Ellison Discussed Firing CNN Anchors With White House Officials
Reporting says Oracle cofounder Larry Ellison held informal talks with White House officials in which potential changes to CNN’s on air lineup were discussed as part of a broader conversation about how a takeover might be managed. The revelation ties political influence, media control and a high stakes corporate bid together, raising questions about editorial independence and the international credibility of American news institutions.
On November 20, 2025, The Guardian and subsequent outlets published an account that has put a spotlight on the intersection of corporate takeovers, political power and the future of mainstream news. The reporting said Larry Ellison, the Oracle cofounder and a backer of Paramount Skydance’s bid for Warner Bros. Discovery, engaged in informal conversations with White House officials in which potential changes to CNN’s on air lineup were discussed. Names of anchors said to be disliked by the president were reportedly raised during those talks, according to the published accounts.
The allegations are consequential because they suggest that discussions about managing a major media acquisition included not only business and regulatory strategy but also editorial decisions. Media independence and newsroom autonomy are central to the credibility of news organizations, and the prospect that a politically connected buyer might influence who appears on air has prompted swift attention from journalists, media analysts and civil society observers.
Paramount Skydance’s bid for Warner Bros. Discovery, supported by Ellison, would create a corporate constellation with significant entertainment and news assets. Mergers and acquisitions of this scale typically face regulatory scrutiny in the United States, including antitrust review and oversight related to concentration of media ownership. The reporting adds a political dimension to those commercial and legal considerations by suggesting that administration officials and a potential buyer discussed personnel changes at a major news outlet.
The White House conversations were described as informal, and the accounts do not document a formal plan or commitment to specific actions. Nevertheless, the disclosure has amplified concerns about the impact of highly concentrated ownership on editorial independence. For international audiences, the episode underlines how decisions made in boardrooms and corridors of power in Washington can have reverberations for global perceptions of American journalism and for the trust international partners place in U.S. media as a source of reliable information.
Across regions where state influenced media are already a contested reality, the prospect that a news organization in a democratic country could be reshaped by political preferences feeds narratives used by adversarial governments to discredit independent journalism. Democratic governments and multilateral institutions that rely on robust press freedoms for accountability and public diplomacy may view developments in the U.S. media landscape with concern if they erode established norms.
The immediate fallout is likely to be political and legal. Regulators will face pressure to scrutinize any transaction that could concentrate media power, while newsrooms and advertisers will weigh reputational risks. For journalists and audiences inside the United States, the episode raises urgent questions about safeguards to protect editorial decisions from political interference when ownership changes hands.
As scrutiny intensifies, stakeholders including media trade groups and press freedom advocates are expected to press for transparency and enforceable commitments to preserve newsroom independence. The story marks a high profile test of the boundaries between political influence and private media ownership at a moment when trust in information sources remains a central international concern.
