A federal judge has quashed the Justice Department’s criminal probe into Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell’s Senate testimony regarding the central bank’s headquarters renovation, writing that the grand jury subpoenas were a “mere pretext” to pressure the Fed. “There is abundant evidence that the subpoenas’ dominant (if not sole) purpose is to harass and pressure Powell either to yield to the President or to resign and make way for a Fed Chair who will,” Chief U.S. District Judge James Boasberg wrote. “The Government has offered no evidence whatsoever that Powell committed any crime other than displeasing the President.” U.S. Attorney for D.C. Jeanine Pirro, whose office led the investigation, said in a press conference afterward that she would appeal the decision. She sharply criticized Boasberg, saying he “put himself at the entrance door to the grand jury, slamming that door shut, irrespective of the legal process, and thus preventing the grand jury from doing the work that it does.” “This process has been arbitrarily undermined by an activist judge,” she said. Pirro’s plan to appeal the decision could further delay the confirmation process of President Donald Trump’s pick to replace Powell, former Fed Gov. Kevin Warsh. Warsh’s nomination has been blocked by outgoing Sen. Thom Tillis until the investigation into Powell is resolved. The North Carolina Republican warned the administration on Friday afternoon against appealing the decision. “We all know how this is going to end, and the D.C. U.S. Attorney’s Office should save itself further embarrassment and move on,” Tillis posted on X. “Appealing the ruling will only delay the confirmation of Kevin Warsh as the next Fed Chair.” The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Trump has severely criticized Powell for more than a year for his reluctance to lower interest rates, with the president accusing him of holding back the economy. Powell has said the subpoenas were part of Trump’s pressure campaign to force him to cut borrowing costs. The investigation into Powell’s testimony on the status of a costly renovation of the central bank’s headquarters kicked off a firestorm that threatens Trump’s aims to stack the Fed board with appointees who share his views on lowering short-term borrowing costs. Powell’s term as chair expires in May, and Pirro’s vow to appeal the decision could prolong a legal clash that will keep the Fed’s future leadership up in the air. Tillis, who has vowed to block any Fed picks until the Powell probe is publicly dropped, sits on the Senate Banking Committee, which has jurisdiction over Fed nominations. Republicans have a 13-11 majority on the committee, meaning that Tillis’s vote is needed to advance any nominee to the Senate floor if every Banking Committee Democrat votes against them. In a hearing before the committee last June, the panel’s chair, Tim Scott (R-SC), asked Powell about the status of the Fed’s renovations after a New York Post article characterized them as akin to the “Palace of Versailles.” Powell told senators that “there’s no new marble. There are no special elevators. There are no new water features. There’s no beehives, and there’s no roof terrace gardens.” That caught the eye of Federal Housing Finance Agency Director Bill Pulte, who urged lawmakers to look into the matter, and the White House launched its own probe into the project last summer. Several Senate Banking Republicans — including Scott — have said they do not believe Powell committed a crime with his testimony. Sen. Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyo.), a Powell critic, said in a statement that the Fed chief “was wildly underprepared for his testimony, but, as I have said before, I’m not sure it rose to the criminal level.” Wall Street executives and top lawmakers have repeatedly cautioned Trump against actions that might undermine the central bank’s ability to independently set interest rates, which bolsters its credibility and is viewed as a stabilizing force for global markets. Trump has also tried to fire Fed Gov. Lisa Cook over unsubstantiated allegations of mortgage fraud — her fate will be determined by the Supreme Court — and the president has flirted numerous times with attempting to dismiss Powell. In January, Powell posted an extraordinary two-minute video to the central bank’s website claiming that the DOJ’s subpoenas represented a politically motivated attempt to pressure the central bank into lowering interest rates. The threat of criminal charges was a “consequence of the Federal Reserve setting interest rates based on our best assessment of what will serve the public, rather than following the preferences of the president,” he said. The move was unusual because Powell has steadfastly refused to respond to Trump’s blizzard of insults since he returned to the White House. The president has publicly questioned Powell’s intelligence and competence, and has said his monetary policy decisions are driven by politics. In her combative press conference, Pirro called the judge’s decision on Friday “outrageous.” She cited a Supreme Court precedent that grand juries can investigate mere rumors. And she dismissed suggestions that she should look skeptically at allegations that may be politically motivated. “I’ll take a case from the devil if you can give me information that will lead me to possibly find a crime,” she said. “It doesn’t matter where the case comes from.” While Pirro suggested it is exceptional for a judge to block a grand jury subpoena, federal court rules allow them to do so if they believe a subpoena is “unreasonable or oppressive.” In his ruling, issued Wednesday and unsealed on Friday, Boasberg noted that numerous court precedents authorize judges to quash a subpoena when its “sole or dominant” purpose is improper. Boasberg, an appointee of President Barack Obama, conceded that the subpoenas issued to the Fed were relevant to a criminal investigation. But he said their obvious connection to attempts to exert unlawful pressure on Powell and other members of the Fed’s Board of Governors rendered the subpoenas unenforceable. “The President spent years essentially asking if no one will rid him of this troublesome Fed Chair. He then suggested a specific line of investigation into him,” the judge wrote. “The President’s appointed prosecutor promptly complied.” Boasberg’s rejection of the subpoenas to the Fed is just the latest clash between the chief judge of the federal district court in the capital and the Trump administration. The judge’s earlier rulings in a dispute over Trump’s drive to rapidly deport alleged gang members under a two-century-old wartime authority led Trump to call for Boasberg’s impeachment. Some House members embarked on that effort last year, but it has not progressed. Pirro said that in addition to an appeal, which would go to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, prosecutors intend to ask Boasberg to reconsider his ruling because it included some inaccurate dates. That could delay any appeal because judges typically cannot alter rulings while they are under appeal.

Top military officials warned the Pentagon unsuccessfully last year not to gut oversight offices that limit risk to civilian casualties and investigate responsibility for their deaths, such as the recent strike on an Iranian girls’ school that killed hundreds of children. Then-Central Command chief Erik Kurilla and Joint Chiefs Chair Gen. C.Q. Brown pushed Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth not to slash the Civilian Protection Center of Excellence and other similar initiatives at American command posts, according to Wes Bryant, the Pentagon’s former chief of civilian harm assessments and two other people familiar with the matter. Opponents of the move, which also included Adm. Christopher Grady — the former vice chair of the Joint Chiefs — argued that the staff were critical to preventing risks to civilian populations before U.S. strikes and to probing deadly Pentagon attacks, according to the people, and would ultimately save resources for military operations. Hegseth instead chose to reduce the number of employees working on the issue from 200 to less than 40. The high level of opposition to the cuts, which has not been previously reported, hints at the tension between top military officials and their civilian leader over the rules of engagement in combat, which the Pentagon chief has called “stupid.” It also comes as preliminary reports suggest the U.S. may have accidentally targeted the elementary school, which killed more than 170 students and is the largest U.S.-led killing of civilians in decades. “As it turns out, when you kill less civilians, you tend to be putting your resources toward killing the enemy,” said Bryant, who served in the Biden and Trump administrations. “When they spend weeks or longer tracking some guy and then finally killing him, and then realize he’s just an aid worker, look at all those resources they spent, all that time, the funding, wasted munitions too, and assets wasted on the wrong person.” The revelation of previous backlash also follows Hegseth’s announcement this week that he would further cut the lawyers who advise commanders of an operation’s legality, known as judge advocate generals. He already fired many of those Army, Navy, and Air Force lawyers in the first days of the administration. The decision to dismantle the civilian casualty offices could intensify criticism as more details emerge about the school struck next to an Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps base in the opening hours of the U.S.-Israeli operation. Democrats have used the incident to call for Hegseth’s resignation. Kurilla, who later became one of the Pentagon’s point people for U.S. military strikes against Iran’s nuclear program in June 2025, sent a classified memo up the Defense Department’s chain of command opposing the cuts, according to one of the people. The person, like others interviewed, was granted anonymity out of fear of retribution. But the Pentagon center and similar offices at the combatant commands were slashed by more than 90 percent, according to a current and former official, and a person familiar with the effort. Central Command’s branch that examines potential civilian harm was slashed from 10 people to just one. Joint Special Operations Command, which oversees the ongoing attacks against alleged drug runners off the Venezuelan coast, had its civilian harm office eliminated entirely. The special operations command, which was then led by Vice Adm. Frank Bradley, also pushed back on the cuts, according to the people. U.S. Central Command declined to comment. U.S. Special Operations Command, which Bradley leads, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff did not respond to requests for comment. The Defense Department’s civilian harm offices are “undergoing a strategic reassessment to inform its future reorganization” the Pentagon said in a statement, with the aim of integrating the functions directly into the combatant commands. “The department continues to recognize the importance of civilian harm mitigation and remains confident in our military’s ability to strike with precision while minimizing civilian casualties.” Brown, who was fired by Hegseth in February 2025, said he had “nothing to provide” and added that the decision was made after his ouster. Kurilla did not respond to requests for comment. Grady could not be reached for comment. The renewed attention to the gutted offices comes as the conflict nears its third week with no clear end date. Hegseth said Friday at a press conference that the new Iranian leader, Mojtaba Khamenei, is “wounded and likely disfigured” and portrayed the war as largely contained. Iran’s effort to block the Strait of Hormuz, through which about a fifth of the world’s oil flows through, was “something we are dealing with” Hegseth said. “No quarter, no mercy for our enemies.” The Pentagon continues to build up forces in the Middle East and is moving additional Marines and warships to the region, according to a defense official. They should arrive in the coming days from the Pacific. The Wall Street Journal first reported the deployment. Hegseth’s comments followed the death of six American service members whose refueling plane collided with another aircraft in western Iraq. At least 13 U.S. troops have died in the war and according to Iran’s ambassador to the United Nations, Amir Saeid Iravani, more than a thousand Iranians. Tensions within the Pentagon over the gutted offices are likely to continue. “I do know that there are people, not a small amount of people inside the Pentagon itself, that are behind [civilian harm mitigation and response],” said Bryant, the former official. “It said ‘civilian protection,’ and that’s woke,” Bryant said, referencing Hegseth’s efforts to root out diversity and equity programs he believes undermines the military’s core missions. “Ultimately, it was going to be cut.”

The Trump administration believes it can withstand a brief spike in oil prices — for as many as four weeks, as one person close to the White House suggested — before the political hit does lasting damage. Administration officials’ confidence was bolstered Tuesday when oil dropped to $80 per barrel, down from $120 this weekend, reinforcing their view that the spikes are temporary and manageable. They have three to four weeks “where they can ride out what they need to” before oil prices become a more durable political problem, said the person close to the White House, who like others in this story was granted anonymity to share details of private conversations. “Assuming the economy continues to turn around once the active part of the war is concluded, you’ll have the whole summer from May through August to ride the turnaround,” the person said. A former Trump administration official added that the administration needs a “consistent, multi-week read” of oil prices before it shifts its approach. “These temporary little gyrations are not what they’re going to be basing their policy on,” the official said. Those two people, as well as a current U.S. official, said the administration never seriously considered altering its military strategy in the face of oil price hikes. Still, the administration was caught off guard by the speed and severity of the Sunday spike, a fourth person close to the White House said. “At the worst moments [Sunday] night, it was insane,” the fourth person said. “That definitely surprised me, and it absolutely surprised them.” Instead of changing course, the administration spent much of Monday trying to soothe spooked traders worried about the disruptive impact of a prolonged war on oil supply chains. Officials also tried to allay the fears of uneasy Republicans, who see the Iran war as counter to the affordability message they believe the GOP should be pushing as it battles to retain control of Congress in the midterms. More than 7 in 10 voters said they are very concerned or somewhat concerned that the war will cause oil and gas prices to rise in the United States, according to a recent Quinnipiac Poll. White House spokesperson Taylor Rodgers said that Trump has made it clear that increased oil and gas prices are “short-term disruptions.” “Ultimately, once the military objectives are completed and the Iranian terrorist regime is neutralized, oil and gas prices will drop rapidly again, potentially even lower than before the strikes begin,” Rogers said. “As a result, American families will benefit greatly in the long-term.” In the meantime, the White House is taking steps to address oil prices, such as considering lifting sanctions on Russian oil, and continuing to telegraph that the war will be a short one. “I get a sense of concern from the administration, but not panic,” said another U.S. official, familiar with energy issues. “It’s more a curiosity — ‘Why is this happening? Aren’t there ways to counteract this? Aren’t there quick fixes to deal with this?’” Still, it’s not clear that oil prices will immediately return to their prewar levels. When it comes to oil prices, there’s the market psychology and there’s reality, including how long it takes Gulf countries to restart production if problems in the Strait of Hormuz force them to shutter operations, said Ilan Goldenberg, a former Biden administration official who dealt with the Middle East. “I have very little confidence in this White House, given how little they planned for the outcome of this war, that they have mapped out all the second- and third- order effects to oil supplies and the oil markets,” Goldenberg said. U.S. intelligence has also started to see signs that Iran is preparing to deploy mines in the Strait of Hormuz, according to CBS News, which could further complicate a return to normal oil production post-war. Trump said Tuesday he has seen no official reports that Iran is doing that. While temporary spikes in oil prices aren’t making the White House balk publicly, it is grappling with a host of other pain points. The public remains skeptical about the war and uncertain about its goals, and support is likely to erode if service member casualties increase. Seven service members have died since the start of the war a little more than a week ago. That includes six Americans who were killed after an Iranian drone strike in Kuwait and a seventh who died from injuries sustained when Iran struck a Saudi military base where U.S. troops were stationed. The Pentagon said Tuesday that about 140 U.S. service members have been injured since the war started. “This war is already unpopular with the American public, but it can get even more so,” a former administration official said. “A mass casualty event, either on the battlefield or from a terror attack here at home, is a real risk. If that were to occur, coinciding with a spike in oil prices and the inflationary implications of shipping lanes being shut down, it could set off a much wider panic both on Wall Street and on Main Street. One thing that doesn’t appear to be driving White House decisionmaking on Iran: outcry over civilian casualties. The U.S. is investigating who is responsible for a Tomahawk missile that hit an Iranian elementary school, killing 175 people, many of them children. “No nation takes more precautions to ensure there’s never targeting of civilians than the United States of America,” Hegseth said during a press conference Tuesday morning. “We take things very very seriously and investigate them thoroughly.” The U.S., meanwhile, is facing pressure from its Middle East allies to soon bring the war to a close. A person familiar with Saudi Arabia’s discussions on Iran said that the Saudis want the war to end and they “are telling the U.S. to make sure the Iranian infrastructure of oil is not hit so Iranians don’t become desperate. They have to give the Iranians an off-ramp.” If the war does drag on, however, there may be little the administration can substantively do to undo the economic damage caused by spiked oil prices. “One good thing that Trump did say was, ‘We’re a strong economy. Look, a short term spike in energy prices isn’t something to panic about.’ And, yeah, I think that’s exactly right … If somehow there’s some kind of real settlement and things go back to normal, prices will gradually go down,’” said a former Treasury official. But if it doesn’t, “there’s no magic button that’s going to address high energy prices.” Eli Stokols and Jack Detsch contributed to this report.

Russian President Vladimir Putin entered the new year facing a painful choice — limit his so-called special military operation in Ukraine or risk serious damage to his economy. Almost overnight, U.S. President Donald Trump handed him the solution. U.S.-Israeli strikes on Iran have sent oil prices soaring, boosting the Kremlin’s main source of revenue and making it easier for Putin to sustain his war effort. After Israel bombed Iranian oil facilities this weekend, benchmark crude prices soared to above $100 per barrel, hitting their highest mark since the summer of 2022, when markets spiked following Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine. For Russia, the surge in oil prices amounts to an economic windfall at a crucial moment, as the cost of four years of war in Ukraine threatened to spill over into a domestic economic crisis. The assault on Iran may undermine Moscow’s claim to stand by its allies, but it is already benefiting Russia’s economy and, by extension, its war against Ukraine — leaving the Kremlin well placed to emerge as one of the main beneficiaries of the expanding conflict in the Middle East. ECONOMIC TURNAROUND Only several weeks ago, the mood among Russia’s economic elite was grim. The Russian finance ministry’s budget plan for this year assumed a baseline benchmark of $59 per barrel of Urals crude, the country’s main export blend. But in January, energy revenues plunged to their lowest level since 2020, compounding a disappointing tax haul. As Western sanctions, high interest rates and labor shortages strained the economy, tension between the finance ministry and the central bank on how to mitigate the damage became increasingly visible. “It was far from a collapse,” said Sergey Vakulenko, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center. “But the government was facing tough choices, had to cut its spending and raise taxes and even consider some reduction in military expenditure.” Stopping the war in Ukraine was never on the table, Vakulenko added, but it was becoming clear that even on that front, Russia would have to “economize a bit.” Then Israel and the U.S. attacked Iran. As Tehran retaliated and the conflict spilled over into a regional war, shipping through the Strait of Hormuz has stalled, sending oil prices soaring. “Suddenly, Moscow received this gift,” said Vladimir Milov, a former deputy energy minister turned Kremlin critic in exile. “They had their lifeline.” These days, he said, Russian officials are “very, very happy.” ‘STRATEGIC MISTAKE’ Instead of selling at a discount because of Western sanctions, Russian crude may now fetch premium prices as its main buyers — India and China — scramble to secure supplies. What’s more, they’ll have Washington’s blessing.  Last Friday, the U.S. Treasury issued a 30-day waiver allowing India to buy Russian crude to “enable oil to keep flowing into the global market.” A day later, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said the United States could “unsanction other Russian oil,” a sharp reversal from last year’s policy of penalizing countries for buying Russian energy. Unsurprisingly, the Kremlin is using the moment to maximum advantage.  “Russia was and continues to be a reliable supplier of both oil and gas,” Putin’s spokesperson Dmitry Peskov told reporters on Friday in what sounded like a sales pitch, adding that demand for Russian energy products had increased. Meanwhile, Kremlin aide Kirill Dmitriev gloated in a series of posts on X that “the oil shock tsunami is just beginning,” criticizing Europe’s decision to cut itself off from Russian energy as “a strategic mistake.”  On Monday, pro-Kremlin commentators circulated a Wall Street Journal article predicting oil prices could skyrocket to $215. LONG GAME Energy experts warn it is too soon for Moscow to claim victory. Whether the Iran crisis proves a cure for Russia’s economy depends directly on how long it lasts. Milov, the former deputy energy minister, said that, to make a meaningful difference for the economy, Russia would need oil prices to remain at current levels for roughly a year. “One or two months of high prices would certainly help, but it won’t save it,” he said. A brief spike in prices will only “help to postpone the difficult decisions,” added Vakulenko, the analyst at the Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center.  There’s another reason why Moscow will be hoping the war drags on: With every day of fighting, the U.S. is depleting the weapon stocks Ukraine is relying upon to defend itself.  According to media reports, Russia has been providing Iran with intelligence to help it target U.S. warships and aircraft.  The assassination of Iran’s leader Ali Khamenei in a U.S.-Israeli airstrike may have dealt a blow to Russia’s promise to defend its allies, but Putin may ultimately decide it was a price worth paying.

LOS ANGELES — After a year watching Donald Trump muscle his way into Hollywood — getting late-night hosts suspended, bullying news programs into settlements, threatening TV networks — entertainment executives and Democratic politicians say his intervention in the Warner Bros. Discovery sale may have gone too far. It also may be a reason Paramount Skydance reached a deal to acquire the company for more than $110 billion after Netflix backed out of the bidding war Thursday afternoon. The sale to Paramount, whose CEO David Ellison has cultivated ties with Trump, will reset the Hollywood ecosystem and throws into question the fate of Warner Bros.-owned CNN, which Trump has said should be sold. Within hours of the agreement, some industry executives and Democratic lawmakers here said they worry that Trump’s pressure campaign — he demanded last weekend that Netflix fire former Democratic national security adviser Susan Rice from its board or “pay the consequences” — could reshape how political power is wielded over the entertainment industry. “Unequivocally, yes, it will set a bad precedent for Hollywood,” Assemblymember Nick Schultz, a Burbank Democrat, told POLITICO. “I don’t have a bone to pick with Paramount per se — my concern remains the influence of the Trump administration.” Hollywood had recoiled after Trump’s ultimatum that Rice be fired ratcheted up pressure on Netflix. There was a sense, though, that the industry could do little about it. Netflix co-CEO Ted Sarandos, who had previously dismissed Trump’s demand, saying the Warner Bros. transaction was not “political,” met with officials at the White House and U.S. Department of Justice on Thursday to seek assurances that his company’s prospective acquisition would get a fair review from regulators, POLITICO reported. Hours later, though, Sarandos couched Netflix’s decision to end its pursuit of Warner Bros. in purely economic terms, saying in a statement that the prospective transaction “was always a ‘nice to have’ at the right price, not a ‘must have’ at any price.” “We’ve always been disciplined, and at the price required to match Paramount Skydance’s latest offer, the deal is no longer financially attractive,” he said. In fact, some in the entertainment industry saw money as a bigger motivator than Trump. Netflix had reached an agreement with Warner Bros. to acquire its studio and streaming assets for $82.7 billion in December. But Paramount made a hostile bid that month and upped its offer multiple times, culminating in an offer this week that Warner Bros.’ board determined Thursday was a superior proposal. The deal, which requires regulatory approval, includes backing from billionaire Oracle founder Larry Ellison, the father of the Paramount CEO and a friend of Trump. But the president’s threat over Rice was viewed by many here as helping Paramount, with Trump’s involvement taking on a new dimension by targeting not just programming choices, but questions of corporate structure once largely insulated from political influence. “It’s horrifying that any president would put his finger on the scale for one company over another,” said producer Bill Gerber, a former worldwide president of theatrical production at Warner Bros. whose company has a first-look deal at the studio. Paramount and Warner Bros. did not respond to interview requests. The sale of Warner Bros., a Hollywood crown jewel known for films such as “Casablanca” and TV series including “Friends,” has for months been a source of tension in Washington and the entertainment industry. Republican attorneys general from 11 states urged U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi this week to examine Netflix’s proposed acquisition, arguing it could lead to “undue market concentration that stifles competition,” while California Attorney General Rob Bonta, a Democrat, had already begun reviewing the deal. Bonta on Thursday night said that the proposed Warner Bros. sale is “not a done deal,” and that his office would continue its probe of the transaction. “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,” he wrote on X. Meanwhile, lawmakers and industry figures alike worry that Paramount’s acquisition could trigger deep layoffs. Schultz, whose district includes the Warner Bros. lot, said that there is “a lot of angst in our community” over the sale. “It creates a lot of uncertainty among our residents,” he said. “I want to ensure that … we’re going to have jobs staying in our community, that we’re going to see vibrant and consistent production on our studio lot.” Warner Bros. shareholders are scheduled to vote on the sale on March 20. Paramount began seeking regulatory approval late last year — despite the absence of an agreement with Warner Bros. — an aggressive move that telegraphed confidence in ultimately clearing the process. Rep. Laura Friedman, whose Burbank district also is home to Warner Bros., said in a statement to POLITICO that the “government’s antitrust decisions must be based solely on what is best for hardworking Americans, consumers, and competition.” “We must investigate every instance where there is evidence that Trump meddled or wielded improper influence over what should be neutral regulatory processes,” she said. When David Ellison’s Skydance Media struck a deal to buy Paramount last year for about $8 billion, regulatory approval of the transaction became mired in controversy. The Federal Communications Commission signed off after Paramount agreed to pay $16 million to settle a lawsuit brought by Trump against its CBS News division over a “60 Minutes” interview with Kamala Harris. Afterward, Reps. Frank Pallone Jr. (D-N.J.) and Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) opened an investigation, warning Ellison that the settlement raised “significant concerns” that Trump had demanded — and Paramount had paid — “an illegal bribe” in exchange for FCC approval. Paramount has denied the allegation, and the FCC has defended its decision. As for Paramount’s control of Warner Bros., the president has made at least one significant preference clear, saying in December that it was “imperative” that CNN be sold as part of a deal. That followed a Wall Street Journal report that said Ellison promised Trump he’d make “sweeping changes” to the network, which has long been targeted by the president. The Paramount CEO has been a frequent visitor to Washington in recent weeks, meeting with Trump at the White House in early February and attending the State of the Union address as a guest of Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) on Tuesday. Netflix had, conversely, already come in for heavy scrutiny — from Trump’s Republican allies on the Hill. When Sarandos testified before the Senate Judiciary subcommittee overseeing antitrust earlier this month, lawmakers from both parties raised concerns about consolidation and competition. But Republicans also pressed Sarandos on culture-war issues, grilling him about “woke” content on the company’s streaming service. The White House and the Justice Department did not respond to requests for comment. A representative of Rice, a former Biden administration official who also served in the Clinton and Obama administrations, also did not respond to a request for comment. The sale of Warner Bros. to Paramount would have profound implications for the entertainment industry. Paramount, whose namesake streaming service is smaller than several of its competitors, would be infused with a trove of content, said Laura Martin, a longtime entertainment and media industry analyst with Needham & Co., making it “a really viable competitor” to Netflix and Disney+. But a sale of Warner Bros. to Paramount could result in “many near-term layoffs,” Martin said, as the enlarged studio would need to pare down debt associated with the transaction. “Paramount … is going to stretch financially to buy Warner Bros., so if they succeed, they’re going to have to cut a lot of costs from the combined company.” Gerber called the sale “unfortunate,” saying it comes as Warner Bros. Discovery CEO David Zaslav and the studio’s leadership team had begun restoring a culture at the company in which “artists felt looked after, cared about, and supported — where there were decades-long relationships, and movies were about quality, not just exploiting the IP that you own.” It’s working: reporting earnings on Thursday, the company touted a run of nine straight films debuting at No. 1. Gerber, producer of “A Star Is Born” and “Gran Torino,” among other movies, said he’s hopeful that Paramount would preserve that sensibility. Even before the agreement was announced, Wall Street investors on Thursday boosted shares of the company more than 10 percent. Brock Hrehor contributed to this report.

America’s ambassadors in Europe are targeting just one person with their charm offensive: President Donald Trump. Everyone else — including key U.S. allies — can expect little charm and plenty of offense.  The American president’s friends, fellow real estate developers and political donors who have been awarded EU ambassadorships during Trump’s second term are ruffling feathers in their host capitals.  Their coarser style of diplomacy — America’s answer to China’s wolf warriors, who also relished defying convention and skewering their hosts — is not a bug in the system. It is the new system.  For Trump’s envoys, “the target audience is always one person. One person only,” said Eric Rubin, the former head of the American Foreign Service Association who served as ambassador to Bulgaria during Trump’s first term. The feelings of their hosts are incidental to the key tasks: courting Trump’s attention and approval — and shifting the center of European politics sharply toward the right.  The two most conspicuous envoys riling European governments are Charles Kushner in Paris and Tom Rose in Warsaw. When Charles Kushner decried French antisemitism in a letter to President Emmanuel Macron, he didn’t send it to the Élysée Palace but wrote it in the Wall Street Journal. | Julien De Rosa/AFP via Getty Images Rose tagged Trump twice in a post announcing he was severing ties to the speaker of Poland’s parliament, Włodzimierz Czarzasty, over “outrageous and unprovoked insults.” Czarzasty had said that Trump did not deserve to win a Nobel Peace Prize.  When Kushner, the ambassador to Paris who is father-in-law to Trump’s eldest daughter, decried French antisemitism in a letter to President Emmanuel Macron, he didn’t send it to the Élysée Palace, nor to Le Monde. He wrote it in the Wall Street Journal.   Last week the relationship soured further after the U.S. embassy in Paris offered pointed political commentary during the aftermath of the killing of a far-right activist. Kushner further angered the French by ignoring a summons to the foreign ministry, before a “frank and amicable” phone call smoothed things over, according to the U.S. mission in Paris on Monday.   U.S. Ambassador to Belgium Bill White, who describes the president as a friend, set three Trump-friendly priorities for embassy staff for 2026, according to two people with knowledge of the internal dynamics at the mission. Like others in this article, they were granted anonymity to protect their jobs or relationships.  Fully in line with Trump’s emphasis in his State of the Union address on commemorating the 1776 declaration of independence, White insisted on big parties to to celebrate America’s 250th anniversary. He also hosted a February screening for a film about first lady Melania Trump and has prioritized media appearances that will keep him on the president’s radar. Similarly keen to keep a high profile on the channels Trump favors, NATO Ambassador Matthew Whitaker, widely viewed as one of Trump’s least abrasive ambassadors in Europe, prefers to appear on Fox News and Newsmax above other media. Visitors to the residence of the U.S. ambassador to Luxembourg Stacey Feinberg, who was a close friend of the slain rightwing activist Charlie Kirk, will find red MAGA hats adorning the furniture, according to photos shared with POLITICO.   Multiple U.S. embassies in Europe and the State Department either declined to comment for this article or did not respond. UNDIPLOMATIC CORPS U.S. diplomats stepping on European toes is nothing new. During Trump’s first term ambassadors Richard Grenell in Berlin and Gordon Sondland in Brussels kicked hard against diplomatic norms. While Joe Biden’s man in Hungary David Pressman repeatedly criticized the government of Viktor Orbán. Nor is it unusual for the U.S. to hand plum European posts to big donors and other political appointees, rather than career diplomats. But State Department officials, former and current, complain these latest breaches of diplomatic behavior go a step further and undermine American interests and relationships nurtured for over two centuries.  “If you refuse to go to a meeting when summoned so you can work on improving the relationship, why are you even there? It’s childish, it’s embarrassing, and it drops any pretense you’re there to help your country,” one U.S. diplomat said.   “I mean, frankly, it’s rude,” a former senior State Department official added.  In the past, policy decisions and public statements would be carefully calibrated and run through multiple departments via the National Security Council and the huge State Department bureaucracy.   That process has largely been replaced by freelancing ambassadors communicating with a small group of political appointees in the White House, said Rubin.   “This is the first time in certainly our history, but probably in modern history, where a big power is attempting to conduct diplomacy without diplomats and without experts and without analysts,” he said.  The marching orders for every flashpoint involving U.S. ambassadors can be found in the lines of the National Security Strategy, published in December. It set American diplomats the task of “cultivating resistance” to the path set by Europe’s current set of leaders and celebrated the rise of “patriotic” far right parties, seen as aligned with Trump’s MAGA movement.  It takes two to have a diplomatic fight, however, and not all European countries have taken the bait.  U.S. ambassador to the U.K. Warren Stephens has “key themes he is keen to speak on” including energy and free speech, according to one U.S. official, and is “not afraid to speak his mind.” He voiced many of those during a dinner speech while standing within arms reach of British Deputy Prime Minister David Lammy in November. These interventions have raised eyebrows inside the British establishment, but so far the U.K. government has soaked up the punches.  In Greece too, Kimberly Guilfoyle the former fiancée of Trump’s son Donald Jr., has charmed and bemused in equal measure. Despite goading the Greeks over the sale of the port of Piraeus to China, her relations with her hosts in Athens are, in her telling, exceptionally rosy.   “We see each other probably three or four times a week,” she said of Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis during an event last week. The same went for multiple government ministers, she added. “They always take the call. It doesn’t matter if it’s the weekend, they will come over if we meet at my house, they show up.”  Esther Webber contributed reporting from London, Nektaria Stamouli from Athens and Victor Jack from Brussels.

OTTAWA — Canada’s Artificial Intelligence Minister Evan Solomon said Monday he has summoned senior staff at OpenAI to discuss “safety protocols” after the tech company decided against reporting a Canadian ChatGPT user who police say went on to kill eight people in a school shooting. Solomon said he will meet with OpenAI’s senior safety team on Tuesday in Ottawa after speaking with them over the phone on Sunday. “We will have a sit-down meeting to have an explanation of their safety protocols and when they escalate and their thresholds of escalation to police, so we have a better understanding of what’s happening and what they do,” Solomon told reporters. OpenAI had banned the account of Jesse Van Rootselaar seven months before police said the 18-year-old killed eight people, including five children, in Tumbler Ridge, B.C. on Feb. 10. The Wall Street Journal first reported that Van Rootselaar’s ChatGPT account was internally flagged after some employees interpreted her writings as “an indication of potential real-world violence,” and urged company leaders to alert Canadian police. An OpenAI spokesperson told The Wall Street Journal that at the time of the banning, Van Rootselaar’s account activity didn’t meet the company’s criteria for reporting to authorities. The company reached out to police after they learned of the shooting, she said. “Those reports were deeply disturbing, reports saying that OpenAI did not contact law enforcement in a timely manner,” Solomon said. OpenAI did not immediately respond to POLITICO’s request for comment, and it was not immediately clear who from the company will meet with Solomon. But it appears the company agreed to meet with Canadian officials because neither members of Mark Carney’s government, nor Parliament, can summon a person who lives outside of Canada. However, it can enforce the summons if they ever set foot in the country, a move that would be considered extremely rare. Canada’s Justice Minister Sean Fraser, Public Safety Minister Gary Anandasangaree and Culture Minister Marc Miller are also involved in the investigation. Solomon wouldn’t say how far the Canadian government is willing to regulate AI chatbots or if this incident reshapes their online harms strategy. “I’m not going to pre-judge. The details of this case, obviously I can’t get into, but I will say this … we are making sure that all options are on the table to make sure that Canadians are kept safe,” Solomon said. Canada’s Liberal government has promised an online harms bill for five years, but has struggled to strike the right balance between protecting children online while preserving online speech. Two iterations of the bill failed to pass through Parliament under then-Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.

European Central Bank President Christine Lagarde has urged EU governments to rely on “coalitions of the willing” to push through long-stalled economic reforms, arguing the bloc doesn’t need all 27 countries on board to move forward. In an interview with the Wall Street Journal published Saturday, Lagarde pointed to the 21-country eurozone as proof that deeper integration can work without full unanimity of the EU member states. “We do not have the 27 around the table, and yet it works,” she said. Lagarde’s remarks come as EU leaders debate how to complete the bloc’s long-stalled capital markets union. The project, now dubbed the “Savings and Investments Union,” is intended to deepen cross-border financial markets and mobilize private savings. Frustration over slow progress has led several large EU member states, including France, Germany, Italy and Spain, to back a two-speed approach that would allow smaller groups of countries to integrate more quickly. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen has said the EU could consider “enhanced cooperation” if unanimity cannot be reached. Lagarde, whose term as ECB president runs until October 2027 and who has faced speculation about a possible early departure, said Europe should focus on delivering concrete reforms. In a sign of growing impatience, Lagarde earlier this month sent EU leaders a five-point checklist of “urgently needed” measures under the subject line “time for action,” outlining measures on capital markets integration, corporate harmonization and research coordination. Even partial implementation of those measures would significantly boost Europe’s growth potential, she told the Wall Street Journal.

La notizia della bocciatura da parte della Corte Suprema dei dazi voluti dal presidente americano Donald Trump non ha lasciato indifferenti i mercati. Negli Stati Uniti, Wall Street avanza dopo la decisione della Corte Suprema. Il Dow Jones cresce dello 0,33% a 49.559,62 punti, il Nasdaq sale dello 0,57% a 22.808,38 punti, mentre lo S&P 500 mette a segno un progresso dello 0,44% a 6.891,09 punti. Anche le Borse europee hanno reagito positivamente alla bocciatura: Milano sale dell’1,5%, Parigi segna +1%, Madrid e Francoforte +0,5%, Londra +0,7%. Sul fronte valutario l’euro è stabile a 1,1776 sul dollaro. Restano poco mossi i rendimenti dei titoli di Stato. Lo spread tra Btp e Bund è stabile a 60 punti base. Il comparto azionario del lusso (+3,5%) sale con Moncler (+13%), che risente anche dell’effetto positivo dei conti, Christian Dior (+4,4%), Lvmh (+4,3%), Burberry (+4,2%). Acquisti anche per il settore dell’auto (+0,9%) dove si mettono in mostra Stellantis (+2,5%), Porsche (+2,2%), Renault (+1,8%) e Mercedes (+1,3%). Seduta in miglioramento anche per il comparto tecnologico (+1%) e per gli industriali (+0,8%). L'articolo Le Borse Usa e Ue sorridono dopo la bocciatura dei dazi di Trump da parte della Corte Suprema proviene da Il Fatto Quotidiano.

Christine Lagarde said her “baseline” is that she will stay at the European Central Bank until her term as president ends in October 2027. “I think that we have accomplished a lot, that I have accomplished a lot,” she said in an interview with The Wall Street Journal, published on Friday. “We need to consolidate and make sure that this is really solid and reliable. So my baseline is that it will take until the end of my term.” Her comments come two days after a report in the FT, sourced to a single person “familiar with her thinking,” suggested the opposite. The article triggered controversy, implying that the appointment of the next ECB president could be moved up to deny a possible far-right president in France any say in the matter. President Emmanuel Macron is due to step down in April next year. Lagarde played down suggestions she would be complicit in undermining the independence of the ECB from political influence by going along with any such plan. “The ECB is a very respected and credible institution, and I hope that I’ve participated in that,” she said. Lagarde’s comments to The Wall Street Journal are the latest in a series of carefully caveated statements about her future that have generally left her some wiggle room. She confirmed that she is already thinking about her next move, telling the paper that “one of the many options” she is looking at is to take over running the World Economic Forum. The WEF’s founder Klaus Schwab said last year he had discussed the possibility of her leaving the Bank early to succeed him in Davos.