Amazon wants Warner Bros. so it can rule your screen



Last month, Warner Brothers Discovery put itself up for sale, triggering what could become a bidding war for one of America’s most iconic studios. Days later, reports emerged that Amazon plans to make a run at the company, immediately raising the stakes.

Consumers and regulators should treat every Big Tech bidder with skepticism, but Amazon’s interest demands special scrutiny. The world’s largest online retailer has a long record of distorting markets, crushing rivals, and cozying up to foreign adversaries — most notably China. Letting Amazon absorb yet another major media asset would tighten its grip on an entertainment industry already buckling under corporate consolidation.

Why would antitrust officials hand Amazon even more power in a sector already suffocating under concentration?

Amazon may be a household name, but it is not an America-first company. It bullies smaller retailers, copies their ideas, and funnels profits and supply-chain leverage through China. That behavior undermines the ingenuity and fair competition that built the U.S. economy.

Amazon already wields enormous influence over media. Last year, Prime Video topped U.S. streaming charts for the third straight year. Amazon controls a sprawling production studio, reinforced by its 2022 purchase of MGM. It holds high-dollar sports rights, including "Thursday Night Football" and an 11-year deal with the NBA.

Amazon doesn’t need Warner Brothers Discovery to survive. It wants the company to force more Americans into its digital universe, dominate an even larger share of the market, and use that dominance to trap users and raise prices. Buying competitors beats out-competing them — a classic monopolist playbook that burdens consumers and smothers innovation.

A Warner Brothers takeover would give Amazon exactly what it wants: a massive content library, the third-largest streaming platform, and a lineup of lucrative cable properties. With the deal sealed, Amazon would control more than a third of the streaming video on demand market — roughly 50% more than its nearest rival.

Why would antitrust officials hand Amazon even more power in a sector already suffocating under concentration? They likely won’t.

FTC Chairman Andrew Ferguson and the Justice Department’s antitrust chief, Gail Slater, have made clear that they intend to protect small businesses and consumers from predatory corporate behavior.

The Trump administration has backed those promises with action. Within nine months of taking office, the FTC forced Amazon to pay $2.5 million for trapping customers in Prime subscriptions. Ferguson’s vow to ensure that “Amazon never does this again” shows that this White House will not give repeat offenders a free pass.

RELATED: Stop feeding Big Tech and start feeding Americans again

Lexi Critchett/Bloomberg via Getty Images

The regulatory terrain also looks dramatically different from 2022, when Amazon bought MGM — an acquisition the Biden administration should have challenged and likely would challenge today. After that merger, the FTC rewrote its merger and acquisition guidelines to strengthen oversight. President Trump kept those rules and appears ready to use them.

Some critics claim Amazon earned goodwill with the administration by contributing to White House renovation projects. That accusation doesn’t survive contact with the facts. Candidate Trump warned about Amazon’s “huge antitrust problem” as early as 2016. The company has grown eightfold since then. Trump hasn’t softened.

And Amazon hardly functioned as a friend of the right. The company backed Joe Biden heavily in 2020, donating nearly $2.3 million to his campaign. Biden’s FTC did not treat Amazon kindly either, suing the company for “anticompetitive and unfair strategies to illegally maintain its monopoly power.” That case remains unresolved.

The sale of Warner Brothers Discovery will shape the future of American media — either by giving the company a fighting chance to innovate and compete, or by cementing Big Tech control over what Americans watch, read, and hear. If Amazon tries to tighten that grip, I expect the Trump administration to step in.

Let’s hope the sale doesn’t force the administration's hand.

SCOTUS Tees Up Potential Takedown Of Progressives’ ‘Independent Agencies’ Theory

Humphrey's Executor has had major negative implications for America's separation of powers and the ability of presidents to fully exercise their Article II authority.

Trump Scores SCOTUS Win In Bid To Fire Federal Trade Commission Member

President Trump scored another win at the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday after the high court temporarily agreed he can fire a member of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). The justices granted a request by the administration to place a stay on an injunction issued by Biden-appointed D.C. District Judge Loren AliKhan. That ruling attempted […]

The maligned and misunderstood player that Big Pharma wants gone



Last week, a bipartisan group of senators introduced legislation on drug prices that specifically targets pharmacy benefit managers, exactly as Big Pharma prefers. Pharmaceutical companies have spent years trying to convince the public and policymakers that PBMs are the bad guys in the prescription supply chain, shadowy middlemen inflating prices and hurting innovation. That narrative is convenient, but it is also wrong. PBMs are introducing competition, eliminating waste, and driving down prices.

Which is precisely why Big Pharma wants them out of the way.

The truth is that pharmacy benefit managers are effective. And that is exactly why drugmakers are going after them.

The pharmaceutical industry spends more money than any other sector to sway government policy. In 2024, it poured $90 million into campaign contributions and nearly $400 million into lobbying — much of it through former government officials now on the payroll. Drugmakers also shelled out a whopping $11 billion on advertising, a sum that conveniently buys more than consumer attention. It pressures media outlets to look the other way, a racket the Trump administration is finally moving to rein in.

After the black eye of the opioid crisis and the COVID-19 debacle, Big Pharma needs a scapegoat for high drug prices. It found one in a quiet, little-known player most Americans have never heard of, much less understood.

But the numbers are clear. A recent study shows pharmacy benefit managers deliver at least $145 billion in net value every year, even after costs. Compared with a system where manufacturers dictate prices, PBMs create an additional $192 billion in value across the economy. That money doesn’t vanish into corporate coffers. It flows back into businesses, households, and the wallets of working Americans.

PBMs accomplish this by negotiating directly with manufacturers and pharmacies. They aggregate buying power for millions of people. They secure rebates and discounts that most individual plans could never get on their own. In 2020, PBM-managed rebate structures created $51 billion in value for patients and plan sponsors. That is a competitive market in action.

PBMs are expected to save health plans and consumers about $1.2 trillion over the next 10 years, averaging $1,154 per person per year. And for every dollar spent on PBM services, the system saves $10 in return. By steering patients toward generics and bio-similars, PBMs helped the health system save $445 billion in 2023 alone. That is what efficiency looks like.

Perhaps more importantly, they improve health outcomes. When patients can afford their prescriptions, they are more likely to take them. That means fewer hospitalizations and fewer emergency room visits. PBM-driven programs have led to as much as a 16% increase in medication adherence and a 10% drop in inpatient admissions.

RELATED:How MAHA can really save American lives

Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images

It’s an obvious good to have healthier Americans. But it’s also good for a productive economy.

By lowering premiums and drug costs in public programs, PBMs save taxpayers money as well. This alone accounts for $47 billion in annual savings. And by accelerating patient access to new therapies early in the patent cycle, PBMs support pharmaceutical innovation instead of stifling it.

PBMs currently manage 95% of retail prescriptions and serve 91% of plan participants. That’s because they work. Businesses in the free market use services they value. And they value PBMs because they allow employers to offer more affordable coverage without sacrificing quality.

The truth is that PBMs are effective. And that is exactly why drugmakers are going after them. PBMs bring down net prices and demand accountability. That cuts into Big Pharma’s profit margins. So the industry has launched a campaign to reframe PBMs as a problem rather than a solution.

For example, a Biden-era Federal Trade Commission report that painted PBMs in a negative light should be viewed with skepticism. Even FTC Commissioner Melissa Holyoak emphasized that the report ignores the hard evidence of PBM-driven savings and warned that it was “a premature and deficient report,” adding, “Our job is not to score cheap points for transient political favor.”

“Though facile arguments that rely on ideologically loaded buzzwords such as ‘control’ or ‘power’ may stir emotions and make for entertaining social media posts and television interviews, ideological buzzwords are no substitute for rational, evidence-based research,” Holyoak said.

Sadly, some lawmakers are swallowing Big Pharma’s spin. Bills moving at both the federal and state level would gut PBMs — and hand drugmakers exactly what they want. Even a Brookings Institution analysis found that targeting PBMs won’t lower costs and would only weaken bargaining power against manufacturers.

That isn’t reform. It’s malpractice. Weakening the only players who force price discipline amounts to doing Big Pharma’s bidding at the expense of patients.

This fight isn’t about patients versus middlemen. It’s about competition versus monopoly. It’s about market discipline versus unchecked corporate power.

PBMs work because they negotiate, they drive better drug choices, and they deliver real value. When the most powerful industry in America is desperate to kill them off, you don’t need a think tank study to see what’s at stake. That fact alone tells you everything you need to know.

The First Amendment Does Not Protect Media Matters From Breaking The Law

For a left-wing advocacy group, certain courts will bend over backwards to block investigations based on plausible allegations of wrongdoing.

Trump administration drops Biden’s ‘politically motivated lawfare’ against nation’s largest Christian university



President Donald Trump’s Federal Trade Commission voted unanimously last week to drop a Biden-era lawsuit against the nation’s largest Christian university.

In 2023, the FTC, under former President Joe Biden, accused Grand Canyon University in Phoenix, Arizona, of “deceptive advertising and illegal telemarketing.” The administration’s Department of Education fined GCU $37.7 million, claiming that it was deceiving students about the cost of its doctoral programs to entice more to enroll.

'We view it as imprudent to continue expending Commission resources on a lost cause.'

The FTC further accused GCU of incorrectly claiming a nonprofit status and using “abusive telemarketing calls to try to boost enrollment.”

GCU rejected all of the FTC's allegations.

On Friday, Trump’s FTC voted 3-0 to dismiss the complaint.

A joint statement from the commission read, “This case, which we inherited from the previous administration, was filed nearly two years ago and has suffered losses in two motions to dismiss. These losses are compounded by recent events: Grand Canyon secured a victory over the Department of Education in a related matter before the Ninth Circuit; the Department of Education rescinded a massive fine levied on related grounds; and the Internal Revenue Service confirmed that Grand Canyon University is properly claiming 501(c)(3) non-profit corporation designation.”

RELATED: Biden admin ramps up 'coordinated' attack against Christian university, sues school for alleged 'deceptive advertising'

Photo by ROBERTO SCHMIDT/AFP via Getty Images

The commission concluded that pursuing the case presented “very little upside relative to the cost.”

“We view it as imprudent to continue expending Commission resources on a lost cause. Because we have a duty to maximize consumers’ return on their tax dollars investment, we have decided against pursuing this matter any further,” the joint statement added.

RELATED: Here's the proof: Trump makes good on promise to defend Christians

Photo by Sam Wasson/Getty Images

The school stated in a press release that the FTC’s recent decision to drop the case “fully exonerates GCU after years of politically motivated lawfare.”

Mueller said, “As we have stated from the beginning, not only were these accusations false, but the opposite is true.” He claimed that the Biden-era FTC lawsuit was not about protecting students but pointed to “a broader ideological agenda.”

“They threw everything they had at us for four years, and yet, despite every unjust accusation leveled against us, we have not only survived but have continued to thrive as a university,” he stated. “That is a testament, first and foremost, to the strength and dedication of our faculty, staff, students, and their families. Above all, it speaks to our unwavering belief that the truth would ultimately prevail.”

The FTC declined to comment.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Big Tech rigged the algorithm. Then they weaponized it.



The algorithm is its own “Animal Farm.” “Four legs good, two legs bad” may come in the form of binary code, but the tyranny is just as real. Most content in alternative media gets watered down to please the ruling digital overlords.

Unless you work for a company like Blaze Media — which has built talent lineups that can thrive outside the algorithm — odds are, you were made to be ruled.

Big Tech, Big Pharma, Big Trans — they’ve all come for you once. They’ll do it again.

Ever wonder why some “conservative” hosts sound bold on a handful of safe topics but go quiet on election interference or the COVID jab? The algorithm spoke. They complied.

Pound for pound, my show may have taken the biggest hit among conservatives trying to monetize YouTube traffic since 2020. That we managed to hit seven-figure revenues without help from the world’s largest search engine is, frankly, a miracle.

Big Tech operates like a loaded gun, aimed and cocked by the federal government.

The Biden administration didn’t just whisper suggestions. It literally contacted YouTube and demanded the censorship of Alex Berenson. That’s bad enough.

But thanks to research by DataRepublican and DOGE, we now know the algorithm went a step further — using your tax dollars to boost regime-approved content across major tech platforms through USAID.

That’s not just outrageous. It’s an antitrust violation, plain and simple. And I don’t plan on taking it lying down.

For several months, I’ve worked with First Liberty in Dallas — one of the nation’s top constitutional conservative legal organizations. With their help, I filed a formal complaint with the Federal Trade Commission just before Memorial Day. Here’s a key excerpt:

YouTube’s metrics show that the "Steve Deace Show" experienced explosive growth on YouTube in 2020. The show continued strong in 2021, but toward the end of that year, his videos started being removed. And this precipitated a sharp fall in views and impressions in 2022. The sharp decline strongly suggests that YouTube shadow banned or otherwise limited the visibility of the "Steve Deace Show" in 2022 and possibly starting in the end of 2021. During the same period of time where YouTube views and impressions were sharply declining, the "Steve Deace Show" experienced significant growth on other platforms. The show's strong performance on Apple Podcasts maintained their upper trajectory throughout this period of time.

Consider the contrast: While YouTube buried the show in 2021, my podcast was outperforming on Apple — strong enough to earn me a three-year contract extension with Blaze Media. That same year, my book “Faucian Bargain” became a No. 1 bestseller in the United States.

It doesn’t add up — unless you account for censorship.

In 2021, 69% of our YouTube views came from subscribers, 31% from nonsubscribers. In 2022, that number skewed even further — 76% subscribers, only 24% nonsubscribers. That ratio should never tilt that far. Most YouTube traffic typically comes from recommendations, not regular followers.

RELATED: Congress has the power to crush Big Tech’s app monopoly

Photo Illustration by Jakub Porzycki/NurPhoto via Getty Images

As we explained in our FTC complaint: “This trend line is clear evidence of suppression because it shows how YouTube refused to feature, refused to recommend, and otherwise decreased the visibility of the platform.”

Word is, FTC Chairman Andrew Ferguson takes Big Tech censorship seriously. I hope that’s true — because people likely died due to what YouTube did. Shows like mine were offering counternarratives to the COVID cult. And we were silenced.

Whoever controls language controls the debate. That’s why this isn’t just a tech policy fight. It’s a battle for the future of Western civilization.

The left has shown its hand: If they had the power, they’d disappear you. They already tried. Big Tech, Big Pharma, Big Trans — they’ve all come for you once. They’ll do it again.

This isn’t a squabble over ad revenue or traffic metrics. It’s a battle against the deliberate unraveling of reality itself.

So fight we must. And with severe prejudice.

Stay tuned.