What we are watching with CBS and CNN is a classic authoritarian technique.
Five years ago, the United States experienced something unprecedented in its modern history: a violent disruption of the peaceful transfer of power, unfolding live on television as Congress met to certify the election results. The deadly and shocking day exposed how fragile democracy can be when a losing president refuses to accept defeat and large numbers of supporters act accordingly.
That same president is back in office, this time far more systematic in his approach to retaining and consolidating power. The judiciary has been largely tamed by his luck and success in installing a compliant Supreme Court; the gatekeepers have been eviscerated via DOGE; there are few if any pesky Republican normals in the Cabinet to block much. The main frontier is control over information. Trump has moved beyond branding unfavorable coverage as “fake news” and is now on the warpath with real journalism.
In this battle, the administration has discovered a nifty new trick: It is using federal merger authority to pressure news organizations into compliant coverage. The parent companies of CBS and CNN are being subjected to regulatory leverage that is slow and opaque, and therefore suited for political coercion. What appears to be procedure is actually a protection racket.
In aid of that, the government’s role in merger approval is a gold mine. It is procedurally complex but amounts to a way to govern industries — media, technology, telecommunications — that are heavily leveraged and thus vulnerable, and dependent on regulatory permission to survive. So it’s an ideal instrument of coercion.
This tool complements the other major Trump innovation: the discovery that in modern America, actions do not have to be legal in order to be effective. They only need to move faster than the courts — which are clogged up and slow. An unlawful executive action can remain in force for months or years before a final ruling arrives. During that time, markets adjust, companies comply, executives adapt, and political objectives are often achieved by the time a court intervenes.
The crown jewel in that scam is the global tariffs that clearly exceeded statutory authority (Congress enacts tariffs, unless there’s an emergency) and are currently before aforementioned friendly Supreme Court. Meanwhile they have reshaped supply chains, pricing, and trade behavior. The whole while Trump is lying to the American people that the tariffs, which are paid by American importers and consumers, are bringing in fabulous sums from abroad. The only way to counter such falsehoods is via the media calling them out and explaining how tariffs really work – where is why terrifying the media into timid compliance is essential.
Before going on, take a look at some of AQL’s recent media coverage on what Trump might call “this matter”:
Navigating the Narrative Minefields
We examined how AP’s drive for impartial language collides with politics in the Trump era, where words are weaponized and renaming battles—like “Gulf of America”—test press independence. Terms such as “terrorist,” “refugee,” and “occupied” shape narratives and outrage. Neutrality itself becomes controversial as journalists navigate polarized linguistic minefields.
Why Authoritarians Attack The News Media
We show how authoritarians don’t need to persuade majorities; they just need to break trust in reality. By attacking and delegitimizing the independent press—Trump included—they muddy facts, spread doubt, and erode shared narratives. Undermining media enables censorship, intimidation, and control. Free journalism isn’t a luxury in democracy; it’s the light authoritarians must first extinguish.
The Pentagon’s Putinesque Censorship Ultimatum
On how Hegseth’s Pentagon ordered reporters to publish only “authorized” information or lose access — a demand echoing authoritarian media control. Major outlets refused, warning it endangers the First Amendment and public accountability. This escalation in Trump-era pressure on journalists seeks to turn watchdogs into propagandists, making access contingent on obedience rather than truth.
The Fifth Estate
Where we argue that as mainstream media is attacked, constrained, or tempted to conform, the creator economy becomes a vital counterweight. Independent writers, podcasters, and small collaborative networks can pursue reporting, context, and dissent without institutional gatekeeping. Decentralized journalism distributes power, rebuilds trust directly with audiences, and keeps democratic scrutiny alive when legacy outlets are weakened or wary.
Now let’s look at what’s gong on with the merger scam.
In the case of CBS, the pressure has already produced concrete outcomes. After President Trump sued CBS and its parent Paramount Global in late 2024 over a 60 Minutes interview with then–Vice President Kamala Harris — a lawsuit legal experts widely described as frivolous — Paramount agreed in mid-2025 to pay Trump $16 million to settle the case as it sought approval for its planned merger with Skydance Media.
The payment, which will go to Trump’s future presidential library and legal costs, came amid internal turmoil at CBS, the ouster of senior news executives, and widespread alarm among journalists that editorial independence was being compromised to smooth the path for regulatory approval. This week, CBS abruptly pulled a high-profile 60 Minutes investigative segment on Trump’s deportation policy just before broadcast, citing editorial concerns — though critics said the timing and context strongly suggested political conditioning of coverage tied to the same merger dynamics.
For CNN, the pressure is unfolding through the battle over Warner Bros. Discovery, its corporate parent. Trump has publicly intervened in the sale process, declaring it “imperative that CNN be sold” and favoring bids connected to allies over others, at the same time his administration’s regulatory review looms over competing acquisitions of Warner assets. Paramount’s bid for Warner, which would bring CNN and CBS under the same politically connected ownership, has raised concerns that editorial leadership and programming at the news network could be reshaped in line with Trump’s preferences.
The brazenness would be shocking, if anything were still shocking.
CBS and CNN are being targeted because they are exposed. Their parent companies are heavily leveraged, dependent on scale, and in need of regulatory permission to restructure their businesses. Trump’s allies at the Federal Communications Commission and the Federal Trade Commission raise “concerns,” float objections, delay reviews, and question whether license holders are acting in the “public interest.” The language remains procedural but it’s a Putinization plan all the same.
In theory, antitrust review is technocratic. In practice, under Trump, it has become transactional. Companies are no longer judged only on market concentration or consumer harm. They are evaluated on whether they present a political problem to the White House. The question is no longer whether a merger complies with antitrust standards but what the merging parties are prepared to offer. For media companies, it’s a shakedown.
We have already seen the run-up.
When administration allies openly discussed using FCC licensing authority to pressure broadcasters over Jimmy Kimmel, it was not a serious legal argument but a stress test. It somewhat worked. Stations briefly pulled the show because they understood the cost of resistance. But days later the show returned by popular demand.
The same principle governs White House and Pentagon access. Press credentials, pool access, and briefing invitations are administrative privileges, so Trump has exploited that gray zone relentlessly. Outlets that cooperate receive access and proximity. Those that do not are frozen out, mocked, or delegitimized.
The farcical “Gulf of America” episode was instructional. The administration fed absurd terminology into official channels and watched which journalists complied. Coverage became a loyalty test.
This is how authoritarian systems can evolve inside seemingly mature democracies: through selective imposition of inconvenience and penalties. The press is exhausted, pressured, and economically weakened until self-censorship feels like prudence. Merger coercion is a very effective variant of that logic.
Unlike access disputes or licensing threats, mergers are existential. A blocked transaction can destroy shareholder value, remove executives, and collapse companies already carrying enormous debt. Because mergers are slow, opaque, and discretionary, they offer perfect deniability. Every denial can be framed as regulatory concern. Every delay can be framed as due process.
We should not be fooled. Banana republics rule through crude patronage and overt corruption. Putin’s Russia rules through brutal enforcement and oligarchic dependency. Trump’s America is becoming a hybrid system in which formal legality remains intact while outcomes are determined by political favor.
In this system, CNN does not need to be nationalized. Its parent company only needs to believe that independence is too expensive.
As the number of news organizations shrinking, each remaining outlet carries disproportionate weight. This is why CBS and CNN matter even to those who never watch them. Their weakening sends a signal to every editor, producer, and publisher downstream.
Today it is media mergers. Tomorrow it will be defense contractors, technology platforms, universities, or financial institutions. Any entity that requires permission, approval, or tolerance from the state becomes vulnerable.
In my travels as a foreign correspondent, I have seen authoritarian states. The government does what it wants, and usually enriches its members before they need to flee the country. It is a not a good system. You do not want to live there.
