

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
"A handful of Trump-aligned billionaires are trying to seize control of what you watch and charge you whatever price they want."
Netflix announced Thursday that it would not continue its effort to acquire Warner Bros. Discovery, paving the way for Paramount Skydance—a company controlled by the son of billionaire Trump donor Larry Ellison—to take over the media giant after a lengthy bidding war.
The news came after Netflix CEO Ted Sarandos visited the White House and met with members of President Donald Trump's staff, raising suspicions about the role the administration may have played in pushing the streaming giant to drop its bid for Warner Bros. and cede the fight to David Ellison's Paramount. Along with other major media properties, Warner Bros. owns CNN, a frequent target of Trump's ire.
"What did Trump officials tell the Netflix CEO today at the White House?" asked Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), calling the potential Paramount-Warner Bros. merger "an antitrust disaster threatening higher prices and fewer choices for American families."
"A handful of Trump-aligned billionaires are trying to seize control of what you watch and charge you whatever price they want," Warren added. "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."
In a statement that appears to have stunned Hollywood, Netflix announced Thursday that it would not raise its offer for Warner Bros. after that company's board deemed Paramount's latest offer of $111 billion "superior." Netflix said it determined the pursuit of Warner Bros. was "no longer financially attractive."
"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."
Ellison, for his part, said he was "pleased" that the Warner Bros. board "affirmed the superior value of our offer, which delivers to WBD shareholders superior value, certainty, and speed to closing."
The proposed Paramount-Warner Bros. merger still must receive regulatory approval in the US and Europe. Critics have voiced concerns about the legitimacy of a US Justice Department review given the recent ouster of antitrust chief Gail Slater.
State attorneys general could also intervene. Rob Bonta, the attorney general of California, emphasized in a statement that "Paramount/Warner Bros is not a done deal."
"These two Hollywood titans have not cleared regulatory scrutiny—the California Department of Justice has an open investigation, and we intend to be vigorous in our review," said Bonta.
On top of antitrust concerns, critics of the potential Paramount-Warner Bros. merger warned it would be a disaster for journalism and free expression. David Ellison acquired CBS News last year through the Paramount-Skydance merger approved by the Trump administration, and he is now poised to take over CNN, HBO, and other major platforms.
"Ellison has already shown his cards," said Seth Stern, chief of advocacy at the Freedom of the Press Foundation. "When the Trump administration unconstitutionally demanded editorial concessions from Ellison’s Skydance in exchange for government approval of its takeover of Paramount and CBS News, he obliged, even appointing a Trump loyalist as a so-called ‘bias ombudsman.’ CBS has since repeatedly censored journalists or altered its coverage to please Trump and his allies."
"There is no reason to believe that this proven capitulator will behave any differently this time around—in fact, he’s already reportedly promised Trump ‘sweeping changes’ at CNN, including firing people Trump dislikes," Stern said. "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."
"Lawmakers, state attorneys general, and anyone else in a position to intervene should make clear that they will not stand by as the Trump administration abuses its power to unconstitutionally extract content-based concessions from news companies," he added.
The race for Warner Bros. by both Netflix and Paramount is just the latest evidence that monopolies will commodify art into oblivion—and a film-loving public will pay the price.
Whether Netflix or Paramount wins the battle of mega-corporations to merge with the fabled Warner Bros. movie studio, the economics of the film industry no longer support the production of enough feature films for most movie theaters to still be viable businesses. Within a few years, the theatrical feature film will be all but dead with devastating cultural, social, political, and economic impact.
I'm a former senior vice president at MGM/UA (now owned by Amazon) and have been in the room of a major studio at greenlight meetings which decided which films were economically profitable enough (and creatively commercial enough) to go into production.
At these greenlight meetings, senior studio management would analyze spreadsheets projecting the likely production and marketing costs of a proposed film compared to the likely stream of revenues from various sequential windows—theatrical/home video/pay TV/first run free TV/syndicated TV/likelihood of sequels, both in the US and around the world.
Largely because of Netflix, those windows have cratered. There used to be an average three- to four-month window between theatrical release and release for viewing at home, and then multi-month windows between streaming, home video, pay tv, and free tv. Now, if Netflix even allows a theatrical release, they only give it as little as 3 weeks before they start to stream a theatrical film like the recent George Clooney/Adam Sandler/Noah Baumbach film "Jay Kelly," which started streaming just 17 days after it opened in theaters and sold almost no tickets.
A large portion of the public rightly figures that there's no point in rushing out to theater to see a new feature for $15 or more a ticket plus parking and popcorn when they can see it at home in a few weeks. Most theatrical films no longer pencil out.
While there were recently six major studios (plus mini majors), after Warner Bros. is sold (following other recent anti-competitive mergers like Disney buying Fox) there will only be four left.
With the collapsed distribution windows, it's no longer feasible for those four studios to produce enough theatrical features to keep movie theaters in business. In 2015, over 100 films received a major theatrical release with inflation-adjusted box office revenues of over $15 billion while in 2024 they crashed to only 62 films with box office revenues of about $8.6 billion. Over 5,000 movie theaters have already closed their doors in the last couple of years.
And the types of theatrical films being greenlit have been mostly reduced to either $100-$200 million blockbuster action films (many of them sequels which earn less than their predecessors) and under $20 million horror films, as well as some children's films. Dramas and comedies have almost disappeared from the majors' theatrical release schedules except during the fall awards season when a small number of adult films are released in the hopes of being nominated for an Oscar.
“The negative impact of this acquisition will impact theatres from the biggest circuits to one-screen independents in small towns in the United States and around the world,” said Cinema United president Michael O’Leary in a statement. “Netflix’s stated business model does not support theatrical exhibition.”
When he's not giving bullshit public relations statements, Netflix head honcho Ted Sarandos agrees, stating last year that movie theaters are "outdated."
Art is now called "content" and is treated as an asset class to be bought and sold by mega-corporations like they're real estate towers or meme coins. Roughly 2-hour dramas in 3 acts have been inspiring communal audiences for about 2500 years since the Greeks but they're about to largely disappear from theaters, to the detriment of the entire culture. This is ushering in an age with little originality or surprise and general cultural stagnation. The sale of Warner Bros. will only accelerate this trend.
As James Cameron, director of "Titanic" and "Avatar" recently said, it will be a "disaster."
Mainstream Oscar-winning directors of the recent past like Sidney Pollack ("Tootsie," "The Way We Were," Out of Africa"), Sidney Lumet ("Network," "Serpico," "Dog Day Afternoon"), Barry Levinson ("Rain Man," "Wag the Dog," "Good Morning Vietnam") or Alan Pakula ("All The President's Men," "Sophie's Choice") probably couldn't get arrested if they were coming up now. While studio execs may feel cool hanging around with Marty Scorsese, it's unlikely that "Taxi Driver" would be greenlit today.
(The recent tragic murder of Rob and Michelle Reiner brings to mind other examples. Reiner's classics like "When Harry Met Sally" or "A Few Good Men" probably wouldn't get greenlit today, although as a horror film, "Misery," based on a Stephen King novel, might sneak through today if it were dumbed down enough.)
The sale of Warner Bros. to either Netflix or Paramount violates Section 7 of the Clayton Antitrust Act, which provides that a merger is unlawful if its effect may be to substantially lessen competition. Factors include market concentration, foreclosure of rivals, lower wages for employees, the loss of potential competition, incentives to reduce quality or output , and the likelihood of higher prices to consumers for streaming services. We can't count on the Trump administration to bring a solid antitrust claim. But state Attorney Generals have the legal right to sue to block anti-competitive mergers. California Attorney General Rob Bonta should coordinate with other state Attorney Generals to bring such a suit. The Hollywood community should be pressuring Bonta to do so.
Fifteen years ago, Warner Bros. CEO Jeff Bewkes infamously dismissed Netflix as the pipsqueak "Albanian Army." Well, now the Albanian Army has demolished the metaphoric equivalents of the US, Britain, France, Russia, and most of the rest of the world.
We need a new Normandy invasion to take it back.
"The correct option is neither Paramount nor Netflix buy Warner," said one antitrust advocate.
Paramount Skydance on Monday launched a hostile bid to take over Warner Bros. Discovery shortly after US President Donald Trump publicly expressed skepticism of Netflix's proposed deal to acquire parts of the media company—and pledged to intervene in the federal review process.
"It is a big market share, there’s no question about it," Trump said late Sunday of Netflix's proposed $83 billion purchase of Warner Bros. Discovery's (WBD) film studio and streaming business.
"I’ll be involved in that decision," the president added.
Hours after Trump's comments, Paramount CEO David Ellison—the son of billionaire GOP megadonor and close Trump ally Larry Ellison—announced the hostile bid to buy WBD, attempting to subvert the Netflix deal by taking an all-cash, $30-per-share offer directly to Warner Bros. shareholders.
Observers expressed alarm over the seeming coordination between the president and Paramount's chief executive as the fight over Warner Bros. escalates. Trump reportedly favored Paramount to win the bidding war for WBD, which owns CNN, HBO Max, and other major assets.
Axios reported Monday that "Affinity Partners, the private equity firm led by Jared Kushner, is part of Paramount's hostile takeover bid for Warner Bros Discovery, according to a regulatory filing."
"Affinity Partners was not mentioned in Paramount's press release on Monday morning about its $108 billion bid," Axios noted, "nor were participating sovereign wealth funds from Saudi Arabia, Abu Dhabi, and Qatar."
Ellison was reportedly at the White House last week urging the Trump administration to block Netflix's bid for WBD.
Speaking to CNBC on Monday, Ellison said that "we've had great conversations with the president about" Paramount—which controls CBS News thanks to a merger that the Trump administration approved—potentially becoming the owner of CNN, a frequent target of Trump's vitriol.
CNBC: Do you think the president embraces the idea of you being the owner of CNN given his criticism for that network?
DAVID ELLISON: Ah -- we've had great conversations with the president about this but I don't want to speak for him in any way, shape, or form pic.twitter.com/FdwBzfP3eO
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) December 8, 2025
Nidhi Hegde, executive director of the American Economic Liberties Project, said in response to Ellison's remarks that "the correct option is neither Paramount nor Netflix buy Warner."
"The president inserting himself in the deal is obviously problematic, regardless of the parties involved," said Hegde. "If Netflix’s Ted Sarandos, who Trump called a great person, finds a way to appease him, that is also not good!"
US Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) expressed similar concerns about Trump's potential corruption of the regulatory process. The proposed Netflix deal is expected to face a review by the US Justice Department's Antitrust Division, where top officials were recently ousted for "insubordination" amid criticism of agency leaders' corporate-friendly approach to merger enforcement.
"Is that an open invite for CEOs to curry favor with Trump in exchange for merger approvals?" Warren asked after Trump pledged to insert himself into the Netflix-WBD review process.
"It should be an independent decision by the Department of Justice based on the law and facts," added Warren, who called the Netflix-WBD deal "an anti-monopoly nightmare."
"The threat of this merger in any form is an alarming escalation in a consolidation crisis that threatens the entire entertainment industry, the public it serves, and—potentially—the First Amendment itself," warned actress Jane Fonda.
Netflix announced a deal Friday to acquire Warner Bros. Discovery’s film studio and streaming business for $83 billion, a merger that—if approved by the Trump administration—would create a media behemoth that critics say threatens industry competition, higher costs for consumers, the rights of entertainment workers, and democracy.
Netflix, the largest streaming company in the world, and Warner Bros. Discovery (WBD), owner of the third-largest streaming platform HBO Max, unveiled the proposed agreement after a closely watched bidding war that included Paramount Skydance, the company that the Trump administration reportedly favored to acquire WBD. Paramount is owned by David Ellison, the son of billionaire Republican megadonor Larry Ellison—a close ally of President Donald Trump.
David Ellison reportedly met with Trump administration officials on Thursday to "press his case" against Netflix's pending acquisition of WBD. An unnamed senior official told CNBC on Friday that the Trump administration is treating the Netflix-WBD deal with "heavy skepticism."
While some expressed relief that Paramount appears—at least for now—to have lost the bid for Warner Bros., antitrust advocates argued such a view overlooks the much broader and more serious threat of corporate consolidation.
"Does anyone think Netflix won’t do what Trump wants to get their deal through?" asked Matt Stoller, director of research at the American Economic Liberties Project. "The threat to democracy isn’t the Ellisons, it’s media consolidation."
The American Prospect's David Dayen expressed a similar sentiment, writing on social media: "Keeping WBD out of Paramount's hands is good. Putting it in Netflix's is still unlawful consolidation though. This is the #1 streamer merging with #3. State enforcers should speak up."
"If we don’t speak now, we may have no industry—and no democracy—left to defend."
In a newsletter post following news of the merger agreement, Stoller argued the Netflix-WBD deal is plainly illegal under the Clayton Antitrust Act and "a recipe for monopolization."
"The ideal scenario now is a trial that puts the secrets of Hollywood executives and financiers on display, and crushes the financiers who think mergers are the only move in business," Stoller wrote. "Then Hollywood can get back to the business of making good TV shows and movies."
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) said that "this deal looks like an anti-monopoly nightmare."
"A Netflix-Warner Bros. would create one massive media giant with control of close to half of the streaming market," said Warren. "It could force you into higher prices, fewer choices over what and how you watch, and may put American workers at risk."
"Under Donald Trump, the antitrust review process has also become a cesspool of political favoritism and corruption," the senator continued. "The Justice Department must enforce our nation’s anti-monopoly laws fairly and transparently—not use the Warner Bros. deal review to invite influence-peddling and bribery."
Ahead of the announcement, major figures in the entertainment industry sounded alarm over the possibility of a Netflix takeover of WBD. In a letter to members of Congress on Thursday, a group of film producers warned that Neflix would "effectively hold a noose around the theatrical marketplace" if it acquired WBD.
The Writers’ Guild of America, which represents film and TV writers, has said it would oppose WBD merging with any "major studio or streamer," warning it "would be a disaster for writers, for consumers, and for competition."
"Merger after merger in the media industry has harmed workers, diminished competition and free speech, and wasted hundreds of billions of dollars better invested in organic growth," the union said in a recent statement.
Jane Fonda, the renowned actress and activist, wrote Thursday that "the threat of this merger in any form is an alarming escalation in a consolidation crisis that threatens the entire entertainment industry, the public it serves, and—potentially—the First Amendment itself."
"Consolidation at this scale would be catastrophic for an industry built on free expression, for the creative workers who power it, and for consumers who depend on a free, independent media ecosystem to understand the world," Fonda wrote. "It will mean fewer jobs, fewer opportunities to sell work, fewer creative risks, fewer news sources, and far less diversity in the stories Americans get to hear."
"If we don’t speak now, we may have no industry—and no democracy—left to defend," she added.
"In the dark times that we are living in now," said the preeminent scientist, "if people don't have hope, we're doomed."
In her final months, renowned conservationist and scientist Jane Goodall secretly sat down for an interview with producers of a newly greenlit show for Netflix—with an agreement in place that the content of the discussion wouldn't be shared publicly until after her death.
The interview turned out to be the first episode of "Famous Last Words," which was released last Friday—two days after Goodall's death at the age of 91.
Goodall used the interview as an opportunity to reflect on her life and work as a groundbreaking primatologist, to send a message of hope to those left on "this beautiful planet Earth," and to unload her deep dissatisfaction with some of the world's most powerful people.
When asked by producer Brad Falchuk whether there was anyone she did not like, Goodall at first did not name names, but said there were "absolutely" people whom she would like to put on one of SpaceX CEO Elon Musk's spaceships, "and send them all off to the planet he's sure he's going to discover."
"Would he be one of them?" Falchuk pressed.
Goodall replied that Musk, the world's richest person and a megadonor to US President Donald Trump, would "host" the expedition, with Trump among the passengers.
Earlier this year, Dr. Jane Goodall sat down for an interview for Brad Falchuk’s new Netflix series, Famous Last Words.
The premise of the series is to interview people on the condition that the interview not air until the subject has passed away. pic.twitter.com/jzhLqRtpQP
— Yashar Ali 🐘 (@yashar) October 5, 2025
"And then I would put [Russian President Vladimir Putin] in there and I would put President Xi [Jinping of China]," said Goodall. "I'd certainly put [Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu in there and his far-right government. Put them all on that spaceship and send them off."
The interview was filmed amid compounding global crises that are still ongoing—the climate emergency; Western governments' allegiance to and capture by corporations and the ultrarich, including fossil fuel giants that continue to threaten Earth with planet-heating emissions; worsening global inequality; and violent conflicts like Israel's bombardment and starvation of Palestinians in Gaza.
But Goodall urged viewers to resist giving in to a feeling of hopelessness, which would cause them to "become apathetic and do nothing."
Describing herself as "somebody sent to this world to try to give people hope in dark times," Goodall warned:
In the dark times that we are living in now, if people don't have hope, we're doomed, and how can we bring little children into this dark world we've created and let them be surrounded by people who have given up? So even if this is the end of humanity as we know it, let's fight to the very end. Let's let the children know that there is hope if they get together.
"Even if it becomes impossible," she said, "for anybody, it's better to go on fighting to the end than to just give up and say, 'Okay.'"
She added that everyone on Earth "has a role to play."
"Your life matters and you are here for a reason," said Goodall. "Every single day you live, you make a difference in the world and you get to choose the difference that you make."
But the message Goodall wished to send to the world "above all," she said, was that "when we're on planet Earth, we are part of Mother Nature."
"We depend on Mother Nature for clean air, for water, for food, for clothing, for everything," she said. "And as we destroy one ecosystem after another, as we create worse climate change, worse loss of diversity, we have to do everything in our power to make the world a better place for the children alive today and for those that will follow."
"Don't give up. There is a future for you," she said. "Do your best while you're still on this beautiful planet Earth that I look down upon from where I am now."
Scientists, climate advocates, and political leaders were among those who shared an outpouring of gratitude and mourning last week when Goodall's death from natural causes was announced.
Goodall's pioneering work with chimpanzees led to greater understanding of the primates, other species, biodiversity, and the need to protect the natural world.
“Jane Goodall was fearless in all things," Falchuk told Variety as the episode was released. "She deeply loved humanity and the natural world. It was clear to me in our conversation that she was approaching her final adventure with the same fearlessness, hope, humor, and joy that she approached everything else in life. She was one of the world’s greatest and most beloved champions of good."
"This capitulation is... a pervasive trend that applies to nearly all commercial media, including cable and telecommunications firms and online platforms," said Free Press.
Media advocacy organization Free Press on Tuesday unveiled an index that documents and rates major media organizations' reactions to the coercive demands being made by U.S. President Donald Trump.
As Free Press explained in a press release, its Media Capitulation Index tracks actions being taken by 35 major media conglomerates who are facing pressure from Trump and his allies to curb critical reporting and commentary on his administration.
"In this investigation, Free Press found that to varying degrees the owners of America's largest media firms are caving to pressure from an authoritarian-minded president and his captured federal agencies," the organization wrote. "This capitulation is not unique to owners of news outlets—like Paramount (which owns CBS), Disney (ABC) and Warner Bros. Discovery (CNN). Rather, it's a pervasive trend that applies to nearly all commercial media, including cable and telecommunications firms and online platforms."
Free Press argued that media companies have been bending to Trump's will through four major methods: Paying out lavish settlements in lawsuits brought by the president; rolling back their programs for enhancing diversity, equity, and inclusion; pressuring journalists and commentators to soften or even censor their criticisms of the president; and "attempting to curry favor with the president during inaugural ceremonies, private dinners at Mar-a-Lago, and meetings in the White House."
The index uses a scale to rate media organizations that range from "independent" on one end to "propaganda" on the other. Of all the media companies surveyed by Free Press, only two are rated as independent: Bloomberg Media Group and Netflix. The New York Times Company for now is the least compromised of any print media conglomerate outside of Bloomberg and is merely listed as "vulnerable," while Nant Capital, the owner of the Los Angeles Times, is the most compromised and is rated as "obeying" the Trump administration.
When it comes to broadcast media, no companies earned an "independent" ranking, and CBS owner Paramount was ranked as "obeying" the Trump administration in the wake of its decisions to give Trump a $16 million payout and then cancel the show of longtime Trump critic Stephen Colbert.
Former New York Times public editor Margaret Sullivan, a longtime critic of the American media's response to Trump, praised Free Press on her Substack page for highlighting the major problems facing the American media in the second Trump term.
"Huge, diverse corporations own news companies, and independent journalism all too often takes a back seat to corporate profits, mergers, and other forms of consolidation," she said. "Meanwhile, public media has been defunded, local journalism lacks local ownership, and partisan propaganda has found an influential home on radio and cable news."
She also interviewed Tim Karr, who works as Free Press' senior director of strategy and communications, about why her former employer did not earn an "independent" rating on the index.
"There is a tendency to 'both-sides' reporting about the Trump administration,” Karr said of The New York Times' coverage, which he added seems to give "equal weight to the forces of democracy and the forces of authoritarianism."
"Our analysis would indicate that tax avoidance continues to be hard-wired into corporate structures," said the CEO of the Fair Tax Foundation.
A report published Tuesday to coincide with the tax filing deadline in the United States found that, over the past decade, six of the country's largest tech corporations have paid nearly $278 billion less in taxes than they should have under statutory tax rates worldwide.
The analysis by the Fair Tax Foundation (FTF) estimates that the so-called "Silicon Six"—Amazon, Meta, Alphabet, Netflix, Apple, and Microsoft—paid an average corporate income tax rate of 18.8% on a combined $2.5 trillion in profits between 2015 and 2024.
That's well below the average statutory corporate tax rate during that period in the U.S. (29.7%) and globally (27%), resulting in a "tax gap" of $277.8 billion.
"Our analysis would indicate that tax avoidance continues to be hard-wired into corporate structures," said Paul Monaghan, FTF's chief executive officer. "The Silicon Six's corporate income tax contributions are, in percentage terms, way below what sectors such as banking and energy are paying in many parts of the world."
Of the six corporate behemoths examined in the report, Amazon is the worst tax offender, according to FTF—but all of the companies are guilty of what the group called "aggressive" practices to avoid taxation.
The companies have also benefited greatly from the foreign-derived intangible income tax break. FTF said that, thanks to the tax break, "much of the Silicon Six's overseas revenue is subject to 'tax haven' level rates" in the U.S.
"This is especially so at Meta (Facebook), Alphabet (Google), and Netflix, where the foreign-derived intangible income (FDII) deduction reduced their effective tax rate by a substantial five percentage points each in 2024," the new analysis found. "The FDII has been worth $30 billion to the Silicon Six over the past three years alone."
The analysis comes as Republicans in the U.S. Congress and President Donald Trump work to advance another round of tax cuts that would predominantly benefit wealthy Americans and large corporations. The Trump administration is also trying to gut the Internal Revenue Service with large-scale workforce cuts, which would further hinder the agency's ability to pursue rich tax cheats.
FTF's new report notes the "enormous political influence" that the Silicon Six exert to preserve and enhance their tax benefits: The six companies spent a combined $115 million lobbying the U.S. government and the European Union last year.
To prevent corporate tax avoidance that is costing governments around the world billions of dollars in revenue that could be spent on education, healthcare, and other priorities, FTF said the U.S. should "end the FDII tax break" and back a 15% global minimum tax on multinational corporations.
In February, Trump withdrew the U.S. from a tax agreement that included a global minimum levy.
FTF also urged other governments to "give more serious consideration to the degree to which the Silicon Six's overseas revenue is subject to low levels of corporate income tax and develop more assertive responses to ensure that a fairer tax contribution is secured and so that more equitable business competition can operate within their jurisdictions."
"In the first five years following the 2017 giveaway, 35 companies raked in $277 billion in domestic profits and paid their executives $9.5 billion."
A group of congressional Democrats and Independent Sen. Bernie Sanders on Friday highlighted dozens of profitable U.S. corporations that have paid their executives more than they've paid in federal income taxes in recent years, a problem that the lawmakers attributed in large part to former President Donald Trump's massive tax-cut package that Republicans are working to extend.
"In the first five years following the 2017 giveaway, 35 companies raked in $277 billion in domestic profits and paid their executives $9.5 billion—more than they paid in federal income taxes," the lawmakers noted in letters to each of the companies, pointing to recent research by the Institute for Policy Studies and Americans for Tax Fairness.
"Next year, Congress will decide what to do with these corporate giveaways. Republicans have promised to go even further if elected and cut the corporate income tax rate from 21% to 15%," the lawmakers continued. "This additional tax giveaway would provide Fortune 100 corporations as a whole with another $50 billion each year, more than all current K-12 federal education spending."
"The windfall from TCJA to big businesses, executives, and wealthy shareholders is unmistakable."
Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) in the Senate and Rep. Greg Casar (D-Texas) in the House led the letters to the 35 companies, a list that includes high-profile names such as Netflix, Ford, and Tesla, whose CEO is the richest man in the world.
"Tesla is among the most dramatic examples of this phenomenon—big, profitable corporations that have actually been paying their top executives more than they pay the government in federal income taxes," the lawmakers wrote. "According to an analysis by the Institute for Policy Studies and Americans for Tax Fairness, in the period between 2018 and 2022, Tesla raked in $4.4 billion in profits and did not pay a single dollar in federal income tax."
During that same period, Tesla chief executive Elon Musk received "the largest pay package ever recorded for a company's CEO," the lawmakers observed.
The other companies that have paid their top executives more than they've paid in federal taxes in recent years are T-Mobile, AIG, NextEra, Darden, MetLife, Duke Energy, First Energy, DISH, Principal Financial, American Electrical Power, Kinder Morgan, Dominion, Oneok, Williams, Xcel Energy, NRG Energy, Salesforce, DTE Energy, Ameren, Sempra Energy, U.S. Steel, Entergy, AmerisourceBergen, PPL, CMS Energy, Evergy, Voya Financial, Atmos Energy, Alliant Energy, Match Group, UGI, and Agilent Tech.
The lawmakers demanded that the companies' CEOs answer several questions, including how much the corporations would have paid in federal taxes had the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) not been enacted and how much they've spent on lobbying to keep the Republican law intact.
"The windfall from TCJA to big businesses, executives, and wealthy shareholders is unmistakable," the letters read. "A recent analysis by the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy found that 342 companies paid an average effective income tax rate of just 14.1% during the five years after TCJA passed, almost a third less than the 21% statutory rate. The gains do not 'trickle down'—90% of workers saw no earnings increase, while executives making $989,000 per year or more got an average raise of $50,000."
The letters were released days after the Economic Policy Institutereleased an analysis showing that CEO pay has soared by 1,085% since 1978 while the pay of typical U.S. workers has grown by just 24%.
The 2017 Trump-GOP tax law led major companies to splurge on stock buybacks, a major gift to corporate executives whose annual compensation packages consist largely of stock.
"President [Joe] Biden and Democrats in Congress are committed to making corporations pay their fair share," the lawmakers wrote in their letters. "In the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act, we passed the first corporate tax increase in 30 years with the 15% corporate minimum tax. Though significant, raising $222 billion from billion-dollar corporations, it is not enough on its own to undo the corporate tax giveaways signed into law by President Trump and ensure that corporations pay their fair share."
"Next year," they added, "Congress has an opportunity to take bigger strides in reforming our tax code—to raise the corporate rate, close loopholes, and hold big businesses to the same standards as everyday working Americans who pay their fair share."
The main concerns of the workers center around compensation on streaming platforms, such as Netflix and Amazon Prime, and artificial intelligence.
For the first time since 1960, actors and screenwriters are on strike at the same time.
As with many of the other strikes that have rippled across the United States over the past three years, this walkout is over demands for better pay and restrictions on their employers’ use of technology to replace paid work.
The actors’ strike began on July 14, 2023, after their union, SAG-AFTRA, voted to end negotiations with the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers, which represents the major production studios. The main concerns of the union—which represents 160,000 actors and people in other creative professions—center around compensation on streaming platforms, such as Netflix and Amazon Prime, and artificial intelligence.
Screenwriters, who have been on strike since May 2, have similar concerns.
In 1965, executives made 15 times the average salary of their workers. By 2021 those top execs were earning 350 times more than the average worker—including actors.Screenwriters, who have been on strike since May 2, have similar concerns.
The two strikes have halted U.S. TV and movie production. Premieres are being canceled, and Emmy-nominated actors aren’t campaigning for those prestigious TV awards.

Charlton Heston (R) and then-Screen Actors Guild President Ronald Reagan shake hands with members of the Association of Motion Picture Producers after SAG ended its 1960 strike.
(Photo: Getty Images)
Ever since Louis Le Prince filmed the first movie, Roundhay Garden Scene, in 1888, actors have earned a living through their work being shown on screens small and large.
The first hit shows on TV aired in the mid-1940s, but actors initially earned far less from television than movies. Around 1960, with the advent of hits like Leave It to Beaver, Beverly Hillbillies, and Bonanza, TV became very profitable. TV’s growing prestige and economic heft gave television actors newfound power at the contract negotiating table.
Actors demanded that their craft be compensated for TV shows about as highly as for their film appearances. Led by future President Ronald Reagan and Charlton Heston—who went on to serve as a National Rifle Association president—the Screen Actors Guild went on strike on March 7, 1960. Among that union’s top demands: health care coverage and residuals for movies aired on television, reruns, and syndication.
Hwang Dong-hyuk, the creator of Squid Game, forfeited all residuals when he cut a deal with Netflix. It earned Netflix nearly US$1 billion, but Hwang got none of that bounty.
Residuals are a form of royalty paid to actors when movies and TV shows air on television after their initial run. That can include reruns, syndication, and the broadcasting of movies on television.
The actors union’s strike, which coincided then as today with a screenwriters strike, successfully negotiated a contract with executives that resolved the residuals conflict and secured health care coverage for its members.
That contract applied to broadcasting and, years later, cable TV.
But it doesn’t work for streaming, because streamed shows aren’t scheduled. Whereas Friends, a sitcom that initially aired on NBC, is available today on Max, formerly HBO Max, through syndication, and its actors receive relevant residuals, Orange Is the New Black originated on Netflix. Because it never runs on a different platform via syndication, the actors in its cast earn paltry residuals in comparison—even though viewers are still watching the show’s seven seasons.
Hwang Dong-hyuk, the creator of Squid Game, forfeited all residuals when he cut a deal with Netflix. It earned Netflix nearly US$1 billion, but Hwang got none of that bounty.
As I explained in my 2021 book, Streaming Culture, streaming has fundamentally changed the production and consumption of both TV and film while blurring the lines between them.
People consume different types of media through subscriptions and streaming technology than they do while watching broadcast TV and cable television. Actors and writers are concerned that their compensation hasn’t kept up with this transformation.
And the actors who are on strike argue that the formulas in place since 1960 to calculate residuals don’t work anymore.
In contrast, streaming residuals pay a flat rate for foreign and domestic streams.
Residuals paid for roles in broadcast TV shows are based on the popularity of those programs, with actors earning far more for hits like Grey’s Anatomy and NCIS than for duds. Hit shows can have a second life on streaming platforms and result in actors getting paid again for that earlier work.
In contrast, streaming residuals pay a flat rate for foreign and domestic streams. A streaming original film or TV show earns a set amount for residuals in its domestic market and second set amount for foreign markets. This fee doesn’t change based on popularity or the number of times a production is streamed.
But streaming has changed more than residuals for actors and writers. It has also transformed how TV shows are made.
Many TV seasons have grown shorter since streaming became the norm, falling from 20 or more episodes to 10 or fewer per season.
That’s because streamers started making shows with lower budgets, as it costs less to produce fewer episodes. The studios also cut costs by hiring fewer writers.
Since actors are typically paid per episode in which they perform, their salaries have dropped by virtue of having fewer appearances in even the most popular shows.
As gaps between seasons grow, some actors are having a harder and harder time making ends meet.
The gaps between seasons have also grown longer and more unpredictable. Every season of the nine-year run of Seinfeld on NBC began in the fall and ended the next spring, then picked up again the next fall.
Streaming shows are far less predictable.
Amazon Prime’s The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel paused for more than two years between seasons 3 and 4.
The same streamer aired the first season of Lord of the Rings: Power of the Rings, in September 2022, but Season 2 won’t be released until late 2024.
As gaps between seasons grow, some actors are having a harder and harder time making ends meet.
Another change has to do with the question of whether particular shows will keep going. In conventional broadcast or cable television, networks determine whether they will renew a show during the period known as “sweeps,” at the end of a TV season. Since streaming television has no defined seasons, these decisions can drag on.
This can leave actors and writers in limbo. And their contracts often stop them from working on other shows between seasons.

SAG-AFTRA President Fran Drescher joins Writers Guild members at a picket line outside of Warner Bros studio in Burbank, California, on July 14, 2023.
(Photo: Valerie Macon/AFP via Getty Images)
Although residuals and the number of episodes have until now been negotiable, perhaps the strike’s biggest issue is the studios’ use of artificial intelligence
Actors fear studios will use AI to replace actors in the future. Without a contract that says otherwise, once a studio films an actor, it can potentially use the actor’s likeness in perpetuity. This means a background actor could be shot for one episode of a TV show and continue to be seen in the background for seasons without pay.
That hasn’t happened yet, but many actors are certain it will.
As Drescher continually points out in her media appearances, 99% of actors are struggling on working-class incomes.
Actors object to the possibility that studios will seek to “own our likeness in perpetuity, including after we’re dead, use us in their movies without any consent, without any compensation to our performers, especially background performers,” said actor Shaan Sharma, best known for his role on The Chosen. “It’s inhumane. It is dystopian.”
Until now, actors and writers say, the studios have refused to negotiate over AI with actors or writers. But both unions see AI as a threat to their members’ livelihoods, a point SAG-AFTRA President Fran Drescher made on MSNBC.
As Drescher continually points out in her media appearances, 99% of actors are struggling on working-class incomes. Meanwhile, studio executives continue to increase their own pay. For example, in 2022, Netflix co-CEOs Reed Hastings and Ted Sarandos earned roughly $50 million each. Warner-Discovery CEO David Zaslav earned $39 million.
The gulf between what actors and top executives earn is a major difference between today’s actors and writer strikes and the 1960 strikes. In 1965, executives made 15 times the average salary of their workers. By 2021 those top execs were earning 350 times more than the average worker—including actors.
And while today’s biggest stars, like Pedro Pascal and Natasha Lyonne, earn millions for every performance, most actors struggle to make ends meet.
In Los Angeles, actors earn an average hourly wage of $27.73.
Meanwhile, studios are pulling in huge profits. For example, Netflix and Warner Bros. earned $5.2 billion and $2.7 billion in 2022, respectively.
As I explain in my new book, Digital Feudalism: Creators, Credit, Consumption, and Capitalism, striking actors and screenwriters are part of the wave of labor unrest in recent years. In my view, U.S. workers are rejecting a system that expects workers to buy more on credit while making a living with increasingly precarious jobs.
From Starbucks baristas to Amazon’s union organizers to the workers planning the pending UPS strike, more and more Americans are fighting for higher wages and more control over their schedules.
In fighting threats to their livelihoods, actors and screenwriters are the latest example of a national movement for stronger labor rights.
"I wonder how it feels to have a group of people challenge your pay and worth," said one labor leader sarcastically.
Television writers who have been on strike for a month applauded a vote at Netflix's annual shareholder meeting on Thursday in which the streaming company's investors rejected an executive pay package that critics said exemplified the greed of Hollywood CEOs and their unfair treatment of the workers behind their lucrative content.
A majority of the shareholders voted against a pay package for executives including co-CEOs Greg Peters and Ted Sarandos as well as Netflix co-founder and board chair Reed Hastings.
Under the proposed pay package, Sarandos would earn up to $40 million in base salary, a bonus, and stock options, while Peters would take home $34.6 million.
"I wonder how it feels to have a group of people challenge your pay and worth,"
tweeted labor leader Lindsay Dougherty sardonically. Dougherty is secretary-treasurer of Teamsters Local 399 and represents more than 6,000 TV and film workers.
Meredith Stiehm, president of the Western branch of the Writers Guild of America (WGA), noted in the union's letter to studio executives last week that the shareholders were also asked to give retroactive approval to the company's 2022 CEO pay package, which amounted to $166 million.
"While investors have long taken issue with Netflix's executive pay, the compensation structure is even more egregious against the backdrop of the strike," wrote Stiehm, noting that in contrast to the executives' annual pay, "the proposed improvements the WGA currently has on the table would cost Netflix an estimated $68 million per year."
Thursday's vote was non-binding, and could be overturned by the company's board of directors, but writer Jelena Woehr tweeted that shareholders' rejection of Netflix's pay structure could ultimately pressure TV studios to meet the demands of the WGA, including higher residual pay and better compensation for writers who are hired before a show has been given a greenlight for production.
The WGA West noted that executive pay packages rarely fail to get approval from shareholders.
"Shareholders should send a message to Comcast that if the company could afford to spend $130 million on executive compensation last year," she wrote, "it can afford to pay the estimated $34 million per year that writers are asking for in contract improvements and put an end to this disruptive strike."