Trump Ally Just Took Over CNN And Nobody At the Network Is Happy
NN officially has a new corporate owner after David Ellison’s Paramount Skydance completed its blockbuster takeover of Warner Bros. Discovery on Tuesday, placing the cable news network under the same corporate roof as CBS News.
The roughly $110 billion transaction, including debt, creates a sprawling entertainment company encompassing CNN, CBS, HBO, Paramount Pictures, Warner Bros., Paramount+, HBO Max and some of Hollywood’s best-known film and television franchises.
The combined company will operate under the Skydance name, with Ellison serving as chairman and CEO alongside co-CEO Ynon Kreiz, the former head of Mattel. Shares of the new company began trading Tuesday on the New York Stock Exchange under the ticker “SKYD.”
The transaction gives Ellison control of CNN, one of President Donald Trump’s most frequent media targets. Ellison’s father, billionair Oracle co-founder Larry Ellison, provided significant financial backing for his son’s rapid expansion into the media industry.
The elder Ellison has also maintained a relationship with Trump and supported Republican political causes, a connection that has generated considerable political attention as the family has expanded its media holdings.
David Ellison previously acquired Paramount through an $8 billion deal completed in 2025 before turning his attention to Warner Bros. Discovery. Paramount eventually prevailed in a bidding battle for Warner after the company had initially reached an agreement with Netflix.
The Warner acquisition dramatically expands Ellison’s influence. Skydance now controls both CNN and CBS News, as well as the Warner Bros. and Paramount movie studios. Its entertainment properties include franchises such as “Harry Potter,” DC Comics, “Mission: Impossible,” “Top Gun” and “The Godfather.”
The transaction underwent months of regulatory scrutiny and legal challenges before receiving the approvals necessary to close. The Justice Department concluded after an eight-month investigation that the merger was unlikely to harm competition.
A coalition of 12 states separately challenged the transaction but ultimately reached a settlement with Paramount. Under that agreement, Skydance committed to increased U.S. film production, worker protections and the creation of an editorial independence board covering CNN and CBS News.
Despite the ownership change, CNN will not immediately receive new editorial leadership. CNN Chairman and Editor-in-Chief Mark Thompson will remain in charge of the network and report to Ellison and Kreiz.
“I have real confidence that they both understand and will fully support the principle and practice of the kind of independent news that CNN has always stood for,” Thompson told employees ahead of the merger.
CBS News Editor-in-Chief Bari Weiss will also remain in her position. The structure appears to rule out, at least initially, speculation that CNN and CBS News could be combined into a single news operation. Ellison has publicly pledged to protect CNN’s editorial independence.
“CNN is an incredible brand with an incredible team,” Ellison said earlier this year, adding that Skydance believes in maintaining the independence of its journalists. Trump, meanwhile, has repeatedly criticized CNN’s coverage throughout his political career and publicly weighed in on the network’s future during the Warner Bros. bidding battle.
“I think the people that have run CNN for the last long period of time are a disgrace,” Trump said in December, adding that he believed it was “imperative that CNN be sold.”
Other administration officials have made similar comments. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said during a dispute over CNN’s reporting in June that “the sooner David Ellison takes over that network, the better.”
The political connections surrounding the deal prompted criticism from congressional Democrats, who questioned whether Trump’s administration expected changes in CNN’s coverage in exchange for regulatory approval.
NO SURRENDER — Ilhan Omar Fires Back at Donald Trump After Federal Agents Search Her Home
Ilhan Omar is refusing to back down after federal agents searched her Washington, D.C., home in a criminal investigation—an extraordinary development that has reignited her long-running confrontation with Donald Trump just weeks before the midterm elections.
The Minnesota Democrat responded with a defiant message: “I will not be silenced.” She accused the Trump administration of using federal law enforcement to target political opponents and described the search as another escalation in what she called a decade-long campaign of intimidation.
The statement immediately raised the political stakes. Omar is not simply disputing the circumstances surrounding the search; she is challenging the administration’s conduct and demanding that the public examine why federal agents took such a consequential step so close to an election.
But the central questions remain unresolved: What exactly are investigators looking for, what evidence supports the inquiry, and will the search trigger a broader confrontation between congressional Democrats and the Trump administration?
‘I Will Not Be Silenced’: Omar’s Defiant Response
On October 12, after news of the search emerged, Omar posted a response on social media that began with a brief reassurance: “I’m ok.”
She then delivered a much sharper political message, accusing the administration of targeting political enemies and weaponizing federal law enforcement.
“For ten years, Trump has targeted me with baseless lies and smear campaigns,” Omar wrote, describing the search as the latest escalation in what she characterized as political intimidation. She ended with a declaration that quickly became the defining line of her response: “I will not be silenced.”
Her congressional office issued a separate statement calling the search an “outrageous abuse of power” and an “unprecedented escalation” in the use of federal law enforcement against political opponents. The statement said Omar had done nothing wrong and argued that no president should be able to use the federal government to intimidate political adversaries.
Those are Omar’s allegations and her office’s position. The search itself was carried out under a judicially authorized warrant, according to the Justice Department. Whether investigators uncover evidence of wrongdoing—and whether the search was justified by the facts of the case—remains to be established.
What Happened at Omar’s Washington Home?
Federal agents with Homeland Security Investigations, the investigative arm of the Department of Homeland Security, searched Omar’s Washington residence early Monday, October 12.
The Justice Department confirmed that agents executed a search warrant authorized by a court as part of an ongoing federal criminal investigation. Officials did not publicly disclose a complete account of the evidence being sought or all the details of the inquiry.
Reporting by CBS News and The Washington Post indicated that investigators were examining immigration paperwork dating back to Omar’s childhood. The documents reportedly involved paperwork completed by her late father when the family came to the United States as refugees from Somalia.
The details remain limited, and the reported focus of the investigation should not be confused with a finding of guilt. A search warrant authorizes investigators to look for specified evidence; it does not establish that the person whose home is searched committed a crime.
Omar has repeatedly rejected allegations against her and portrayed the renewed scrutiny as politically motivated. Her office’s statement following the search reiterated that she had done nothing wrong.
As of the latest reports, authorities had not publicly laid out a complete evidentiary case against the congresswoman. That leaves a critical distinction at the center of the story: the investigation is real, but its ultimate findings are not yet known.
Why the Timing Has Become a Political Flashpoint
The search took place less than a month before the November midterm elections, when control of Congress is at stake. That timing has intensified questions from Democrats about whether the action could influence the political environment surrounding Omar’s reelection campaign.
House Judiciary Committee Democrats raised concerns about the search, while senior Democratic leaders condemned the action and questioned the use of federal power against a sitting member of Congress so close to an election.
The criticism centers on more than Omar’s personal dispute with Trump. It touches on a broader principle: federal law enforcement must be able to investigate potential crimes, but its decisions should be grounded in evidence and applied without improper political influence.
The Justice Department has confirmed the existence of a court-authorized search but has not publicly provided a full explanation of the investigative rationale. Without that information, it is not possible to establish from the public record alone whether the timing was politically motivated or driven by investigative necessities.
That uncertainty is likely to keep the controversy alive. Democrats are demanding answers about the decision and its timing, while the investigation itself remains ongoing.
A Long-Running Clash Between Omar and Trump
Omar has been one of Trump’s most prominent congressional critics. Their political conflict has repeatedly drawn national attention, with disputes involving immigration, national identity, federal enforcement and the congresswoman’s background.
Trump has frequently criticized Omar in public, while Omar has accused him of spreading false claims and using inflammatory rhetoric against her and the Somali American community.
In the days before the search, Omar had also criticized Trump’s rhetoric about Somali Americans. The latest federal action therefore arrived against the backdrop of an already bitter political relationship—not in isolation.
Still, a history of public hostility does not by itself prove that a federal investigation was politically directed. Establishing improper interference would require evidence about how the investigation was initiated, authorized and conducted.
That distinction matters because the controversy involves two separate questions: whether investigators have a legitimate basis to pursue the case, and whether the administration has handled the matter in a politically appropriate way.
Both questions deserve scrutiny, but neither should be treated as settled before the relevant evidence is available.
Democrats Demand Answers as the Investigation Continues
Omar’s response has been echoed by Democratic colleagues who say the search raises serious concerns about the use of federal power. Some have called for accountability and greater transparency about the investigation.
Their criticism is also shaped by the election calendar. A federal search involving a sitting member of Congress in the final weeks before voters head to the polls is certain to draw heightened political attention, even when authorities have a judicial warrant.
The administration’s position and the investigators’ evidence will be crucial to determining how the controversy develops. If officials disclose a clear evidentiary basis for the search, that information will help the public evaluate the government’s actions. If significant questions remain unanswered, pressure for congressional oversight may intensify.
For now, the public has only a partial picture of the investigation. Officials have confirmed a court-authorized search, but have not disclosed all the evidence or publicly established that Omar committed a crime.
What Happens Next for Ilhan Omar?
The immediate questions are whether investigators will release additional information, whether Omar or her representatives will provide further details, and whether congressional leaders will seek formal oversight of the search.
Omar has made her own position unmistakable: she intends to continue speaking out and views the search as an attempt to intimidate a political opponent. The Trump administration’s critics have embraced that interpretation, while the legal justification for the search must ultimately be evaluated through the evidence and applicable law.
The coming days could bring more details about the investigation, new statements from lawmakers and further debate over the role of federal law enforcement during an election season.
For now, the most defensible conclusion is also the most consequential: a federal search has triggered a major political confrontation, Omar has publicly challenged the administration’s motives, and key questions about the investigation remain unanswered.
Her “I will not be silenced” declaration has become a rallying cry for her response. Whether the dispute grows into a wider congressional battle will depend on what investigators reveal next—and whether the government can explain its actions in a way that withstands public and legal scrutiny.
