• Major US alcohol producers are urging Donald Trump to cut tariffs ahead of the holidays.
• An alcohol association representing Beam Suntory and Brown-Forman sent a letter to the White House.
• It warned that the tariffs could result in a $2 billion sales loss and 25,000 American jobs lost.

As the holiday season looms, US liquor groups are begging Trump to kill the tariffs they say could ruin their most lucrative stretch of the year.

A group of 57 associations and guilds called the Toasts not Tariffs Coalition, said in a Wednesday letter to the White House that tariffs could result in a $2 billion sales loss in the holidays.

"We reiterate our urgent request that the U.S. and EU come to an agreement to secure fair and reciprocal trade on spirits and wine," the group wrote in the letter.

"As we approach the critical holiday season, a period that is essential to the success of our industries, we implore you to secure this important deal for the U.S. as soon as possible," it added.

The letter comes as Trump's new tariffs went into effect at midnight on Thursday, with the European Union being slammed with a 15% tariff rate on most goods. However, the EU said on Tuesday said it would pause retaliatory tariffs for six months.

Other countries, such as Switzerland and India, were hit much harder, with tariff rates of 39% and 50%, respectively. India's tariffs are set to go into effect later in August.

In March, Trump also threatened to impose a 200% tariff on wine and other alcohol from the EU.

The coalition said it estimated that a 15% tariff on EU wine and spirits could result in more than 25,000 American job losses and nearly $2 billion in lost sales. Per data from the US Distilled Spirits Council, the US exported $2.4 billion worth of spirits in 2024.

Groups in the Toasts not Tariffs coalition represent US liquor heavyweights like Beam Suntory, the parent of Jim Beam, and Jack Daniel's owner Brown-Forman. The coalition also includes non-liquor bodies like the National Retail Federation and the National Restaurant Association.

The Wednesday letter was the group's second appeal to the White House. It sent a similar letter in January, urging Trump to exclude wine and spirits from his coming tariffs and convince the US's trading partners not to apply retaliatory tariffs on their products.

Kentucky's bourbon makers also appealed to the White House to ease up on tariffs after Canada's boycott of US alcohol in March.

The Kentucky Distillers' Association said in a March statement on X that retaliatory tariffs would have "far-reaching consequences across Kentucky, home to 95% of the world's bourbon."

Representatives for Trump and the Distilled Spirits Council did not respond to requests for comment from BI.

• Apple is going to spend another $100 billion investing in US facilities.
• That's on top of a $500 billion pledge the company made earlier this year.
• Is that a lot? Sort of. Is it a move to make iPhones in the US? Not at all.

At a White House event on Wednesday afternoon, Apple CEO Tim Cook announced plans to invest $100 billion in US manufacturing.

Is this a real plan, with real money? A bit of stagecraft designed to give Donald Trump a public win for his reshoring push? Or a way for Apple to keep on the right side of Trump tariffs that could cause great harm to the company?

Yes. And yes. And yes.

Some context:

• In February, Apple said it would invest $500 billion and hire 20,000 US employees over the next four years.
• Now Apple is going to add another $100 billion to that commitment.
• Apple spelled out how it is going to spend some of that money at the White House event, including a pledge to spend $2.5 billion expanding its work in a Corning plant in Kentucky, where it makes glass for iPhones and Apple Watches. Apple says that work will eventually ensure that all of its devices sold worldwide will use American glass (though it didn't spell out how much of that work was already being done in America).

But this isn't the first time Apple has announced a pledge like this. In 2021 — when Joe Biden was president — it announced a plan to invest $430 billion in the US over five years and hire 20,000 employees. Some of those plans involved new construction, like a new "engineering hub" in North Carolina. Others involved expansions of existing facilities, or construction that was already underway, like a $1 billion campus in Austin.

As Bloomberg notes, Apple's announcement from February was really an acceleration of its earlier plans — it meant Apple was planning to spend an extra $39 billion a year, and to increase its hiring plans by 1,000 people a year.

Using that same logic, Apple's Wednesday announcement means it is planning on spending another $25 billion a year above its earlier plans. (No word, yet, about any additional hiring, though Apple did say its work with Corning would increase the workforce there by 50%.)

So that's definitely some additional spending.

Will Apple make iPhones in the US?

Does that mean Apple is going to start making iPhones in the US, as Trump has demanded?

No. As we've discussed before, recreating the supply chain Apple would need to make iPhones in the US seems close to impossible. And certainly not something that Apple could pull off in a few years — if it even wanted to.

Cook was asked that question directly at the press conference, and was ready for it. "There's a lot of content in there from the United States," he argued, pointing to the glass deal and other elements made at least in part in America. But as far as actually putting that stuff together — which requires a complicated supply chain Cook spent years and billions overseeing? "That will be elsewhere for a while," he said.

Still, getting to stand next to the CEO of one of the world's most valuable companies, while that CEO says he's going to invest in America, is most definitely valuable to Trump, who was beaming throughout the event.

And it's not as if any particular number means much to Trump, who recently announced he was going to reduce drug prices by "1,500 percent," which is definitely not possible.

Trump is also flexible when it comes to announcements about Trump-directed spending in America. Like when he stood next to Cook during his first term and announced that Apple had opened a new plant in Texas at his behest. Also not true.

What does Apple get in return? It would most obviously like permanent relief from Trump's tariffs. So far, Trump has granted Apple some immunity from some of his tariffs on foreign manufacturing — but not all of them, which is why Apple has said it will have paid some $2 billion in tariffs over its last two quarters.

Apple and other tech companies are also hoping Trump will keep pushing on their behalf to beat down other countries' tech regulations. Apple is particularly vexed by the European Union, which has forced the company to do things like change its iPhone chargers and open up its App Store.

So yes: Apple is spending money in the US. And no: It's not exactly the story Donald Trump would like to tell.

• Tim Cook joined Donald Trump for a celebratory announcement in the Oval Office.
• Apple announced that it is increasing its existing $500 billion investment in the US by $100 billion.
• Trump said companies like Apple "will be treated really well."

Tim Cook gifted President Donald Trump an American-made glass engraving at the White House today — but it was the Apple CEO who walked away with the real prize.

On Wednesday, Cook presented Trump with an inscribed piece of Apple-produced glass made in Kentucky that sits upon a 24k gold base made in Utah to celebrate the tech giant's "American Manufacturing Program."

"This glass comes off the Corning line, engraved for President Trump," Cook told reporters during a ceremony in the Oval Office. "It is a unique unit of one."

Cook and Apple aren't walking away empty-handed. Companies that "are building in the United States," like Apple, won't be subject to a forthcoming 100% tariff on imports of semiconductors and chips, Trump said.

"The good news for companies like Apple is if you're building in the United States or have committed to build, without question, in the United States, there will be no charge," Trump said.

Cook said the gift was designed by a former US Marine Corps. Corporal who now works for Apple. Cook's signature is also etched into the gift.

Apple announced that it is adding an additional $100 billion to its existing pledge to spend $500 billion in the US over the next four years. As part of its investment, Cook said that soon, 100% of all cover glass for all iPhones and Apple Watches will be manufactured in the US.

It is still a far cry from Trump's hope of a made-in-the-USA iPhone. When a reporter pressed Cook on the possibility of an American-made iPhone, Trump echoed Cook's view that Apple already makes many of the popular smartphone's components in the US.

"We've been talking about it, and the whole thing is set up in other places, and it's been there for a long time, so in terms of the cost and all," Trump said. "But I think we may incentivize him enough that one day he'll be bringing that."

While it's a win for Cook, Apple isn't fully in the clear from the impact of Trump's tariffs. It remains uncertain if the tech giant will be subject to the president's stiffer tariffs on India, which are aimed at punishing the nation for continuing to buy Russian oil.

Cook said during Apple's recent earnings call that the company's financial hit from tariffs last quarter was $800 million. Apple said those costs are likely to balloon to $1.1 billion in the September quarter.

The Apple CEO has come bearing gifts before. In Trump's final financial disclosure before leaving the White House in 2021, the president reported receiving a $5,999 MacBook Pro computer.

It's also not the first time Cook's savvy relationship-building skills have earned the president's praise. In 2019, Trump said Cook was the only tech executive who calls him directly, and the Apple CEO successfully landed carve-outs for some of Apple's products during the tariffs implemented during Trump's first term.

• An AI search engine powered by Perplexity is now available on Truth Social.
• Trump Media began public beta testing of the search engine on Wednesday.
• Social media sites like X and Meta have already integrated AI into their platforms.

Truth Social has entered its AI era.

Trump Media announced on Wednesday that it began beta testing a new AI-powered search engine on its Truth Social platform. The new feature — called Truth Search AI — is made possible by a partnership with Perplexity.

"Powered by Perplexity, a software and AI company dedicated to providing direct, contextually accurate answers with transparent citations, Truth Search AI is intended to enhance the Truth Social platform and exponentially increase the amount of information available to its users," Trump Media said in a press release.

A Perplexity spokesperson told Business Insider that Truth Social uses the Perplexity Sonar API. They declined to discuss the details or financial terms of the partnership.

Truth Social is the latest social media platform to integrate AI. Elon Musk's xAI debuted an AI chatbot, Grok, to X users in 2023. Mark Zuckerberg's Meta introduced its AI chatbot — Meta AI — across its social media and messaging platforms in 2024. Reddit has also introduced an AI-powered search tool last year.

AI emerged as a key focus for President Donald Trump during his first administration, but has grown in importance in his second term. In January, Trump issued an executive order to "remove barriers to American leadership in artificial intelligence." Last month, the White House unveiled its action plan to win the global AI race.

Devin Nunes, CEO of Trump Media, said the company will review user feedback on Truth Social to determine next steps.

"We plan to robustly refine and expand our search function based on user feedback as we implement a wide range of additional enhancements to the platform," Nunes, a former California congressman, said in the press release.

Representatives from Trump Media did not respond to a request for comment from Business Insider.

Internet sleuths say the U.S. Constitution's website is now missing key sections from its website, including a key legal provision relating to habeas corpus, which protects citizens from unlawful detention.

This is on top of Apple's previously announced plan to invest $500 billion into the U.S. over the next four years.

The administration might be forced to pay back much of the revenue it's generated via the program.

Taylor Swift and Melania Trump? You bet. Elon Musk and the author of this article? Not so much.

Trump says he's raising tariffs on goods from India to 50%.

Despite the protests of millions of Americans, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) announced it will be winding down its operations after the White House deemed NPR and PBS a "grift" and pushed for a Senate vote that eliminated its entire budget.

The vote rescinded $1.1 billion that Congress had allocated to CPB to fund public broadcasting for fiscal years 2026 and 2027. In a press release, CPB explained that the cuts "excluded funding for CPB for the first time in more than five decades." CPB president and CEO Patricia Harrison said the corporation had no choice but to prepare to shut down.

"Despite the extraordinary efforts of millions of Americans who called, wrote, and petitioned Congress to preserve federal funding for CPB, we now face the difficult reality of closing our operations," Harrison said.

Read full article

Comments

© UCG / Contributor | Universal Images Group

MAGA notches another win in its battle against anything good in America.

Musk seems to still want to be in Trump's good graces, even after accusing the President of being in the Epstein files.

Trump's buddy in Central America may become a dictator for life.

• The Federal Reserve will hold interest rates steady, aligning with market expectations.
• Strong job growth and rising inflation likely influenced the Fed's decision to maintain rates.
• Two Fed governors dissented from the decision, preferring lower rates.

America's central bank is once again holding interest rates steady, although two Fed governors disagreed with the move in a rare departure from the committee's typical unanimity.

The Federal Open Market Committee announced Wednesday that it will not cut its benchmark rate, holding for the fifth time this year. It's a decision in line with forecasts: CME FedWatch, which anticipates interest-rate changes based on market moves, had projected a 96.9% chance of a hold in July. The Fed said in its July 30 statement that strong jobs numbers and a recent uptick in inflation contributed to the call.

Fed Governors Christopher Waller and Michelle W. Bowman dissented from the hold decision, saying they preferred a rate cut.

"What you want from everybody, and also from a dissenter, is a clear explanation of what you're thinking and what your argument is, and we had that today," Chair Jerome Powell said at the press conference. "It was a good meeting, and people really thought about this."

Powell added that "the majority of the committee" believes that current inflation and employment markers call for "moderately restrictive policy for now."

The chair said that the US is in a "solid position" economically, and the labor market is in balance. There's a slowing supply of jobs and demand for workers, contributing to a historically-low unemployment rate, he said. And, while Powell said the full impact of President Donald Trump's tariffs "remain to be seen," he said the price of many consumer goods are rising, which is a contrast from easing inflation on service prices.

"If we cut rates too soon, maybe we didn't finish the job with inflation. History is dotted with examples of that," Powell said. "And if we cut too late, maybe we're doing unnecessary damage to the labor market. We're trying to get that timing right."

Fed policy has gotten pushback from the Trump administration

While there's still time for the Fed's two penciled-in cuts in 2025, some economists and Trump administration leaders hoped for a change sooner rather than later. They've put the central bank — and Powell — in the hot seat.

President Donald Trump has consistently pushed for Powell to cut rates, writing in a July 8 Truth Social post that "'Too Late' Jerome Powell," "has been whining like a baby about non-existent Inflation for months, and refusing to do the right thing. CUT INTEREST RATES JEROME — NOW IS THE TIME!" Trump has also suggested removing and replacing Powell before the end of his tenure next year, though Wall Street leaders and top CEOs have warned that changing the Fed's leadership could have significant market consequences.

Trump's cabinet members have echoed his criticisms. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said in an interview last week that the Fed is "fear-mongering over tariffs," and "I think that what we need to do is examine the entire Federal Reserve institution and whether they have been successful." Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick added that Powell is "doing the worst job" and "I don't know why he's torturing America this way. Our rates should be lower."

Waller, the dissenting Fed governor, also pushed for a rate cut ahead of Wednesday's meeting: "With inflation near target and the upside risks to inflation limited, we should not wait until the labor market deteriorates before we cut the policy rate."

The Fed's play to keep rates steady is a response to key indicators of economic health. The US labor market exceeded expectations by adding 147,000 jobs in June — due mostly to growth in the healthcare and hospitality sectors — and unemployment cooled to 4.1%. Consumer sentiment and retail spending are making a small recovery from early summer dips, and GDP rose more than expected this month. Inflation climbed to 2.7% in June from 2.4% in May, moving further from the Fed's 2% goal. Keeping rates unchanged is a strategy to curb further inflation while the Fed still sees positive momentum in the job market, Powell said.

Powell has also said that he's watching Trump's tariff agenda closely. The White House's next planned tariff deadline is August 1, which could place new levies on top trade partners. The president struck a deal with the European Union earlier this week, which sets a 15% tariff on most imported European goods, a reduction from Trump's planned 30% tariff.

The Fed chair emphasized at Wednesday's press conference that his top priorities are to promote maximum US employment and stable prices, regardless of politics and policy.

"The credibility of the Fed on price stability is very, very important. People believe that we will bring inflation down," he told Congress last month, adding, "That credibility once lost is very expensive to regain."

Going forward, Powell said he is thinking about the reliability of the economic data. These concerns come as the White House's DOGE office continues to cut staff and agency budgets across the federal government.

"The government data really is the gold standard in data," he said. "We need it to be good and to be able to rely on it. We're not going to able to substitute that. We'll have to make due what what we have, but I really hope we have what we need."

The efforts will focus on two areas: creating a framework for patients and providers to easily share information, and creating more personal tools so patients can access resources needed to stay informed about their health.

The White House said yesterday that the European Union agreed to scrap a controversial proposal to make online platforms pay for telecom companies' broadband network upgrades and expansions. But European officials have not confirmed the White House claim, and a European Commission spokesperson said the issue must go through the legislative process.

A White House fact sheet on President Trump's trade deal with European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen contains a brief reference to Europe agreeing not to impose network usage fees.

"The United States and the European Union intend to address unjustified digital trade barriers," the White House said. "In that respect, the European Union confirms that it will not adopt or maintain network usage fees. Furthermore, the United States and the European Union will maintain zero customs duties on electronic transmissions."

Read full article

Comments

© Getty Images | Andrew Harnik

The Tesla CEO retweeted an extremely racist account Wednesday.

• The TV business has been contracting for years, which is why media companies are trying to sell off their cable networks.
• But David and Larry Ellison think there's long-term value in Paramount and its TV business, says analyst Rich Greenfield.
• Greenfield also weighs in on new streaming launches from ESPN and Fox.

The TV business is not slowing down this summer: Any day now, David and Larry Ellison will finally buy Paramount, with its collection of once-storied TV networks like CBS and MTV. A few weeks later, ESPN and Fox — the last two big TV players that haven't launched their own streamers — will launch their own streamers.

But on the other hand, the TV business has been slowing down for a decade: Every quarter, more cable TV subscribers cut the cord, or never sign up for a cord in the first place. The people who own cable TV networks don't seem to have any plan to deal with the issue, other than trying to sell their cable TV networks.

Lightshed analyst Rich Greenfield has been chronicling the industry's massive, internet-driven change for years. I caught up with him on my Channels podcast to talk through the particular challenges — and perhaps some opportunities — facing TV right now. Here's an edited excerpt of our chat.

Peter Kafka: When the music business collapsed back in the Napster era, it happened basically overnight. But TV has hung on for much longer, even though consumer behavior changed pretty significantly over the last decade.

Is there something specific about the TV industry that's allowed these guys to move in slow motion?

Rich Greenfield: There's very few businesses where you can raise the price on a product that consumers are using less and less every day.

The brilliance of the cable TV business model was the big fat bundle. It's a pretty incredible business to put all of these channels together, even if people don't want most of them.

It had everything you wanted and no alternatives, which is very different than where we are today.

One of my soapboxes is when I hear people saying they wish we could go back to the cable days. And I keep saying, that was terrible. You guys forget. Everyone hated that.

I think consumers are pretty adept at managing their services, and I don't hear a lot of complaints. Sometimes it's like, "Where is this game?" Or "How do I find this thing?" It can be a little confusing.

But think about your cellphone. You've had one for quite a while now. Managing the apps and deleting something if you're not using it and adding something —these are all pretty easy functions.

We don't give consumers enough credit. They're pretty adept at figuring out cheaper solutions and ways to manage.

I want to ask you about a few specific companies. The Paramount deal is finally going to close. What do you think the new owners — David Ellison and his father, Larry Ellison — will do once they have control? Will it change overnight, or is this a slow-rolling thing?

It will certainly change.

The juxtaposition is sort of amazing. [Paramount, under current owner Shari Redstone, is a] financially strapped company, with challenged financial ownership.

And you're moving to an ownership team that is one of the wealthiest families on planet Earth.

David Ellison is probably going to be running this company for 30, 40 years. He obviously has a passion for entertainment. He's moving to a much bigger stage.

But this is still a financially struggling company. He can't fix the trends of what consumer behavior is changing. What he can do is invest and really build.

And you saw the "South Park" deal they just cut, where they're spending hundreds of millions of dollars to move the show [exclusively] to Paramount+. I think it's a small sign of the post-merger strategy, which is that David Ellison is not just doing this to cut costs and squeeze more juice out of this existing company. His goal is to build something significant with a very long-term perspective, which is going to require a lot of investment.

What does that look like? Is the new Paramount just a film studio and a streaming service and CBS — and Ellison sells off everything that's not those things?

I think initially they'll say they need the cash flow from cable and will use that cash flow to reinvest.

I would be shocked if you didn't see more sports on CBS. I think they will be a contender for UFC rights. You've seen David Ellison multiple times in the past year sitting in the front row, cage side with Ari Emanuel [CEO of TKO Group, which owns UFC], and with [UFC CEO] Dana White.

And Donald Trump.

I don't disagree there on politics. But I also think he likes the content. I think he's going to spend a lot of money.

He understands the tech North Star — whether we're talking about TikTok, Meta, Netflix, or Spotify — it's all about time spent. I think David gets that Paramount+ needs a heck of a lot more time spent. The only way you're gonna get there is a better product and more content.

Let's move to Disney. Sometime in the next few weeks, before college football and the NFL starts, ESPN will finally be something you can buy as a stand-alone streaming service. If they rolled this out in 2015, we would have said it's a really big deal. Is it a big deal in 2025?

At $30 a month, I don't think this is a huge deal. My guess is it gives them flexibility to start packaging this with other services. They can probably get some subscribers. Not a lot. It's probably low to mid-single-digit millions. Not millions and millions.

Remember, they're giving the new service to everybody who already subscribed to [pay TV]. So 65 million-plus ESPN subscribers are going to get this new ESPN app at no additional cost.

So who is the audience for this? You're not subscribing to the big bundle. You're a pretty passionate sports fan. You're willing to spend $30 a month for sports. My guess is it's just a small number.

It actually makes sense to do it. But I don't think, at the end of the day, it is a huge needle-mover. What's going to matter to Disney stock is their theme park business and their cruise ship business. Those being better than expected — because of the state of the economy and what's happened with tariffs not being as problematic as feared a few months ago — is far more important to Disney than what happens with the ESPN streaming rollout.

We're also close to the launch of Fox's own streamer, Fox One. The main assets there are Fox Sports — which is really the NFL — and Fox News. Do you think Fox thinks this is primarily a product for people who want to watch football, or do you think it's primarily for Fox News fans?

I think this is a pretty limited offering for a sports fan.

So does that lead you to believe that Fox thinks this is really a Fox News product?

I think you'll see more uptake from Fox News viewers.

In the old days, you would have said that Fox News has a very old audience. And the idea that its audience is going to stream it doesn't make sense. But maybe that's not true in 2025?

Streaming's become pretty normalized. When you look at how many subscribers Netflix now has, I don't think streaming is some elitist thing. I think it's pretty normalized.

I think the part you may be missing is that the Fox News audience is also widening out.

And as you make it available to people on streaming, you may pick up some younger people. Maybe it's more interesting during election years. It creates flexibility. And I don't think there's a whole lot of downside.

All the basic cable networks are in freefall. Everyone who owns them is trying to sell them — either directly to another buyer or, in the case of Comcast's Versant, trying to bundle it up as a publicly traded stock. Who is a buyer for cable networks?

I don't think there are enough people talking about this topic. So many of the investors I deal with, or even industry executives I talk to, think you're going to see Paramount do a deal with Warner Bros. Or maybe you'll see Versant merge with some of the Paramount cable networks.

But let's just step back. I think David Ellison and Larry Ellison have a much bigger plan than aggregating more linear cable networks. I would be surprised if that was the strategy. I think there's a much bigger plan that the Ellison family is probably thinking about that goes well beyond just aggregating more legacy media assets.

WarnerMedia merged with Discovery, which hasn't created value. CBS and Viacom became Paramount, and that hasn't created value. Disney bought most of Fox's cable networks, and that hasn't created value. Putting legacy assets together that are in secular decline doesn't work. Maybe it might've been worse [without those deals].

But that's not compelling for a buyer.

It's a reason to be a seller. As a buyer, there's lots of things you could buy and lots of places you could go. The idea that buying more of these assets so that you have more costs to cut doesn't seem really compelling.

Another reason you are skeptical about big media consolidation is politics. You think that either antitrust politics, or Donald Trump's personal politics, make that unlikely. The only media mogul he wasn't complaining about was Rupert Murdoch, and now he's suing Murdoch.

Is there a world where anyone sells or buys a meaningful media asset while Donald Trump is president?

I think it's going to be challenging.

The Federal Communications Commission has approved Skydance's $8 billion acquisition of Paramount, which owns CBS.

But the agency's approval drew fiery dissent from the only Democratic commissioner, Anna Gomez, after requiring written commitments from Skydance that allow the government to influence editorial decisions at CBS. Gomez accused the FCC of "imposing never-before-seen controls over newsroom decisions and editorial judgment, in direct violation of the First Amendment and the law."

Under the agreement, FCC Chairman Brendan Carr explained that Skydance has given assurances that all of the new company’s programming will embody "a diversity of viewpoints from across the political and ideological spectrum." Carr claimed that the requirements were necessary to restore Americans' trust in mainstream media, backing conservatives' claims that media is biased against Trump and appointing an ombudsman for two years to ensure that CBS's reporting "will be fair, unbiased, and fact-based." Any complaints of bias that the ombudsman receives will be reviewed by the president of New Paramount, the FCC confirmed.

Read full article

Comments

© Anadolu / Contributor | Anadolu

• On Tuesday, Paramount settled a lawsuit Donald Trump filed as a private citizen with a $16 million payout.
• On Thursday, Trump's administration approved Paramount's sale to Skydance.
• You don't have to fill in the blanks on this one. And we're very likely to see transactions like this in the future.

Want to do business in the United States?

Pay up. More specifically: Pay Donald Trump.

That's a reasonable lesson to draw from the Paramount-Skydance deal, which received formal government approval Thursday and should finally close in the coming weeks — about 1.5 years after it first kicked off.

We don't know how Skydance's David Ellison, who is buying Paramount with the backing of his father, Larry Ellison, will run the company. Maybe he'll be able to turn the company around, and years from now we'll note how he made a savvy purchase of a distressed asset at a fire-sale price. Maybe it continues to decline. Maybe he ends up flipping it to someone bigger in short order.

But the most important thing is the thing that was clear back in January, when Donald Trump started his second term as president: If current owner Shari Redstone wanted to sell the company to Ellison, she would need to cut Trump a check.

That happened on Tuesday, when Paramount's current management formally settled a lawsuit Trump filed against the company last year. They paid $16 million, most of which is ostensibly earmarked for Trump's future presidential library.

And on Thursday, the deal got formal approval from the Federal Communications Commission, run by Brendan Carr, a Trump loyalist who sometimes wears a pin in the shape of Trump's head on his suit.

In theory, the Trump lawsuit and Carr's approval were separate events. In reality, it would be very hard to find anyone who believes that. (I've asked Carr for comment.)

This is a story that has kicked up a lot of attention in the home stretch. Some of the angles are most definitely real, and concerning. Like the fact that Carr's blessing comes with pledges from Ellison to do things like "root out bias" in CBS's news coverage, which sounds very much like a company promising to cover news in a way that pleases Carr and his boss.

Some of the angles are much muddier: While we've yet to see any actual evidence that Paramount canceled Stephen Colbert's late-night show to get the deal done, it's reasonable for people to jump to that conclusion. (Over at The Ankler, veteran TV reporter Lesley Goldberg makes a compelling argument that the cancellation had everything to do with business, and nothing to do with Trump.)

We also don't know whether the Ellisons have also agreed to give Trump $16 million or $20 million in other goodies as part of the deal, as Trump has claimed at various times. (Paramount has said it has no knowledge of extra payments; team Ellison hasn't commented.)

But the main point is the main point, which we've known for many months: Last fall, Trump filed a suit against Paramount over the editing of a "60 Minutes" interview with Kamala Harris. In any other world, that suit would go nowhere. But then Trump was elected, and started getting Very Big Companies like Disney and Meta to pay him to settle other suits he would normally have little chance of winning. (Like Paramount, those settlements were made directly to him, via his future library — as opposed to other settlements he is extracting from institutions like colleges and law firms, which are paying the federal government.)

So it was clear that Paramount would have to do the same thing, or it couldn't do the Skydance deal.

Again: In theory, the "60 Minutes" suit had nothing to do with Trump's role as president of the United States — he filed it as a private citizen, prior to his inauguration.

In reality, the only reason Paramount settled it was because he's president of the United States — and one that's willing to use that power to insert himself into day-to-day business deals.

Hard to believe this will be the last one where that happens.