Federal antitrust enforcement is collapsing under the second Trump administration, leaving state officials to confront corporate consolidation without a muscular federal partner. The Paramount settlement announced Monday by California’s attorney general shows how little states may secure when Washington abandons the field.

In return for dropping their challenge to Paramount’s acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery, the states secured an editorial board appointed by Paramount CEO David Ellison. That board will monitor content at CBS and CNN, an outcome that amounts to virtually nothing as an antitrust remedy.

The weakness is especially glaring because concentration levels for wide theatrical film releases met the Merger Guidelines threshold for presuming anticompetitive effects. Yet the Department of Justice Antitrust Division closed its investigation in June.

The Wall Street Journal reported that career staff were “leaning moving toward recommending a challenge” before senior DOJ officials overruled them. A shareholder lawsuit alleged that Trump intervened for the Ellison family, which has contributed significantly to his campaigns.

The DOJ did more than decline to challenge the transaction. It filed motions against the states, including one asking that they “post a proper bond covering the costs of any delay” in completing the merger, giving judicial cover to a deal its own staff reportedly questioned.

The potential payoff extended beyond campaign support. Last year, as Paramount sought approval for its acquisition of Skydance, the company reportedly paid Trump $16 million to settle his lawsuit involving “60 Minutes,” and Trump’s Federal Communications Commission later approved the acquisition.

The Paramount episode fits a broader pattern described across multiple industries. Companies seeking regulatory favor have purchased Trump’s cryptocurrency, contributed to his inaugural fund, silenced a late night host, or paid for his various vanity projects.

The Wall Street Journal also reported that Trump demanded checks of $25 million or $50 million from companies for political and legacy projects. At a May meeting with tobacco executives, he promised policy changes involving vaping and the Food and Drug Administration while collecting millions for his political committees.

Recent antitrust reversals raise similar concerns, although the article notes there is zero evidence so far that money directly passed to Trump in those cases. The available evidence instead shows payments to a Trump ally who helped broker a back door arrangement.

In the Live Nation case, the DOJ and numerous states alleged monopolization in May 2024. After reported intervention by Trump, the DOJ settled during a jury trial, but the states continued and secured an antitrust liability finding in April 2026.

The DOJ also sued in January 2025 to block the HPE and Juniper Networks merger, then reversed course after HPE hired Trump ally Mike Davis. Davis negotiated with aides to then Attorney General Pam Bondi while bypassing career antitrust lawyers, and the case settled in June 2025.

Compass also hired Davis while the DOJ examined its proposed acquisition of Anywhere Real Estate. He reportedly appealed to then Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche’s office over the objections of Antitrust Division leader Slater, and the deal closed without a second information request.

The Nexstar and Tegna merger presents another example. The combined company could reach roughly 80% of American television households despite the FCC’s longstanding 39% cap, and reporters speculated that Trump benefited when Nexstar silenced Jimmy Kimmel on affiliated networks.

Eight states sued to block that merger, and a federal judge halted it in April, with trial scheduled for July of next year. The FCC had already relaxed its broadcast ownership rules in August 2026 by a 2 to 1 vote.

The damage extends beyond individual settlements because career officials may hesitate to invest resources in cases that political appointees can reverse at the eleventh hour. That creates a system in which corporations with enough money and influence can purchase their way around enforcement.

Political and structural reforms remain possible. Senate candidates Abdul El Sayed, James Talarico, and Jon Ossoff have pledged to fight corruption tied to corporate campaign contributions, while stronger agency independence and restrictions on the revolving door could help protect future investigations.

Congress previously responded to executive meddling with the 1974 Election Campaign Act Amendments and Tunney Act, but those safeguards have fallen short. Without stronger protections for antitrust officials, the Paramount settlement may become another marker in the concentration of power among an ever smaller group of oligarchs.