Trump Ally Promises CNN Overhaul If Paramount Succeeds in Warner Bros. Takeover
Billionaire tech magnate Larry Ellison and his son, David Ellison, are at the center of a political and corporate drama that could redefine American media—and the fate of CNN.
According to multiple sources familiar with the matter, the Ellisons have privately assured President Donald Trump that if their company, Paramount Global, succeeds in its $108 billion hostile takeover of Warner Bros. Discovery (WBD), they will impose sweeping reforms at CNN, the network Trump has long branded “fake news.”
The competing bid comes just days after Netflix reached a $72 billion agreement to acquire Warner’s film and HBO assets. Crucially, the Netflix proposal does not include CNN, which would be spun off into a separate company under its deal structure.
By contrast, Paramount’s offer explicitly includes CNN—and the Ellisons have made clear they intend to remake it from the ground up.
The Wall Street Journal reported that during private meetings in Washington, David Ellison told senior Trump officials that under Paramount ownership, CNN would undergo a “fundamental cultural and editorial overhaul.” His father, Oracle founder Larry Ellison, discussed firing prominent CNN anchors such as Erin Burnett and Brianna Keilar, two figures Trump has publicly criticized.
“The president wants new ownership of CNN and changes to CNN programming,” one White House official said. “He thinks the current leadership is openly hostile and believes a sale is long overdue.”
Both Ellisons have worked to cultivate Trump’s confidence as the Justice Department’s Antitrust Division—which reports to the president—will ultimately decide whether either deal is approved. The father-son duo were seen with Trump in the presidential box at the Kennedy Center Honors on Sunday, just 48 hours before Paramount’s counteroffer was announced.
According to The Guardian, Larry Ellison personally phoned the president after the Netflix-Warner announcement to argue that a Netflix acquisition “would hand Silicon Valley near-total control over streaming media” and stifle competition.
David Ellison has publicly described his vision for CNN and CBS News under a single, merged news division. In a CNBC interview, he said Paramount’s goal is to “build a scaled news service that is in the trust business, in the truth business, that speaks to the 70 percent of Americans in the middle.”
The Ellison plan would place the combined CNN–CBS News operation under the direction of Bari Weiss, the former New York Times columnist who recently took over as CBS News editor-in-chief and has rebranded the network as “anti-woke.” Her first major move was hiring Matt Gutman, formerly of ABC News, as CBS’s chief correspondent across CBS Mornings, CBS Evening News, and 48 Hours.
Recently, Gutman drew sharp criticism for remarks made while covering the fatal shooting of Charlie Kirk. During a live broadcast, he described text messages released between the alleged killer and his romantic partner as “very touching” and “intimate,” casting them in a sympathetic light despite the gravity of the crime.
Within 24 hours, Gutman issued an apology on social media, stating he “deeply regretted” that his words could be construed as insensitive, and asserting that he unequivocally condemns the assassination and the pain caused to Kirk’s family and supporters.
The Ellisons’ proposed acquisition would realign CNN with this alleged “post-woke” CBS ethos—one aimed squarely at restoring what David Ellison calls “viewer trust.”
Despite the outburst, aides say Trump remains open to the Paramount bid—particularly given that it includes CNN, unlike the Netflix plan. The president has privately told advisers he wants “real reform” at CNN and believes a Paramount acquisition could finally bring accountability to what he views as a hostile outlet.
At a White House roundtable Monday, Trump said, “I know the companies very well. I know what they’re doing. But I have to see what percentage of market they have. None of them are particularly great friends of mine. I want to do what’s right.”
The proposed megadeals have already triggered rare bipartisan alarm. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) called both mergers “anti-monopoly nightmares,” while Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) warned that such consolidation “would shrink consumer choice and silence independent voices.”
A Wall Street Journal political newsletter summed up the moment succinctly: “Both Netflix and Paramount are acting like the fate of any multibillion-dollar deal runs through the Oval Office—because it does.”
U.S.–CANADA WATER TENSIONS? OTTAWA SIGNALS SOVEREIGNTY IS NON-NEGOTIABLE…
U.S.–CANADA WATER TENSIONS? OTTAWA SIGNALS SOVEREIGNTY IS NON-NEGOTIABLE…
Tensions between Washington and Ottawa have taken an extraordinary turn — not over trade, defense, or tariffs — but over water.
Amid deepening drought conditions across the American West, President Donald Trump raised the idea that Canada’s vast freshwater reserves could help alleviate shortages in states like California, Arizona, and Nevada. While he stopped short of issuing a formal demand, his remarks suggesting Canada’s water could act like a “large faucet” for the United States ignited immediate controversy.
Ottawa’s response was swift — and unequivocal.
Prime Minister Mark Carney rejected any suggestion that Canada’s freshwater resources are up for negotiation, declaring them a sovereign public trust and “not a commodity to be controlled or transferred under external pressure.”
The exchange has exposed a deeper fault line in North American relations: how nations respond to resource scarcity in an era of climate stress.
The Drought Reality in the American West
The American Southwest is facing sustained water pressure:
The Colorado River system is under historic strain.
Lake Mead and Lake Powell remain below long-term averages.
Rapid population growth continues in water-stressed regions.
Agriculture in California and Arizona is increasingly vulnerable.
Cities including Phoenix, Las Vegas, and Los Angeles are investing heavily in conservation, wastewater recycling, and desalination. But long-term projections show continued volatility as climate change alters snowpack and runoff patterns.
In that context, Trump’s comments about Canada’s freshwater abundance resonated with some U.S. observers who see continental resource sharing as pragmatic.
What Canada Actually Controls
Canada holds roughly 20% of the world’s freshwater resources — though much of that is locked in glaciers, remote watersheds, or flows northward away from population centers.
The two countries already cooperate extensively on shared water systems, most notably through:
The Great Lakes agreements
The Boundary Waters Treaty (1909)
The Columbia River Treaty
British Columbia recently confirmed that discussions regarding the modernization of the Columbia River Treaty are under review by the U.S. administration — though no formal collapse of agreements has occurred.
What has not happened is any formal U.S. demand for ownership or control of Canadian water infrastructure. The dispute remains rhetorical — but politically charged.
Why Ottawa Drew a Hard Line
Carney’s refusal reflects longstanding Canadian policy.
Canada has historically resisted:
Bulk freshwater export proposals
Cross-border water diversion megaprojects
Treating freshwater as a tradable commodity under trade agreements
The concern in Ottawa is not short-term sales — it’s legal precedent. If water were formally commodified, it could fall under international trade dispute mechanisms, potentially limiting Canada’s ability to regulate its own supply in the future.
Canadian leaders across party lines have traditionally viewed water sovereignty as non-negotiable.
Carney framed the issue in environmental and strategic terms:
Climate volatility affects Canadian watersheds too.
Glacial melt is accelerating in Western Canada.
Long-term ecological impacts of diversion are unpredictable.
The argument is not simply nationalist — it’s precautionary.
The Infrastructure Reality
Large-scale water transfers from Canada to the U.S. Southwest would require:
Thousands of miles of pipeline or canal systems
Massive pumping energy requirements
Multibillion-dollar capital investment
Complex environmental approvals
No such project is currently under construction or formally approved.
Policy think tanks have studied water diversion concepts for decades, but they remain economically and politically contentious.
The Philosophical Divide
At the heart of the controversy is a deeper debate:
Is water an economic asset that can be traded like oil or gas?
Or is it a protected public trust insulated from market forces?
In the United States, market-based allocation of water resources is more common. In Canada, water governance is more closely tied to public stewardship and provincial authority.
That philosophical difference is now colliding with climate pressure.
What This Means Geopolitically
Despite heated rhetoric, this is not a military standoff. It is a policy divergence amplified by climate stress.
Still, the symbolism matters.
For decades, U.S.–Canada relations have been defined by:
Deep integration
Predictable cooperation
Quiet dispute resolution
Public disagreement over water — a resource fundamental to survival — marks a notable escalation in tone, if not yet in formal policy.
Experts warn that as climate change intensifies:
Water diplomacy will become as important as energy diplomacy.
Resource security will increasingly shape alliances.
Infrastructure vulnerability will redefine leverage.
The Path Forward
Realistically, any future cooperation would likely take the form of:
Joint conservation initiatives
Shared basin management
Technology exchange (desalination, recycling, storage)
Climate adaptation coordination
Large-scale bulk water transfers remain politically radioactive in Canada and economically complex in the United States.
For now, Carney’s message is clear:
Canada’s water is not for sale.
And Washington has not formally moved beyond rhetoric.
The Bigger Picture
This episode highlights a larger truth:
In the 21st century, water — not oil — may become the defining strategic resource.
But unlike oil, water is immovable geography. It is tied to ecosystems, borders, and long-term sustainability.
How the United States and Canada manage water cooperation in a warming climate will signal whether resource stress leads to confrontation — or innovation.
