the controller be able to conduct audits of all city programs, including those under elected offices.

The commission voted to recommend giving the controller a fixed budget that is a percentage of the general fund. It also agreed to recommend enshrining in the charter the controller’s waste fraud and abuse functions — something that was requested by Mejia.

Earlier this week, the panel approved bifurcating the City Attorney’s Office, creating an anti-corruption office and doubling the charter-mandated amount of funds set aside for the city parks.

A Santa Barbara judge intends to rule against Sable Offshore Corp.’s bid to restart a pipeline that spilled thousands of barrels of crude into the Pacific 11 years ago – dealing a significant blow to the company’s attempt to use the Trump Administration to get around California regulators in its path.

In a tentative ruling, Santa Barbara County Superior Court Judge Donna D. Geck said the Trump administration’s intervention was not enough to undo her earlier order keeping the pipeline shut down. The ruling — a preliminary decision signalling how the judge intends to rule unless persuaded otherwise — comes ahead of a Friday hearing.

The Houston-based startup, which bought the system from ExxonMobil in early 2024, secured an extraordinary intervention from the Trump administration last year to wrest oversight of the pipeline away from the California regulators who were blocking its path.

Sable declined to comment on the tentative ruling. In an earlier statement, Steve Rusch, the company’s vice president of environmental and government affairs, said the project would “offer Californians immediate relief at the pump by making gas more affordable,” and that the company had the experience to operate safely.

The company is facing a criminal prosecution by the local district attorney, a federal securities inquiry, two court injunctions and findings by county officials of a pattern of noncompliance.

Trump steps in to federalize a pipeline 

When state regulators told Sable that the company needed to repair corrosion on the pipeline last fall, the company turned to Washington.

About a month later, Sable asked federal regulators to declare the pipeline “interstate” – a designation that would shift authority from California's Office of the State Fire Marshal to the federal government. The company cited President Donald Trump’s Jan. 20, 2025 declaration of a national energy emergency.

On Dec. 17, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration agreed, ruling that the Las Flores Pipeline — two onshore oil lines running from Santa Barbara County to Kern County — qualifies as an interstate pipeline because it begins on federal offshore platforms and ends at a refinery in Kern County. The agency noted that the pipeline had been federally overseen before 2016. Six days later, the agency issued an emergency permit approving a restart plan. The agency declined to comment.

The maneuver caused immediate conflict. A 2020 federal consent decree stemming from the 2015 spill requires approval from the California State Fire Marshal before the pipeline can restart — a condition that appears to conflict directly with the Trump administration’s move to strip the fire marshal of authority.

Workers prepare an oil containment boom at Refugio State Beach, north of Goleta, on May 21, 2015, two days after an oil pipeline ruptured, polluting beaches and killing hundreds of birds and marine mammals.

(

Jae C. Hong

/

AP Photo

)

Environmental groups sued the Trump administration in December, saying it was “running roughshod over transparency, environmental review, and pipeline safety requirements.” California filed its own lawsuit in January. Christine Lee, a spokesperson for Attorney General Rob Bonta said the Trump administration’s “illegal actions” contradict the consent decree and attempt to evade state oversight.

Both cases were consolidated earlier this month and are awaiting a ruling in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. The Justice Department declined to comment.

“It's a real impingement on state authority here that shouldn't stand,” said Julie Teel Simmonds, an attorney with the Center for Biological Diversity, before the judge’s initial ruling was issued Thursday. “They're trying to basically seize control over these pipelines.”

The first major local test

Geck’s injunction, issued last July, bars Sable from restarting the pipeline until it secures all required state approvals, including those from the fire marshal. The order stems from a lawsuit filed by the Center for Biological Diversity and the Environmental Defense Center, which argued that the fire marshal violated the state Pipeline Safety Act by issuing restart waivers without required environmental review.

On Jan. 5, Sable asked Judge Geck to lift her injunction, arguing that once federal regulators asserted control, the state fire marshal “no longer has any regulatory authority.”

In her tentative ruling, Geck disagreed.

Linda Krop, a staff attorney with the Environmental Defense Center, said the tentative ruling turns on the 2020 consent decree, which binds Sable, federal regulators and the state fire marshal alike.

“It is still binding,” she said.

An exhibitor talks to an attendee at a town hall organized by the Environmental Defense Center and other local organizations.

(

Zin Chiang

/

CalMatters

)

Attendees at the town hall in Santa Barbara on Jan. 17, 2026.

(

Zin Chiang

/

CalMatters

)

At the core of the dispute is corrosion — and how strict the safety bar should be before oil can flow again. State regulators required permanent repairs on any section of pipe showing serious wall thinning, including spots that could be considered unsafe once inspection error is factored in.

In her tentative ruling, Geck sided with the state, finding that the federal action was not enough to override her order.

Sable will have a chance to contest that finding at Friday’s hearing. The company has argued that it had already completed the required repairs and argued that those tougher standards were meant to apply only after the pipeline restarts, not before.

The fight carries significant economic and environmental stakes.

Sable has told investors that production could rise from about 30,000 barrels of oil equivalent per day to more than 50,000, with oil flowing to Los Angeles, Bakersfield and San Francisco refineries. The company told CalMatters this week it could serve 20% of the state’s market, an attractive possibility as California recalibrates its energy strategy to shore up fossil fuel infrastructure even as it pushes toward cleaner power.

But state water officials and the Coastal Commission say the pipeline crosses environmentally sensitive coastal areas, and environmental groups say corrosion risks that caused the 2015 Refugio spill make careful inspection essential.

Sable says it has upgraded monitoring systems and strengthened emergency shutoff protections on the line, plans to inspect the pipeline more frequently than federal rules require, and has response crews positioned for rapid deployment, according to a company spokesperson.

A UC Santa Barbara analysis found the restart would not reduce foreign imports and would raise global greenhouse gas emissions because of the project’s higher carbon intensity.

The remaining roadblocks

Multiple state and federal hurdles still stand between the company and a restart.

A second injunction, issued by Judge Thomas Anderle, also in Santa Barbara County Superior Court, bars work deemed development under state coastal law without a permit from the California Coastal Commission.

That order stems from a separate case over unpermitted work along the Gaviota Coast — conduct state officials have called part of a broader pattern of noncompliance. The commission last year imposed a record $18 million fine, which Sable is disputing.

A new state law, Senate Bill 237, requires oil facilities idle for five years or more to obtain a new coastal development permit. A stretch of the pipeline crosses Gaviota State Park, and state officials say they cannot grant a new easement without completing environmental review.

Oil rigs are visible in the Santa Barbara Channel, as hikers visit the Carpinteria Bluffs Nature Preserve, on Jan. 17, 2026.

(

Zin Chiang

/

CalMatters

)

The Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors last year denied Sable’s request to assume ExxonMobil’s operating permits, also citing a pattern of noncompliance. County prosecutors have also charged Sable with multiple counts related to alleged unpermitted excavation and dumping during pipeline work in 2024 and early 2025. That criminal case is ongoing.

Sable’s shrinking runway

Even if Sable clears its legal hurdles, time may be its biggest obstacle.

The company disclosed in a recent securities filing that it had $97.7 million in cash and cash equivalents as of the end of last year and will need to spend $25 million to $30 million a month to keep operating this year. It said it plans to seek up to $250 million through stock sales.

The financial pressure is compounded by a weaker oil market than the company anticipated when pitching investors, said Clark Williams-Derry, an analyst with the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis. Crude prices have remained well below earlier projections, tightening the project’s economics and leaving less margin for delay.

“The company is … burning through cash,” Williams-Derry said. “It is facing much higher costs — and a much slower timetable — than it had envisioned originally.”

Sable has floated a fallback plan to bypass the onshore pipeline and export oil by offshore tanker — a proposal that has drawn fierce opposition in California.

The pipeline fight comes as the Trump administration acts to expand offshore oil leasing along the West Coast – a move that has drawn fierce opposition in California. Geck’s tentative ruling is the first sign that federal efforts to override state authority may face resistance in court.

“If Sable ultimately is not able to build this — or to reopen this pipeline — I think it'll just be confirmation that state and local governments have a say,” said Deborah Sivas, a Stanford environmental law professor. “It'll just reaffirm the Feds can't come in and force things down on states and locals.”

This article was originally published on CalMatters and was republished under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives license.

Warner Bros. Discovery's blockbuster announcement Thursday that it would accept Paramount Skydance's takeover bid shouldn't be thought of simply as seeking to unify two major Hollywood players, two big streaming platforms and two leading TV news divisions under one roof.

It is certainly that. The nearly $111 billion Paramount-Warner marriage would unite their studios — and their back catalogue of shows and movies. It would add such franchises as D.C. Comics, Harry Potter and Game of Thrones to Paramount's Top Gun, Mission Impossible and Star Trek powerhouse. Paramount+ and HBO Max. CBS and CNN.

But there's more to it.

Paramount Skydance Chairman and CEO David Ellison is relying largely on the financial backing of his father, Larry Ellison — the co-founder of software giant Oracle, the lead investor in TikTok US, and one of the richest people on the planet.

The Ellisons have staged what appears to be a lightning-swift ascent through social and legacy media relying heavily on their connection to the Oval Office.

Should the Ellisons receive a green light from regulators to proceed with the deal, the minnow will have swallowed the whale. Warner currently has more than five times the market value of Paramount.

That's on top of acquiring Paramount itself and a major stake in TikTok US — all in less than a year. And that's in addition to Oracle, which runs much of the digital backbone of the nation's commerce and government.

Oracle co-founder Larry Ellison, right, sits next to media mogul Rupert Murdoch as they listen to President Donald Trump speak in the Oval Office.

(

Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images

/

Getty Images North America

)

"It's tech giants becoming media giants," argues Jon Klein, a former top executive at CNN and CBS News.

But history shows such mega-mergers often end in tears. The movie business is expensive. Cable television is highly profitable but in steep decline as viewers cut the cord. The combined company will be saddled with debt. So why would the Ellisons spend their billions this way?

David Ellison has sought to be a force in Hollywood for years. He helped to produce movies with Tom Cruise at his family's company Skydance Media. But for his father, Larry Ellison, it's about more than just making his son's very expensive dreams come true.

"Beyond any dollars that they can derive — it's the data about consumer habits, down to the specific identity," Klein says.

He says the push into artificial intelligence by Oracle creates a thirst for more insight into how people view news and entertainment and what products they buy online. The streaming channels and social media giant both offer greater and more granular information.

"That's the prism that you've got to look at this Paramount/WBD deal through," says Klein, co-founder of HANG Media, a Gen Z social video engagement platform. "Oracle... wants to be one of the major players in AI. That's what Oracle wants to get out of media."

The deal still hinges on acceptance from antitrust regulators in Washington and Europe, who can seek to block the transaction. California's attorney general made clear Thursday night he would also give the acquisition tough scrutiny.

"If a merger substantially reduces competition in any market, it's illegal. Courts sort of take that literally," says University of Chicago law professor Eric Posner, who held a senior antitrust position in the U.S. Justice Department under former President Joe Biden.

"But in practice, the Justice Department has discretion on whether to challenge these mergers," Posner tells NPR. "And the courts have discretion on whether to block them."

Friendly ties to Trump

President Donald Trump's Justice Department is a wild card. Last year, the department's then antitrust chief, Gail Slater, took an aggressive stance against Google in court. Last month, the Justice Department sued to block Hewlett Packard Enterprise's $14 billion acquisition of a wireless tech competitor. Slater resigned under duress this month, however.

The Federal Communications Commission is unlikely to intervene, as no broadcast licenses would change hands in the Paramount takeover of Warner. But its chair, Brendan Carr, may well advise the Justice Department and he has lauded David Ellison's moves at CBS.

Even before sweetening its offer this week, Paramount proclaimed its "confidence in the speed and certainty of regulatory approval for its transaction."

Publicly, it argues that such consolidation is needed to take on streaming giants, very much including Netflix but also Amazon Prime, Apple, Disney and YouTube.

Behind the scenes — and sometimes in not-so-hidden ways — the Ellisons have become cozy with President Trump. Larry Ellison is a backer and adviser.

On Tuesday night, David Ellison attended Trump's State of the Union address as a guest of the president's ally, Senator Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican. Graham tweeted out a photo of the two men making Trump's signature "thumbs-up" gesture ahead of the speech.

The president cares deeply about TV news. He has publicly said he wants new owners for CNN — which he has blasted repeatedly as "fake news" — and has proven willing to interfere in corporate matters in his return to the White House.

Netflix CEO Ted Sarandos departs the White House on Wednesday. Sarandos was there to discuss Netflix's bid for Warner Bros. just hours before Warner announced its preference for Paramount.

(

Andrew Leyden/Getty Images

/

Getty Images North America

)

Netflix chief Ted Sarandos met Thursday with administration officials at the White House — though notably not with Trump, according to an aide — in a last-gasp effort to salvage his company's competing bid. By the end of the night, Netflix had given up the fight.

The shadow cast over the process by the president has inspired sharp criticism of the path that Paramount and the Ellisons took to land the Warner deal.

"A handful of Trump-aligned billionaires are trying to seize control of what you watch and charge you whatever price they want," Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts said in a statement. "With the cloud of corruption looming over Trump's Department of Justice, it'll be up to the American people to speak up and state attorneys general to enforce the law."

"It is not just the seemingly open corruption of this entire process that leaves me shaken," writes Jeffrey Blehar in the conservative National Review. "I am shaken by how little people will care."

Said Seth Stern, head of the Freedom of the Press Foundation, "Ellison will readily throw the First Amendment, CNN's reporters and HBO's filmmakers under the bus if they stand in the way of expanding his corporate empire and fattening his pockets."

CNN's future hangs in the balance

The Ellisons' acquisition of Paramount followed a similar path.

Last summer, the previous owners of Paramount announced the end of late night host Stephen Colbert's CBS show as they sought federal approval to sell the company to David Ellison.

While they cited economics, Colbert's was the top-rated late night show on network television — and he has been a lacerating satirist of the president. Colbert called the cancellation a "big fat bribe."

Ellison subsequently made additional pledges to the FCC's Carr to win support. Among them: he promised the cessation of diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives throughout Paramount and the addition of an ombudsman to field complaints of ideological bias. He named the former head of a conservative think tank to that role.

Carr blessed the sale. He has since praised the shifts made at CBS News.

The question of what happens to CNN hovers prominently over the Warner sale. The network has undergone rounds of cuts under a series of owners seeking to reduce debt; Paramount would be its fourth corporate parent in under a decade.

Other elements are in play as well.

CBS's new editor in chief is Bari Weiss, founder of the center-right opinion and news site The Free Press. Ellison bought the site and added it to Paramount's portfolio.

Bari Weiss, CBS News' editor in chief, interviews conservative activist Erika Kirk in a CBS town hall event in December.

(

CBS Photo Archive/CBS via Getty Images

/

CBS

)

Weiss has contended CBS and much of the rest of the media has been too reflexively hostile to conservatives and the president, and she's sought to revamp the newsroom.

CNN's Anderson Cooper, who has also served as a correspondent for CBS's 60 Minutes for two decades, recently announced that he would leave the show, citing the desire to spend time with his small children. Associates, speaking on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to disclose internal network matters, say he was concerned about the approach that Weiss has taken at CBS.

She is considered likely to have a role over CNN as well, should the deal go through.

CNN CEO Mark Thompson urged colleagues to focus on their news coverage. "Despite all the speculation you've read during this process, I'd suggest that you don't jump to conclusions about the future until we know more," he wrote in a memo Thursday.

Perceived value beyond the bottom line

The deal David Ellison struck for Warner is valued at nearly $111 billion. The new company would carry substantial debts and have Saudi and Emirate backing. The profits are currently relatively modest.

Yet Klein contends larger motives are in play. Just look at Google, he says, which owns what many consider the dominant media company, YouTube.

"They want to know what you watch, and where you come from, and what you buy when you watch, and where you go after you buy, and what you post in the comments and what you like and love and all that," Klein says.

"And if you can combine that with your streaming content and your studio decisions and your marketing for all the content product you're creating," he adds, "you're in a very very powerful position."

Copyright 2026 NPR