Brendan Carr’s FCC is more worried about who The View interviews than foreign governments owning Paramount | The VergeSkip to main contentThe homepageThe VergeThe Verge logo.The VergeThe Verge logo.TechReviewsScienceEntertainmentAIPolicyNotificationsNotificationsHamburger Navigation ButtonThe homepageThe VergeThe Verge logo.NotificationsNotificationsHamburger Navigation ButtonNavigation DrawerThe VergeThe Verge logo.Login / Sign UpcloseCloseSearchLightSystemDarkTechExpandAmazonAppleFacebookGoogleMicrosoftSamsungBusinessSee all techReviewsExpandSmart Home ReviewsPhone ReviewsTablet ReviewsHeadphone ReviewsSee all reviewsScienceExpandSpaceEnergyEnvironmentHealthSee all scienceEntertainmentExpandTV ShowsMoviesAudioSee all entertainmentAIExpandOpenAIAnthropicSee all AIPolicyExpandAntitrustPoliticsLawSecuritySee all policyGadgetsExpandLaptopsPhonesTVsHeadphonesSpeakersWearablesSee all gadgetsVerge ShoppingExpandBuying GuidesDealsGift GuidesSee all shoppingGamingExpandXboxPlayStationNintendoSee all gamingStreamingExpandDisneyHBONetflixYouTubeCreatorsSee all streamingTransportationExpandElectric CarsAutonomous CarsRide-sharingScootersSee all transportationFeaturesVerge VideoExpandTikTokYouTubeInstagramPodcastsExpandDecoderThe VergecastVersion HistoryNewslettersArchivesStoreVerge Product UpdatesSubscribeFacebookThreadsInstagramYoutubeRSSThe VergeThe Verge logo.Brendan Carr’s FCC is more worried about who The View interviews than foreign governments owning ParamountNotificationsNotificationsComments DrawerNotificationsCommentsLoading commentsGetting the conversation ready...PolicyClosePolicyPosts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.FollowFollowSee All PolicyEntertainmentCloseEntertainmentPosts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.FollowFollowSee All EntertainmentPoliticsClosePoliticsPosts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.FollowFollowSee All PoliticsBrendan Carr’s FCC is more worried about who The View interviews than foreign governments owning ParamountThe commission is waiving its rules to let foreign wealth funds own 49.5 percent of Paramount-Warner Bros.The commission is waiving its rules to let foreign wealth funds own 49.5 percent of Paramount-Warner Bros.by Terrence O'BrienCloseTerrence O'BrienWeekend EditorPosts from this author will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.FollowFollowSee All by Terrence O'BrienSep 18, 2026, 3:12 PM UTCLinkShareGiftPhoto: Kevin Dietsch/Getty ImagesPart OfFCC Chairman Brendan Carr’s war on the First Amendmentsee all updates Terrence O'BrienCloseTerrence O'BrienPosts from this author will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.FollowFollowSee All by Terrence O'Brien is the Verge’s weekend editor. He’s covered the tech industry for over 18 years and knows a thing or two about synths.The FCC has announced it’s waiving its rules limiting foreign equity ownership to 25 percent in the Paramount-Warner Bros. case and will allow three sovereign wealth funds run by the governments of Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Abu Dhabi to own 49.5 percent of the company.During Brendan Carr’s tenure, the FCC has repeatedly threatened ABC, tried to block stations from airing interviews with Democrats, censored late-night TV hosts, and tried to bully journalists. However, it seems to have no qualms with repressive foreign governments owning a significant stake in a giant American media conglomerate.In its ruling, the FCC defended the decision, saying that, because the stocks being purchased did not have voting rights, they “will not be able to wield any influence, let alone control, over decisions involving the Licensees.”Of course, many, including the advocacy group Free Press and a number of Democrats, are not buying that. According to Variety, Free Press noted its opposition, saying that “control over for-profit, commercial domestic news media by any government is an extraordinary situation that would surely strike most Americans as unseemly, precisely because of the utility of the news media as a propaganda tool for those governments.”Anna Gomez, the FCC’s lone Democratic commissioner, posted on X, “The FCC just let some of the most repressive governments in the world indirectly control nearly all of a combined Paramount-Warner Bros. An investment this large in one of America’s biggest media companies doesn’t just buy equity, it secures influence over what gets said and made.“Follow topics and authors from this story to see more like this in your personalized homepage feed and to receive email updates.Terrence O'BrienCloseTerrence O'BrienWeekend EditorPosts from this author will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.FollowFollowSee All by Terrence O'BrienEntertainmentCloseEntertainmentPosts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.FollowFollowSee All EntertainmentPolicyClosePolicyPosts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.FollowFollowSee All PolicyPoliticsClosePoliticsPosts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.FollowFollowSee All PoliticsMore in: FCC Chairman Brendan Carr’s war on the First AmendmentYes, he’s still a dummy.TC SottekAug 18Brendan Carr is one firing away from an unchecked FCCLauren FeinerAug 12Trump nominates Carr adviser to fill a Republican FCC spot.Lauren FeinerAug 7Most PopularMost PopularThe Apple Watch Series 12 is the start of a new wearable eraThe 2.5-hour AI-generated Odyssey movie is 2.5 hours too longThe iPhone 18 Pro’s big camera update is all about the small gainsVideoInside the suddenly explosive world of AI safetyYour robotaxi might be a narcThe Verge DailyA free daily digest of the news that matters most.Email (required)Sign UpBy submitting your email, you agree to our Terms and Privacy Notice. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.Advertiser Content FromThis is the title for the native adMore in PolicyYour robotaxi might be a narcAI is feared globally as the destroyer of jobsPlayMicrosoft AI CEO says AI threats are real, and Anthropic is making it worseA brief history of AI executives calling for regulationAI and data centers are incredibly unpopular in every pollWhat if social media isn’t hurting kids?Your robotaxi might be a narcRani MollaSep 17AI is feared globally as the destroyer of jobsThomas RickerSep 17PlayMicrosoft AI CEO says AI threats are real, and Anthropic is making it worseNilay PatelSep 17A brief history of AI executives calling for regulationSean HollisterSep 16AI and data centers are incredibly unpopular in every pollRichard LawlerSep 15What if social media isn’t hurting kids?Lauren FeinerSep 15Advertiser Content FromThis is the title for the native adTop Stories11:00 AM UTCFlash floods can strike without warning — this new technology could change thatSep 17Inside the suddenly explosive world of AI safetySep 17Your robotaxi might be a narcSep 16The iPhone 18 Pro: an ambitious new camera on the marginsVideoSep 17The Apple Watch Series 12 is the start of a new wearable eraThe VergeThe Verge logo.FacebookThreadsInstagramYoutubeRSSContactTip UsCommunity GuidelinesArchivesAboutEthics StatementHow We Rate and Review ProductsCookie SettingsTerms of UsePrivacy PolicyYour California Privacy RightsYour Privacy ChoicesCookie NoticeAdChoicesLicensing FAQAccessibilityPlatform StatusPenske Media CorporationThe Verge is a part of PMX Global, LLC, a subsidiary of Penske Media Corporation.© 2026 VM Publishing, LLC. All rights reserved.Our SitesThe American PavilionARTnewsArt in AmericaArtforumArt Week NYCBeauty IncBillboardDeadlineDick Clark ProductionsThe DodoEaterFlow SpaceFNGold DerbyGolden GlobesThe Hollywood ReporterIndieWireLife is BeautifulPopsugarPunchSJ DenimRobb ReportRolling StoneSB NationSHE MediaShe KnowsSourcing JournalSoapsSporticoStyleCasterSXSWThrillistVarietyThe VergeVibeWWDNotifications DrawerThe VergeThe Verge logo.Sign in to see your notifications or create an account to join the conversation.Sign in

The Federal Communications Commission, under Chairman Brendan Carr, has made a significant ruling by waiving existing rules that limit foreign equity ownership to twenty-five percent in the Paramount-Warner Bros. case, specifically permitting three sovereign wealth funds from Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Abu Dhabi to own forty-nine point five percent of the company. This decision raises a complex tension between regulatory oversight, particularly concerning the First Amendment, and the allowance of substantial foreign financial influence over major American media entities. While the FCC defended the decision by arguing that because the purchased stocks lacked voting rights, these foreign entities would not be able to exert any influence over decisions concerning licensees, this justification faces significant opposition.

Advocacy groups and some Democrats contend that allowing foreign governments to gain control over for-profit, commercial domestic news media creates an extraordinary situation. They posit that granting such ownership amounts to allowing governments to indirectly control what is said and made in these media outlets, highlighting the utility of the news media as a potential propaganda tool for foreign governments. This perspective is echoed by commentators, such as Anna Gomez, who noted that such large investments in major media companies secure influence over editorial decisions rather than merely acquiring equity. The core of the dispute lies in whether the structure of ownership and the potential for external control supersede the statutory framework designed to protect First Amendment freedoms in the context of domestic broadcasting.

The action contrasts with the FCC's prior history during Brendan Carr’s tenure, which involved attempts to challenge media practices, censor late-night hosts, and engage in regulatory actions against journalists. This history suggests a focus on protecting domestic journalistic and speech rights. The ruling in the Paramount-Warner Bros. case therefore draws attention to the differing priorities within the regulatory body regarding external ownership versus internal content regulation. Ultimately, the situation involves a balancing act between protecting constitutional rights associated with media ownership and managing the substantial financial and political implications arising from foreign governments holding significant stakes in a dominant American media conglomerate.