Ranking Member Raskin’s Opening Statement at Subcommittee Hearing on Trump’s Politicization of Merger Review
Washington, D.C. (January 7, 2026)—Today, Rep. Jamie Raskin, Ranking Member of the House Judiciary Committee, delivered opening remarks at the Subcommittee on the Administrative State, Regulatory Reform, and Antitrust hearing on the Trump Administration’s politicization of antitrust and merger review, working to benefit the President’s cronies and force pro-Trump media content.
Below are Ranking Member Raskin’s remarks at today’s hearing.
WATCH Ranking Member Raskin’s opening statement.
Ranking Member Jamie Raskin
Subcommittee on the Administrative State, Regulatory Reform, and Antitrust
“Full Stream Ahead: Competition and Consumer Choice in Digital Streaming”
January 7, 2026
Thank you, Chairman Fitzgerald, and thank you to the witnesses for being with us here today.
Against the background of a media industry that is already heavily concentrated under the control of several multi-billion-dollar media companies, we’re gathered to discuss the proposed acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery by Netflix, two giant rivals in the field of entertainment. The alternative acquirer, Paramount- Skydance, is itself not only a giant rival in entertainment, but also a rival in news.
In ordinary times, we’d proceed carefully with an acquisition of this size to ensure that it passes scrutiny under American antitrust laws. But these are not ordinary times. Just last month, this subcommittee heard testimony from whistleblower Roger Alford, who served in Antitrust at the DOJ during both the first and second Trump terms. During Trump’s first term, Alford served as Deputy Assistant Attorney General, during the second as the Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, which is second in command. He testified to the pervasive practice of lobbyists attempting to corruptly influence antitrust law enforcement at the Department of Justice, telling us the corporate lobbyists now boast about their ability to overrule both the antitrust experts and President Trump’s own hand-picked leadership at the Antitrust Division. And just to be clear, Professor Alford is a strong supporter of President Trump. He served in both the first and second terms. He sees clearly that this political and financial corruption of antitrust law betrays Donald Trump’s avowed populist agenda, as he sees it, the one of lower prices, affordability and increased choice and competition that the president once long ago promised the American people on the campaign trail.
Well, we already know well how this corruption works in Trump’s Washington.
Professor Alford gave a detailed description of what he called the HPE-Juniper mergerscandal. He told us that on numerous occasions in a variety of matters, we implored our superiors and lawyers on the other side to call off the jackals, but to no avail. Today, cases are being resolved based on political connections, not on the legal merits. These warnings from a top Trump appointee command our urgent attention.
Yet my Republican colleagues refuse to conduct any kind of serious oversight of what’s going on in the Administration. In 12 months, our colleagues have had just one Administration official come and appear before the Committee, FBI Director Kash Patel. Committee Democrats have invited two Trump officials as minority witnesses. And as you know, we only get to invite one witness, but we’ve had two of them, Mr. Alford and FTC Commissioner Alvaro Bedoya. The chairman has had only one. We urgently need the Attorney General, Pam Bondi, to appear before Judiciary so we can conduct oversight over an increasingly out of control, lawless and corrupt Department of Justice, both in the antitrust domain and in many others. And it’s not just DOJ. The whole government is now saturated in pay to play corruption and lawlessness.
Take the example of Skydance’s acquisition of Paramount last year. In late 2024, incoming FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr accepted two tickets worth $12,000 to go to the Kennedy Center Gala. The donor was Paramount, whose proposed merger with Skydance was about to require Commissioner Carr’s approval. Now, I concede that $12,000 these days is petty cash, compared to the billions of dollars that are being raked in by the President routinely and the corruption flowing throughout the Administration. But pre-Trump, a $12,000 gift to an FCC Commissioner that you’re about to appear before would have been a scandal.
Well, at the gala, Commissioner Carr reportedly pulled his host aside and gave them advice. Paramount owns CBS. President Trump had sued CBS for $10 billion in damages, because he didn’t like the way that they interviewed. They edited an interview with Vice President Kamala Harris. Well, that, of course, is an entirely frivolous legal claim. I don’t like the way that Fox News edits the interviews with Donald Trump, but that doesn’t constitute defamation against me. That’s just stupid. But Commissioner Carr reportedly told the Paramount executives that Trump’s grudge against CBS News was so serious that it would make review of the merger, “ tougher than anticipated,” and they might need to make some concessions directly to the President to convince him to approve the deal.
Once in office, Carr sat on the merger for months. Why? So Trump could extract extraordinary benefits from the companies in exchange for approval of the deal. And look what he got: a $16 million contribution to his presidential library; millions dollars more committed in free advertising; a promise to install a Trump-friendly monitor minder in the CBS newsroom, and the cancellation of the Late Show with Stephen Colbert. Only then did Carr permit the merger to proceed.
Ladies and gentlemen, this is not antitrust law. This is a political and financial shakedown substituting for an antitrust merger review. It’s got nothing to do with antitrust law or consumer choice or lower prices. It is corruption. It’s exactly what Professor Alford was warning us about. And one key result of this corruption is a newsroom that refuses to broadcast news that the Administration disfavors.
A few days after Alford testified, CBS’s 60 Minutes was scheduled to air a special on CECOT, the notorious torture prison in El Salvador introduced to inmates there as “hell on earth,” that the Trump Administration has used as a dumping ground for immigrants, many of them lawful asylum seekers. Right before the story was set to air, it was indefinitely postponed. Why? What happened?
Well, we don’t have to wonder. Bari Weiss, the new editor-in-chief at CBS and the new government-imposed Pravda-like media monitor and minder, said she would not let the broadcast go forward without getting comment from a government spokesperson on the air. But the Trump Administration had refused to allow any of them to comment on the air.
Here’s Sharyn Alfonis, the 60 Minutes correspondent on the story:
“Our story was screened five times and cleared by both CBS attorneys and Standards and Practices. It is factually correct. In my view, pulling it now-after every rigorous internal check has been met is not an editorial decision, it is a political one.
“We requested responses to questions and/or Interviews with DHS, the White House, and the State Department. Government silence is a statement, not a VETO. Their refusal to be interviewed is a tactical maneuver designed to kill the story.
“If the administration’s refusal to participate becomes a valid reason to spike a story, we have effectively handed them a ‘kill switch’ for any reporting they find inconvenient.”
I hope that this kind of consolidated corporate government censorship troubles all of our colleagues, Democrats and Republicans who still have a First Amendment bone in their body. This kind of censorship regime aligns us with the state of press freedom in Putin’s Russia or Mohammad bin Salman’s Saudi Arabia.
The economic effects of these side deals must trouble us too. Each new merger acts as a new opportunity for the president to enrich himself and his family and friends. The cost of businesses involved in these deals now, even as a term in the economic literature, the “Trump Transaction Tax,” every party to this kind of transaction now bears the risk of a political shakedown for money—concessions that are not connected to proper antitrust review. It’s about what enriches and satisfies the president. Hundreds of economic studies and gangster states show that these kinds of corrupt practices reduce investment, distort markets, increase costs, and lead to lower employment.
So here we are again. When Warner Bros. announced that it would put itself up for sale, President Trump promised that “I’ll be involved in that decision,” although no law gives him a role in it. The President seems to want Paramount and Netflix to compete for his approval of a deal. Both companies are already lobbying the White House right now. And to state the obvious, President Trump is not an antitrust expert, nor is he committed to antitrust law. He’s long been critical of CNN, which is owned by Warner Bros. For years, he’s told us that he hates their reporting, he hates their reporters, and he wants to sue the network. Does anyone doubt that one way to entice the President’s favor is to promise him more direct control over CNN?
Mr. Chairman, we should be calling in the government officials who have participated in or acquiesced in these side deals to date. I am sorry to say, the closest we’ve gotten to hearing from a real Administration witness is Professor Alford, who we invited here at the minorities’ invitation when he could have been your witness months ago. This proposed merger poses significant antitrust questions.
I’m eager to discuss them, but this Committee must also do the work of ensuring that the antitrust laws are actually being enforced and not being replaced by a system of corruption.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.