US President Donald Trump’s decision to wade into the bidding battle for Warner Bros. — signalling he may personally influence whether Netflix or Paramount is allowed to buy the company — has triggered a fresh debate about the limits of presidential authority. While merger decisions are supposed to be handled by independent antitrust regulators, Trump’s public claim that Netflix’s bid “could be a problem” and that he will “be involved in that decision” has alarmed legal scholars and antitrust experts, especially as the US Supreme Court appears poised to weaken restrictions on presidential control of regulatory agencies, the New York Times reported.
At the same time, revelations that Jared Kushner’s private equity firm is backing Paramount’s rival bid have added an ethical wrinkle to Trump’s comments, raising questions about whether the president’s personal or family interests are intersecting with regulatory decisions that can shift billions of dollars.
Antitrust law isn’t designed for presidential discretion
American merger law is clear on one point: Congress did not give presidents a direct role in determining which corporate consolidations go forward. Under Section 7 of the Clayton Act, the power to challenge mergers rests with two agencies — the Justice Department’s antitrust division and the Federal Trade Commission. Both apply established guidelines measuring market concentration and potential harm to competition.
Trump’s remarks about blocking or supporting a specific deal depart sharply from that norm. Legal scholars warn that if a president can openly tilt regulatory decisions for political or personal reasons, it undermines the rule-of-law foundation that antitrust enforcement depends on.
Herbert Hovenkamp, a leading antitrust scholar, described Trump’s comments as “very, very bad law enforcement policy,” noting that the standards for determining whether a merger is illegal are supposed to be applied objectively, not manipulated after the fact through presidential pressure.
A Supreme Court shift could magnify presidential control
The timing of Trump’s intervention is especially significant. On the same day he made his comments about Netflix and Warner Bros., the Supreme Court heard arguments in a case that could eliminate the longstanding legal protection that makes the FTC an independent agency. A conservative supermajority signalled it may overturn a 90-year precedent insulating FTC commissioners from removal at will.
If that happens, the FTC would fall fully under presidential control — giving Trump direct influence over both arms of antitrust enforcement: the DOJ’s antitrust division and the FTC.
Legal scholars say this would eliminate a critical guardrail. Today, if the Justice Department declines to bring a case for political reasons, the FTC can still act. If both agencies answer directly to the president, that independent check disappears.
A question of norms — and precedent
Trump has a history of inserting himself into antitrust debates involving media companies. In his first term, he opposed the AT&T–Time Warner merger while repeatedly criticising CNN, a Time Warner subsidiary. The Justice Department sued to block the merger, though courts ultimately allowed it to proceed.
The new twist is Trump positioning himself between two competing bids. Instead of threatening one deal, he is signalling a willingness to tilt the scales based on which bidder he favours — a posture that could influence investors, board decisions and shareholder votes long before regulators weigh in.
The implicit threat is obvious: if Warner Bros. executives pick the bidder Trump dislikes, they may face protracted and expensive enforcement litigation. Courts could still approve the merger, but the risk and delay alone give Trump leverage. Conversely, choosing the bidder his White House supports may shield the deal from scrutiny.
Expanding presidential power beyond criminal law
This episode fits a broader pattern in Trump’s second term, in which he has pushed a sweeping view of executive authority. After the Supreme Court granted him absolute immunity for official acts involving the Justice Department, Trump has directed investigations of political adversaries and exerted pressure on law firms and civil servants.
Now, he appears willing to extend that approach to civil regulatory power. Antitrust enforcement shapes entire industries — from media to tech to telecommunications — and decisions often hinge on detailed market analysis, not electoral politics.
Legal experts worry that if a president can openly influence such rulings, it redraws the boundaries of presidential power in ways that could last long beyond a single administration.
What comes next
For now, Trump’s comments are just that — statements. But in merger fights worth tens of billions of dollars, even a hint of presidential intervention can reshape corporate strategy. Netflix and Paramount may now feel pressure to appeal to the White House or structure bids with political considerations in mind.
Whether Trump ultimately follows through is unclear. What is clear is that the president is once again testing how far personal authority can override long-standing norms — and shaping a new debate over what presidential power means in modern America.
Discover the latest Business News, Sensex, and Nifty updates. Obtain Personal Finance insights, tax queries, and expert opinions on Moneycontrol or download the Moneycontrol App to stay updated!
