President Trump's threat to impose tariffs on film imports to the U.S. could risk retaliatory actions in international markets, where American film studios make the bulk of their box office revenue.

Why it matters: Studios are already reeling from a weakened box office following the pandemic. Tariffs could send the industry into a tailspin.

How it works: The U.S. is the top exporter of films globally by far, with export value running at three times imports, according to the Motion Picture Association (MPA).

• U.S. movie studios typically drive the bulk of global box office sales. The majority of their revenue tends to come from distribution outside of the U.S., which is why any sort of retaliatory tariffs on U.S. film exports would be disastrous for Hollywood.
• For example, the top-grossing movie globally last year, "Inside Out 2," was produced by U.S.-based entertainment giant Disney, but the bulk (61.6%) of its $1.7 billion in box office revenue was made abroad.
• Similarly, 56% of global ticket sales to Warner Bros. Pictures' "Barbie," the top-grossing film the year prior, came from international distribution.

State of play: Most major studios and even some analysts are holding back commentary until the Trump administration offers more details around how a tariff on intellectual property (IP) would actually work.

• The White House has not offered much clarity, leaving the industry confused as to exactly which films qualify as "coming into our Country that are produced in Foreign Lands," as Trump put it on Truth Social.
• There are no final decisions on film tariffs, but "the Administration is exploring all options to deliver on President Trump's directive to safeguard our country's national and economic security while Making Hollywood Great Again," White House spokesperson Kush Desai told Axios.

Reality check: Studios are in a bind without more information.

• A tariff on production costs abroad would create a much different calculus for a studio to consider, versus a tariff on box office sales.
• The definition of production is also puzzling. Many Hollywood hits are shot, edited, or directed overseas, but only partially. Some are shot in the U.S., but rely on cheaper labor abroad for certain parts of editing, set design or costume manufacturing.
• The ambiguity also has implications for global streamers, like Netflix, that distribute local content from foreign countries to subscribers in the U.S.
• Some analysts have warned that studios may freeze overseas production, weakening the overall box office, until they have answers.

Zoom out: Outside of the U.S., most movies are filmed in places like the U.K., Canada, and European countries that offer sizable tax incentives.

• California Gov. Gavin Newsom has pushed to double the state's film and TV tax credit to lure production back. Others, such as actor Jon Voight, have pitched the Trump administration on a federal tax credit to keep production in the U.S. broadly.

The big picture: In declaring the new policy, President Trump said the movie industry in America is "DYING a very fast death," but that's not entirely true.

• While box office revenues in the U.S. and worldwide are down significantly since the pandemic, analysts don't believe the industry is dying, especially as some films prove theaters are more popular than ever.

MAGA media is seizing on its new influence in Washington — staffing up, enjoying unprecedented access to power, and making market splashes.

Why it matters: Corporate America has typically shunned right-wing media. But expanded exposure to Washington's powerbrokers is helping MAGA outlets and personalities establish themselves as key media players.

These outlets are landing bigger advertising deals and distribution contracts, and developing stronger talent networks.

• And investors are taking notice.

Zoom in: Fox Corp.'s acquisition in February of Red Seat Ventures, the production company that manages shows from Megyn Kelly and Tucker Carlson, served as an early market signal of the commercial power of pro-Trump voices with digital platforms.

• Kelly — the fastest-growing right-wing podcaster in the fourth quarter of last year, per The Righting — announced in March that she'll launch her own podcast network, MK Media.

Fox News, which has a straight-news daytime operation and more overtly conservative programming in primetime, raked in 160+ new advertisers between November 2024 and April 2025, according to iSpot data provided to Axios. A Fox spokesperson said there have been 200 new advertisers since the election.

• The Daily Wire's valuation tops $1 billion, Axios reported in December.
• Rumble and Newsmax are each publicly trading at values exceeding $2 billion, despite earning just $30 million and $171 million in revenue last year. Truth Social's parent company is currently valued at more than $5 billion on the public market, despite earning $3.6 million in 2024.

The explosion builds on earlier signs that the pump was primed for right-wing voices to expand.

• Carlson in 2023 raised $15 million to grow his media company.
• Backed by donors including Omeed Malik, conservative operatives dropped over $1 million last year to launch the Washington Reporter, designed to reach conservative members of Congress and staffers.

Reality check: Because most MAGA-affiliated outlets are privately held startups, data on their financial growth is scant.

Zoom out: Beyond the cash flow, these outlets are experiencing unprecedented access to the White House, which reinforces the image they seek as media heavy-hitters.

• Reporters and podcasters like The National Pulse's Raheem Kassam, The Daily Wire's Mary Margaret Olohan and Jack Posobiec have been invited on foreign trips with Cabinet officials.

Since President Trump took office, representatives from outlets including Washington Reporter, The Daily Wire, TownHall.com, Rumble, X and others have appeared at White House press briefings in seats reserved for new media outlets. Other reporters, including from LindellTV and Real America's Voice, are frequently called on to ask questions.

• Even global leaders are engaging: Breitbart's Matt Boyle has interviewed leaders of Cyprus, Greece and Israel.

The big picture: Bans on Trump across most social media platforms following Jan. 6 sparked a massive effort by conservatives to create their own media outlets, news outlets, and tech platforms to combat what they believe is broader corporate leftism.

• Elon Musk purchased X. Peter Thiel and JD Vance invested in Rumble. Kanye West bought (and subsequently sold) Parler.

"Conservatives were exiled from the establishment, legacy media platforms where most Americans used to get their news," Andrew Kolvet, a top adviser for Charlie Kirk's Turning Point USA, tells Axios.

• "This forced entrepreneurial creators out into the media wilderness to hone their skills and either sink or swim based on talent. ... Real talent rose to the top and built massive, durable audiences of increasing size and influence."

Press freedom in the United States has hit a record low, according to the latest World Press Freedom Index published annually by Reporters Without Borders.

Why it matters: For years, American press freedom was generally considered "satisfactory" by Reporters Without Borders' standards. As of last year, it's now "problematic."

• Press freedom in the U.S. now falls in line with developing countries, such as Gambia, Uruguay and Sierra Leone.

The big picture: While physical threats against journalists are often a clear sign of eroding press freedoms, Reporters Without Borders cites economic strains on the media as the biggest driver of declines globally.

• This is especially in autocratic nations, such as Nicaragua, Belarus and Iran, as well as unstable democracies such as Turkey and Hungary.

Between the lines: Economic strain is increasingly tied to government efforts to financially undermine critical or independent outlets.

• Reporters Without Borders cites the Trump administration's efforts to cut funding to public broadcasters, such as Voice of America and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, as an example of this trend.
• It also cites non-government factors as threats to funding journalism, such as the dominance of major internet platforms over the advertising economy.
• Such constraints have led to record consolidation globally amongst media outlets, which has led to more media ownership being highly concentrated or controlled by the state.

Startling stat: Reporters Without Borders has been surveying press freedom globally for over a decade across five indicators — political, legal, economic, sociocultural and safety.

• The economic indicator worldwide has reached a new low point, with 160 of the 180 nations surveyed experiencing "difficult" or "no" financial stability.
• In the U.S. economic hardship is most prevalent amongst local news outlets, leading to an unprecedented number of news deserts for such a powerful country.

Zoom out: The report, published Friday ahead of World Press Freedom Day on May 3, also underscores how much global instability impacts quality journalism.

• It cites conflict in areas like Gaza and Haiti as examples where political instability "has plunged the media economy into chaos."
• The gutting of the United States Agency for International Development, it says, has thrown "hundreds of news outlets into a critical state of economic instability and some to shut down — particularly in Ukraine."

The big picture: More than half of the world's population now lives in countries where press freedom is entirely absent and practicing journalism is considered dangerous, according the the index.

• Countries like China, Uganda and Ethiopia are now classified as "very serious" in terms of press freedom threats, as opposed to difficult.

Go deeper: Trump targets the media in his first 100 days

News that Attorney General Pam Bondi is resuming the practice of trying to seize reporters' phone records to smoke out leakers is the latest and most significant effort by the Trump administration to target the press as part of its early agenda.

Why it matters: President Trump has done more to target traditional media companies than any other modern U.S. president. Even as he and his allies wage a historic trade war, they have not lost sight of their stated goal of going after the press.

Zoom in: In Trump's first 100 days ...

• The White House banned the AP from covering its events and is embroiled in a lawsuit over the matter.
• The State Department ordered the cancellation of federal news subscriptions.
• The Defense Department replaced the press offices of several mainstream organizations with mostly conservative outlets.
• The Trump administration reportedly drafted a memo to Congress outlining its plans to cut federal funding for public broadcasters. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) called on the CEOs of NPR and PBS to testify at a DOGE subcommittee hearing about what she says is "systemically biased content." The Federal Communications Commission is also investigating the two public broadcasters over whether their member stations violated FCC rules around airing commercial ads.
• FCC Chair Brendan Carr has launched investigations into Comcast/NBCU, Paramount/CBS and Disney/ABC.
• The administration has also tried to gut the government-funded U.S. Agency for Global Media and its outlets.
• It has ordered the firing of three board directors from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which allocates federal funding to NPR and PBS. CPB has subsequently sued the administration for trying to fire three members of its board.

Yes, but: Efforts to defund or restrict news entities by the Trump administration have faced challenges in court.

• Earlier this month, a federal judge sided with the Associated Press in its lawsuit against the White House, declaring that under the First Amendment the government can't bar journalists from certain government events because of their viewpoints.
• Last week, a federal judge ruled that Voice of America workers who were placed on leave or fired should return to work. The judge added that the Trump administration must restore funding to the VOA and other U.S. government-funded news outlets.

The big picture: Amid all of these efforts, the Trump administration still engages with and cites outlets it has targeted.

• Despite a historic $20 billion lawsuit against CBS, the president has cited the outlet's polling when favorable.
• Trump sat down for an interview with ABC on the first 100 days of his second term.
• The now infamous photograph of Trump defiantly raising his fist after an assassination attempt, taken by AP photographer Evan Vucci, is on display in the White House.

For the record: "This White House believes in transparency and reflecting the media habits of the American people which is exactly why the new media seat was created, hundreds of press passes were reinstated, and the press pool now includes media previously left out," a White House spokesperson said in a statement.

• On Friday, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt defended the administration's media strategy and noted it has expanded access for new media.

What to watch: The White House plans to impose its own seating chart for reporters in the briefing room, per Axios' Mike Allen.

Editor's note: This story has been updated with a White House statement.

Attorney General Pam Bondi said Friday she is resuming the practice of attempting to seize reporters' phone records in order to smoke out leakers.

Why it matters: It is a complete reversal of the policy that former President Biden and former Attorney General Merrick Garland put in place restricting subpoenas of reporters' news-gathering materials.

• "This conduct is illegal and wrong, and it must stop," Bondi, referring to recent administration leaks, wrote in an internal memo obtained by Axios.
• "I have concluded that it is necessary to rescind Merrick Garland's policies precluding the Department of Justice from seeking records and compelling testimony from members of the news media in order to identify and punish the source of improper leaks," she wrote.

The big picture: Bondi's announcement comes as her office prepares to investigate at least three suspected leakers referred Wednesday by National Intelligence Director Tulsi Gabbard.

• "A leaker within the IC sharing information on Israel / Iran with the Washington Post," Gabbard wrote last month on X. She has not specified what stories or journalists merited a leak investigation.

The intrigue: The Defense Department has reeled from a series of embarrassing leaks, including stories that portray Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth as paranoid, vain, and careless with sensitive information.

• CBS also reported that the former Fox pundit had a makeup studio installed at the Pentagon.
• Four people have been fired or left the Pentagon as a result of the drama on Hegseth's watch. They have denied wrongdoing.

What they're saying: Bondi wrote that, under her new rules, "the news media 'must answer subpoenas' when authorized at the appropriate level within the Department of Justice."

• She said that subpoenaed news outlets are to be given advanced notice and that the subpoenas will be "narrowly drawn."
• Bondi also wrote that any warrants for reporters' materials "must include protocols designed to limit the scope of intrusion into potentially protected materials or newsgathering activities."

What to watch: Bondi said that, when considering whether to issue a subpoena, she will try to determine where there are "reasonable grounds to believe that a crime has occurred and the information sought is essential to a successful prosecution."

• She also said that a subpoena will only occur after prosecutors have made "all reasonable attempts to obtain information from alternative sources" and pursued exhaustive negotiations with the reporter.
• Threats to national security, she suggested, would create some exceptions to these policies.

An ABC News reporter first posted on X about the existence of Bondi's memo.

Voice of America workers who were placed on leave or fired should return to work and the Trump administration must restore funding to the VOA and other U.S. government-funded news outlets, a federal judge ruled on Tuesday.

Why it matters: The ruling effectively halts the Trump administration's plan to gut the VOA and its parent, the government-funded U.S. Agency for Global Media (USAGM). 

• In addition to VOA, USAGM houses several other internal broadcasters, some of which are waging their own legal battles against the administration in an attempt to survive.

Details: U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth noted in his order in D.C. that the VOA "is not reporting the news for the first time in its 80-year existence" as a result of the Trump administration's action.

• The Reagan-appointed judge said the outlet's website has not been updated since March 15 and "radio stations abroad that rely on VOA's programming have either gone dark or air only music."
• Lamberth said the administration acted "without regard to the harm inflicted on employees, contractors, journalists, and media consumers around the world," adding: "It is hard to fathom a more straightforward display of arbitrary and capricious actions than the Defendants' actions here."
• The judge ordered that the Trump administration restore VOA programming.

What they're saying: "My colleagues and I are grateful for this ruling. But we know that this is just a small step forward, as the government is likely to appeal," said VOA journalist Patsy Widakuswara, who is named as a plaintiff on the lawsuit, in a text message.

• "We are committed to continue to fight against what we believe is the administration's unlawful silencing of VOA until we can return to our Congressional mandate, to tell America's story through factual, balanced and comprehensive reporting."
• Representatives for the USAGM did not immediately respond to Axios' request for comment.

Zoom out: Trump allies have long criticized the VOA and USAGM, calling the independent news agencies propagandists.

• Elon Musk has called for VOA to be shut down and USAGM senior adviser Kari Lake, who is named in the suit, said in an announcement on canceling USAGM's 15-year lease last month: "This agency is not salvageable."

The big picture: The rulings in favor of the U.S. government-funded foreign broadcasters suggest the administration will face an uphill battle trying to completely dismantle the foreign broadcasters that for years received bipartisan support from Congress.

• The VOA was created after World War II to combat Nazi propaganda.
• RFE was created during the Cold War to combat Soviet Communist propaganda.

Go deeper: Trump administration efforts to gut government-funded media face pushback in court

"60 Minutes" executive producer Bill Owens said on Tuesday that he is stepping down from the show due to concerns about journalistic independence.

Why it matters: Owens' exit comes as CBS' parent Paramount considers settling a $20 billion lawsuit from President Trump over a segment on the show.

Driving the news: "Over the past months, it has become clear that I would not be allowed to run the show as I have always run it, to make independent decisions based on what was right for '60 Minutes,' right for the audience," Owens wrote in a staff memo obtained by Axios.

• "So, having defended this show — and what we stand for — from every angle, over time with everything I could, I am stepping aside so the show can move forward," he wrote.
• The New York Times first reported Owens' exit.

Catch up quick: Owens was a veteran of CBS, having first worked as a summer intern in 1988. He joined "60 Minutes" in 2003 and later worked at "CBS Evening News" before returning to the Sunday show.

• In 2019, CBS named Owens executive producer — the third in its history.

The big picture: CBS is under pressure to resolve its legal battle as it awaits regulatory approval for a merger between Paramount and Skydance Media.

• The lawsuit, filed in October ahead of Trump taking office, alleged CBS engaged in "voter interference" in its editing of a "60 Minutes" interview with Kamala Harris. He originally sought $10 billion in damages but increased the claim to $20 billion in February.
• Last month, CBS filed two motions to dismiss an amended complaint to Trump's lawsuit.

What to watch: In a statement, CBS News and Stations and CBS Media Ventures CEO Wendy McMahon said she and CBS News president and executive editor Tom Cibrowski "are committed to 60 Minutes and to ensuring that the mission and the work remain our priority."

• "We have already begun conversations with correspondents and senior leaders, and those will continue in the days and weeks ahead."

A jury on Tuesday ruled against former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin in a rare retrial of her 2017 defamation lawsuit against the New York Times.

Why it matters: The ruling isn't shocking, given that a federal judge and jury already rejected Palin's libel claims against the Times in a 2022 trial.

Zoom in: After nearly two hours of deliberations, a federal jury ruled that the Times was not guilty of libel claims brought against it by Palin for a 2017 editorial that falsely linked her to a 2011 mass shooting.

• Throughout this trial and the original 2022 trial, the Times asserted that the inaccurate link made in the editorial was a mistake.
• It issued a formal correction of the piece, titled "America's Lethal Politics," two days after it was originally published on June 14.
• In a statement, a Times spokesperson said, "We want to thank the jurors for their careful deliberations. The decision reaffirms an important tenet of American law: publishers are not liable for honest mistakes."

Between the lines: Palin and her legal team argued that the Times and its former editorial page editor James Bennet for libel used "actual malice" in publishing the editorial.

• There is a very high bar for plaintiffs to meet the actual malice standard, which was established by the landmark 1964 New York Times v. Sullivan case.
• The standard protects news outlets from liability under the First Amendment, even when they publish false statements, as long as they did not do so knowingly and recklessly.

Catch up quick: The outcome of Tuesday's trial ends a long legal battle between the Times and Palin.

• A federal appeal court granted Palin's request for a retrial last year, citing errors made by the trial judge overseeing the case, including dismissing the case while jurors were still deliberating their verdict in 2022.

The big picture: Conservatives, including Supreme Court Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch, have called for the nation's top court to possibly revisit the actual malice legal standard, arguing the media landscape has shifted significantly over the past 60 years.

• But the court has turned down opportunities to review challenges to the precedent several times over the past few years.
• Most recently, it declined to hear a defamation case from Republican casino mogul Steve Wynn.

What's next: Palin said while leaving the courtroom Tuesday that she doesn't know if she plans to appeal the case again.

President Trump's economic policies are starting to weigh heavily on the U.S. ad market, which was just starting to stabilize after years of pandemic-era volatility.

Why it matters: In addition to economic turbulence, ad-supported companies face very difficult comparisons from last year, which will make it difficult for media and tech companies to meet previous growth projections.

• 2024 marked the fastest year of U.S. ad spend growth since 1983, per analysts at MoffettNathanson, thanks to the presidential election, the Olympics and AI-driven advertising advancements.

Driving the news: The country's most prominent media and advertising analysts have started to forecast significant slowdowns in ad spend this year.

• Ad-buying giant Magna further reduced its 2025 advertising growth forecast last month, citing "the lack of economic visibility and a decline in confidence" that could impact marketing budgets.
• That followed a similar warning from Brian Wieser, a top advertising analyst, who believes the president's trade policies pose a more extreme threat to supply chains and corporate decision-making than previously expected.
• Media analysts at MoffettNathanson told clients in a note last week that slower GDP growth could result in roughly $45 billion in lost U.S. ad spend versus current forecasts. "Given the ongoing secular headwinds facing the linear TV ecosystem, we worry that television could mirror the fate of radio and newspapers during past recessions," they wrote.

Zoom out: While economic uncertainty will impact the entire ad market, certain categories will be hit harder.

• Chinese retailers that typically spend billions of ad dollars on platforms like Meta and Google have dramatically reduced ad spending in the U.S., per eMarketer. Temu and Shein have reduced their daily average U.S. ad investment by 31% and 19%, respectively, between March 31 and April 13, per Sensor Tower.
• Automotive companies, facing production uncertainty related to tariffs, are expected to reduce marketing spend, per Magna. This is especially true for foreign auto companies that face 25% import tariffs. Auto advertising began to recover last year following a significant chip shortage in 2022 and 2023, boosting local publishers and broadcasters.
• Consumer packaged goods companies, as well as restaurants, tend to be the most vulnerable to inflation, which is expected to remain high amid economic volatility. Stubborn inflation makes it hard for the Federal Reserve to cut interest rates despite pressure from President Trump.
• Restaurants and personal services: The service economy is expected to pull back significantly on ad spend amid tariff exposure from their international supply chains and broader consumer concerns around inflation.
• Tourism and travel: President Trump's aggressive stance toward the country's reliable international trade partners threatens billions of dollars across the U.S. travel and tourism industries. The most significant drop off thus far has been from Canadian visitors, followed by tourists from European countries. Both groups tend to be reliable spenders.

What to watch: While there are concerns about consumer discretionary spending in a recession, analysts are more bullish on subscription-based media services that are less dependent on advertising.

• Analysts at Macquarie last week said, following Netflix's positive earnings report, that the company's premium valuation "is likely supported by investor flight to safety."
• Experts also believe ad agency holding groups, such as Omnicom, Interpublic Group and WPP are better suited than some of their media clients to weather a possible economic downturn. "With highly variable cost structures, their earnings downside is somewhat cushioned, and multiples are already near historical troughs," analysts at MoffettNathanson wrote.

America's obsession with countering mis- and disinformation has withered as society grows skeptical of institutions once trusted with facts.

Why it matters: Professional fact-checking went mainstream during the first Trump administration, but it's since become politicized.

• Americans are less enthusiastic about policing information today than they were two years ago, and the trend is bipartisan, per Pew Research Center.

State of play: Institutions once seen as critical to providing facts about history and current events, such as public schools and news media, are experiencing record-low trust levels, in addition to financial challenges.

• A February YouGov poll found that U.S. citizens are far more likely to trust information coming from the Trump administration "a great deal" or "a fair amount" (44%) than they are the news media (28%).
• In 2017, that gap was much smaller, with 43% of Americans saying they trusted the Trump administration "a great deal" or "a fair amount" on facts, compared to 38% for the news media.

By the numbers: Mentions of the terms "misinformation" and "disinformation" across the country's three biggest cable news networks, MSNBC, Fox News and CNN, have declined considerably since the pandemic, according to data from Stanford's Cable TV News Analyzer.

• The politicization of fact-checking has contributed to a decline in the number of fact-checking sites globally over the past year, according to data from Duke Reporters' Lab. The number of global fact-checking sites increased 140% from 2016 to 2022, before starting to level off in 2023.

Between the lines: Government bodies once focused on combating mis -and disinformation are being gutted by the Trump administration.

• The State Department's Counter Foreign Information Manipulation and Interference hub is being eliminated, State Secretary Marco Rubio confirmed last week. The office was responsible for tracking and countering foreign disinformation campaigns.
• Meanwhile, the National Science Foundation has canceled research grants related to misinformation and disinformation.

Reality check: Even Democrats, who have for years pushed tech companies to take action against falsehoods, have begun to lose their truth-seeking appetite amid broader political battles.

• In a new Pew Research Center survey, 58% of Democrats say they support government restrictions on false information online, down from 70% two years prior.

The big picture: Facing less progressive pressure, tech platforms have largely replaced fact-checking with community policing.

• TikTok last week said it would test a new feature called Footnotes that lets users add context to videos. The feature is reminiscent of Community Notes on X, which was also adopted by Meta to police speech.
• Meta ended its fact-checking program this year. The company reportedly told teams responsible for ranking content to not penalize misinformation, per Platformer.
• Google in January told the European Union it will not add fact checks to search results and YouTube videos or use them in ranking and removing content, despite the requirements of a new EU law.

What to watch: Research shows the rise of AI-driven content is contributing to more mis- and disinformation online, but American appetite for fact-checking doesn't appear to be growing in tandem.

Google wants employees to focus on their work and not fret about the company's loss of "parts of" its online advertising monopoly case, it said in a memo to employees Thursday.

Why it matters: The court's ruling, which Google said it would appeal, could fundamentally reshape the giant's advertising business, depending on the remedies, or penalties, the judge determines.

• Advertising represents the vast majority of Google's revenue. It fuels the company's ability to invest in new technologies, like AI and cloud servers.

Zoom in: In a note to staff, Google VP of regulatory affairs Lee-Anne Mulholland said it's important for employees to"continue to focus on our users and customers by building amazing products that help people around the world."

• Google, she noted, plans to appeal the ruling, arguing it "incorrectly suggests a company like ours has a legal obligation to do business with competitors."
• "This is contrary to past Supreme Court decisions," she asserted.

Between the lines: Mulholland also sought to clarify the outcome of the case by noting that the court delivered a mixed ruling.

• "It rejected key parts of the DOJ's case," she said. "The court found our advertiser tools don't harm competition and our acquisitions of DoubleClick and AdMeld were not anticompetitive. But it agreed with the DOJ's claims about one of our publisher tools. In other words, we won half, lost the other half."

Go deeper: Here's the full text of Google's memo:

Today, a U.S. district court issued a mixed decision in our advertising technology case with the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ). We asked Lee-Anne Mulholland, VP of Regulatory Affairs, for her thoughts.

Give us an overview of the court's decision today. The court delivered a mixed ruling in the DOJ's lawsuit focused on some of our ad tech. It rejected key parts of the DOJ's case: The court found our advertiser tools don't harm competition and our acquisitions of DoubleClick and AdMeld were not anticompetitive. But it agreed with the DOJ's claims about one of our publisher tools. In other words, we won half, lost the other half.

For those unfamiliar, what's the focus of this case? This case is focused on the tools we provide to advertisers and publishers for third-party display advertising on the web. While these tools are valuable for those customers, they represent a narrow part of our advertising business — separate from Search and YouTube ads. Specifically, it looked at whether some of our advertising technology — tools that connect advertisers (like retailers) and ad sellers (typically website owners) — violated antitrust law; as well as whether our acquisitions in this space were anticompetitive.

What are the next steps? On this case, there is a ways to go; this is definitely not the final word. We will next go to trial to decide the remedies in this case, and then we will appeal the decision. We believe we're strongly positioned to appeal based on established Supreme Court precedent, the facts of our case, and the findings of the court today:

• The ruling doesn't align with how the Supreme Court has previously viewed multi-sided markets like ours, which involve advertisers, publishers, platforms, and users.
• The ruling incorrectly suggests a company like ours has a legal obligation to do business with competitors. This is contrary to past Supreme Court decisions.
• The court recognized that our advertising tools operate in a competitive market, alongside major players in social media and beyond.
• The ruling found that our acquisitions in this space (DoubleClick and Admeld) did not harm competition.
• Publishers have tons of options and they choose Google because our tools are simple, affordable, and effective.

Is there anything else you want Googlers to know? There's been a lot of interest by regulators in our ad tech products around the world for many, many years so this scrutiny isn't new! We've long invested in ad tech because it goes back to our mission of making information universally accessible and useful. Ad tech helps online publishers, content creators, and bloggers make money—which in turn keeps the internet free and open to use for all of us.

We're deeply committed to providing solutions to a wide array of publishers and advertisers in a highly competitive sector. The Regulatory Affairs team will keep working to challenge this case through the appeals process. It's important for Googlers to continue to focus on our users and customers by building amazing products that help people around the world.

Google's dominance of the online advertising and ad-tech markets violates U.S. antitrust laws, a federal court ruled Thursday, in a decision that could scramble the massive digital ad universe.

Why it matters: It's the second major recent antitrust loss for Google, after a different court ruled last year that the giant has abused its dominance of the search market online.

How it works: The federal government and 17 states who brought the suit seek to force Google to sell off part of its "network" ad business, which sells ads on other publishers' inventory.

• That accounts for roughly 12% of Alphabet's overall business. Google argues spinning it out would actually hurt publishers, because it would force them to buy ads through more expensive rival networks.

Between the lines: Forcing Google to give up its ad tech arm would be punitive but wouldn't fundamentally change Google's business.

• The company still makes mountains of money selling ads alongside its own YouTube videos and search results.
• But a forced divestiture would almost certainly impact Google's top-line enough to force it to recalibrate its spending on new areas of investment, such as its AI and cloud businesses. Google largely relies on ad revenue to fuel its new bets.

Yes, but: The court drew a distinction between the markets for advertising exchanges and ad servers, where it found Google has an illegal monopoly, and the general market for display ads online, where it found Google does not.

What they're saying: "Google has violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act by willfully acquiring and maintaining monopoly power in the open-web display publisher ad server market and the open-web display ad exchange market, and has unlawfully tied its publisher ad server (DFP) and ad exchange (AdX) in violation of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act," Judge Leonie Brinkema of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia ruled in a 115-page opinion.

The other side: "We won half of this case and we will appeal the other half. The Court found that our advertiser tools and our acquisitions, such as DoubleClick, don't harm competition. We disagree with the Court's decision regarding our publisher tools. Publishers have many options and they choose Google because our ad tech tools are simple, affordable and effective." Lee-Anne Mulholland, Google's vice president for regulatory affairs, said in a statement.

What's next: The ruling means that the judge will move on to a phase in the trial that considers what sort of penalties or remedies to impose.

• The search case is now in that phase as well. There, the government is seeking to force Google to divest its Chrome search engine.
• It's also possible Google will be forced to give up its lucrative search partnership deals with device-makers like Apple as a result of that case.

Editor's note: This story has been corrected to indicate that the lawsuit seeks to force Google to sell off part of its "network" ad business (not all of it).

Meta has a long history of acquiring or building copycat apps and features that have ultimately failed and shuttered in less than a few years.

• But the unprecedented success of two of its biggest bets have regulators concerned its tactics are anticompetitive.

Why it matters: Faced with a historic antitrust lawsuit, Meta argues its acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp weren't meant to stifle smaller competitors, but help it remain relevant to users as the social media landscape evolved.

• The Federal Trade Commission disagrees, but faces an uphill battle in trying to convince a federal judge that Meta should be broken up.

State of play: In a landmark antitrust trial that began Monday in Washington D.C., the FTC called for the unwinding of Meta's 2012 acquisition of Instagram for $1 billion, and its 2014 acquisition of WhatsApp for $19 billion.

• Lawyers alleged Meta illegally used a "buy or bury" strategy to cement its social networking monopoly.
• They pointed to an email sent between CEO Mark Zuckerberg and then-Facebook executives that suggest its Instagram deal wasn't just about adopting new photo features, but stopping other apps from leapfrogging Meta while it struggled to transition from desktop to mobile.

The other side: In a surprise move, Zuckerberg showed up to testify for roughly three hours on the trial's opening day.

• His main defense was that as social networking evolved, Meta needed to adopt new features to stay competitive.
• In its opening statement, Meta pointed to TikTok and YouTube's "Shorts" feature as examples of areas where it faces stiff competition.
• "It's reached a point where the vast majority of the experience is more around exploring your interests, understanding what's going on around the world, entertainment," Zuckerberg said.
• His testimony is expected to continue Tuesday.

Zoom out: Meta is also arguing that by revisiting both deals, which were already approved by the FTC, the government is sending a broader message to corporate America that no deal is ever final.

• The FTC argues that the social landscape has evolved significantly since it approved both deals.

The big picture: There's no question that Meta's acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp have helped the tech giant remain competitive over the past decade.

• Instagram is expected to make up more than half of Meta's overall U.S. revenue this year.
• With an estimated 3 billion monthly users, WhatsApp is one of most popular messaging services in the world. While it doesn't drive as much revenue today, it is expected to play a critical role in helping Meta expand to new, lucrative areas around business messaging services.

What to watch: Recent efforts by Meta to curry favor with the Trump administration haven't swayed FTC officials, sources told Axios, but that hasn't stopped the company from trying.

• Last week, Axios reported that Meta added Dina Powell McCormick, a former Trump administration official and prominent banker, to its board.

A federal judge on Tuesday sided with the Associated Press in its lawsuit against the White House, declaring that under the First Amendment the government can't bar journalists from certain government events because of their viewpoints.

Why it matters: It's a huge victory for both the AP and the free press.

• The AP's case served as a litmus test for how far the Trump administration could push the bounds of the First Amendment in its efforts to control its press coverage.

Zoom in: The judge granted the AP's request for an injunction to force the White House to reinstate the AP at Oval Office and Air Force One press events.

• "[T]he Court simply holds that under the First Amendment, if the Government opens its doors to some journalists—be it to the Oval Office, the East Room, or elsewhere—it cannot then shut those doors to other journalists because of their viewpoints. The Constitution requires no less," U.S. District Court Judge Trevor N. McFadden wrote in his opinion.

What they're saying: "We are gratified by the court's decision. Today's ruling affirms the fundamental right of the press and public to speak freely without government retaliation. This is a freedom guaranteed for all Americans in the U.S. Constitution," AP spokesperson Lauren Easton said in a statement.

• "We look forward to continuing to provide factual, nonpartisan and independent coverage of the White House for billions of people around the world."

Catch up quick: The AP sued three Trump administration officials in late February for blocking its reporters from events like Oval Office meetings and Air Force One press pools, citing a violation of its First Amendment rights.

• A judge rejected the Associated Press' emergency motion to rescind the White House ban a few days later as he sought more details on the circumstances surrounding the case.

The big picture: The Trump administration has sought to take more control over press coverage. In February, the Defense Department informed several outlets, including NPR, NBC News, Politico and CNN, that their workspaces would be replaced by mostly conservative outlets such as Washington Examiner, Daily Caller and Newsmax.

• Axios recently reported that the White House is eyeing ways to possibly take over the White House briefing room seating chart, which has historically been governed by the White House Correspondents' Association.

Reality check: Some precedent was already set around these types of issues. During Trump's first administration, efforts to block reporters were found to be unconstitutional.

Go deeper: Trump's historic war on traditional media

Editor's note: This story has been updated with a statement from AP.

President Trump on Friday commuted the prison sentence of Carlos Watson, the founder of the now-defunct digital media startup Ozy Media, a spokesperson for Watson confirmed to Axios.

Why it matters: Watson was found guilty of conspiracy to commit securities fraud, conspiracy to commit wire fraud and aggravated identity theft last year after a judge concluded that he had illegally deceived investors about his company's financials.

Zoom in: Watson learned that he was granted clemency while on a flight on his way to serve his nearly 10-year prison sentence, according to his spokesperson, Juda Engelmayer.

• The president also commuted the sentence of probation imposed on Ozy Media for its conviction in the case, according to CNBC. Engelmayer could not confirm that detail.
• A federal judge last month ordered Watson and Ozy to pay over $36 million in restitution and nearly $60 million in forfeiture.
• Watson's attorney Arthur Aidala did not immediately reply to a request for comment.

Glenn Martin, a criminal justice reform advocate, celebrated the news on X and thanked the president, his daughter Ivanka Trump, and fellow criminal justice reform advocate Dr. Topeka K. Sam, among others, for helping to make Watson's commutation possible.

• He also thanked Alice Marie Johnson, who was famously granted clemency by President Trump after 21 years in prison in 2018. Johnson's clemency was made possible by the public support of Kim Kardashian.

Watson thanked Trump and Johnson in a statement, while insisting he and Ozy had been prosecuted as part of a "malicious campaign orchestrated by a jealous competitor at a rival media company."

Catch up quick: Watson was found guilty of being involved in a scheme to impersonate a YouTube executive to vouch for Ozy's video metrics on a fundraising call with Goldman Sachs.

• The move, initially reported by the New York Times in late 2021, led to an FBI investigation and eventually a trial in which Watson was found guilty of defrauding investors.
• Watson had pleaded not guilty in court. He tried to argue that Ozy's growth efforts were no different from other media companies looking to scale fast. He blamed his colleagues for the impersonation scandal.
• Ex-Ozy Media executives cooperated with prosecutors, which hurt Watson's attempts to deflect blame.
• A federal court judge eventually ruled that Watson was guilty. He faced up to 37 years in prison for the crime. He was ultimately sentenced to 116 months behind bars.

The big picture: Watson's conviction sent shockwaves through the digital media industry, which for years faced pressure from venture investments to grow quickly online.

Go deeper: How Ozy fell

The Trump Administration on Saturday ordered nearly all 1,300 employees of Voice of America to be placed on leave.

• It also terminated funding for its sister broadcasters such as Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL), Radio Free Asia (RFA) and Middle East Broadcasting Networks.

Why it matters: The decision sparked outrage from press freedom groups who say gutting those programs represents the latest effort by the Trump administration to abandon the historic role the U.S. has played in championing democracy and press freedom abroad.

Catch up quick: VOA is the largest of five international broadcasters represented by U.S. Agency for Global Media (USAGM), formerly the Broadcasting Board of Governors.

• Those broadcasters operate on congressionally approved funding.
• VOA was created more than 80 years ago to combat Nazi propaganda during WWII. Its mission is to promote democracy and American interests abroad through fact-driven journalism.
• A legal firewall is supposed to protect it from any government interference. Those boundaries were tested during the first Trump administration.

Zoom in: On Saturday, employees at VOA were informed by USAGM's director of human resources that they were placed on leave, barring them from entering VOA's headquarters and using USAGM-provided equipment.

• The move came as part of a directive issued late Friday by the White House to reduce statutory functions of "unnecessary governmental entities to what is required by law."
• USAGM special adviser Kari Lake canceled USAGM's 15-year lease, with a notice calling it "obscenely expensive."
• Other USAGM-funded broadcasters were told their funding would be terminated.

What they're saying: Attempts to defund RFERL "would be a massive gift to America's enemies, many of whom are already celebrating," Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty president and CEO Steve Capus said in a statement.

• "VOA needs thoughtful reform, and we have made progress in that regard. But today's action will leave Voice of America unable to carry out its vital mission. That mission is especially critical today, when America's adversaries, like Iran, China, and Russia, are sinking billions of dollars into creating false narratives to discredit the United States," Voice of America director Michael Abramowitz wrote on LinkedIn.

Zoom out: Trump allies have long criticized the VOA and USAGM press agencies as propagandists. Elon Musk has called for VOA to be shut down.

• Saturday's actions were foreshadowed two weeks ago, when Gavin Kliger, a former Twitter software engineer who is now part of Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) team, was spotted inside VOA headquarters, sources told Axios.
• The week prior, USAGM placed one of the VOA's most visible journalists, chief national correspondent Steven Herman, on "excused absence" pending an HR investigation and reassigned the broadcaster's longtime White House bureau chief Patsy Widakuswara to another beat.

Yes, but: Attempts to defund USAGM-funded entities were halted by courts during Trump's first administration, and it could come up against legal pressure again this time around.

• Michael Pack, the conservative filmmaker who was nominated by President Trump to lead USAGM during his first term, was accused of fraud, as well as misuse of office, during his short tenure from 2020 to 2021.

What to watch: The gutting of USAGM's broadcast agencies would leave an information vacuum in parts of the world where fact-based journalism is difficult to access, advocates have argued.

• "The termination of RFA's grant is a reward to dictators and despots, including the Chinese Communist Party, who would like nothing better than to have their influence go unchecked in the information space," RFA president and CEO Bay Fang said in a statement.

Disney's $1.5 billion investment in Epic Games last year is part of a broader push to amplify its franchise flywheel with new tech, Disney Experiences chair Josh D'Amaro and Disney Entertainment co-chair Alan Bergman told Axios in an interview from SXSW.

Why it matters: "From an investor point of view, the combination of strong IP and ambitious investment leads to returns," D'Amaro said.

• "If you look at the return on invested capital over the period of time when we started leaning in [to tech innovation], it goes up by 3 times," D'Amaro said.
• A 2024 regulatory filing shows that return on investment is even higher when looking at certain franchises, such as "Frozen" and "Toy Story."

State of play: D'Amaro and Bergman appeared on stage at the annual SXSW conference in Texas on Saturday to unveil a slew of tech-enabled additions to their franchises.

• They were joined by director Jon Favreau who showed off new BDX droid robots built by Disney's Imagineering team for his upcoming film "The Mandalorian & Grogu."
• The free-roaming animatronic robots, which resemble the famous Star Wars character R2-D2, will also be brought to Disney's parks and experiences, per D'Amaro.
• Favreau is leveraging Epic Games' 3D creation tool Unreal Engine for many of the new tech experiences related to his upcoming movie.

Zoom out: Disney has long invested in technology, but as the media landscape shifts away from traditional television and movie theaters, it's had to rely more on innovation and collaboration among its studios and parks to push its IP forward.

• Over the past few years, Disney has brought more of its franchises into its parks as part of that effort.
• A new Monsters, Inc.-themed land is coming to Hollywood Studios. New Encanto and Indiana Jones attractions are in the works at Disney's Animal Kingdom. An Avatar-themed destination is coming to Disney California Adventure.
• Great park experiences are often what inspire new film sequels, Bergman said, pointing to examples such as Zootopia land, which opened in Shanghai in 2023, ahead of a planned sequel.

The big picture: Disney's streaming business was the focal point of its epic stock rally during the pandemic. But in the years since, it's faced increased pressure on Wall Street to make its streaming products more profitable and find new ways to monetize its IP.

• Collecting data from across all of Disney's consumer touch points has been a major focus for the company over the past few years, Bergman said.
• "We're getting more and more sophisticated about how we use that data in the right way to create a guest experience and ultimately to create that synergistic effect," D'Amaro said.

What to watch: The integration of Epic Games' tech across Disney's franchises will hopefully result in more consumer experiences that resonate with younger generations, per D'Amaro.

• "Technology is going to allow us to serve consumers where they are and bring the Disney brand to consumers that may not be familiar with us, and create that generational effect," he said.

The Washington Post is making major changes to its newsroom that are meant to broaden the outlet's coverage and reach a wider audience, according to a staff memo from executive editor Matt Murray obtained by Axios.

Why it matters: The shifts follow months of high-profile staff departures and blowback to recent opinion coverage changes by owner Jeff Bezos.

• Longtime Post opinion editor and columnist Ruth Marcus resigned from the Post Monday after CEO Will Lewis killed her column expressing concerns about Bezos' opinion section changes.
• Former Washington Post executive editor Marty Baron penned a scathing piece about the changes last week.

Zoom in: As part of the newsroom overhaul, the Post will divide its national desk into two sections that focus on national reporting, and politics and government coverage, respectively.

• The politics and government desk "will encompass most of our reporters and editors covering the political scene and the government, which remain a central pillar for The Post," Murray wrote. "The Economics and Economic Policy team from Business will move to this department."
• The national desk, "which incorporates the America team, the education team, and the GA desk in Washington, will have a remit to cover the United States and important issues and figures outside of Washington and across the country more broadly," he added.
• Business, technology, health, science and climate teams will be brought together in a new department that focuses on "how businesses are transforming across the economy; how scientific and technological shifts are affecting daily life; and what it all means for people's health, security and the planet," Murray said.
• New department head roles for each new desk will be posted shortly, Murray said. Murray hopes all newsroom changes are in place by no later than May 5. The Post's newsdesk will exist outside of those main departments.

Between the lines: Broadening coverage will help the Post become less dependent on political news, which can be cyclical in nature, Murray told Axios in an interview after announcing the changes.

• "I want to make sure there are a few areas that are equally staffed and strong to make sure we're always putting a strong foot forward and that we're not just the politics paper, even though that's important to who we are."
• Asked whether the newsroom changes are aligned with the opinion section changes announced by Bezos last month, Murray said the shifts run in parallel but aren't explicitly connected. Some of the newsroom changes, for example, stem from audience data about what readers want, not a broader philosophical shift at the paper.
• "Jeff is aware of my plans but they're my plans," he said. "They grew out of where we see opportunities for The Post as we grow."

Zoom out: The shifts are also meant to prioritize digital products and reader engagement, Murray said.

• Each reorganized department will have its own senior editor for audience growth and a senior editor for visuals.
• Murray is hiring a head of print to "ring-fence print from the rest of the newsroom and make it completely downstream, so the majority of us can focus our efforts on our growing digital products."
• "Text will no longer be a default (format) and length no more a reflexive measure of quality," he said.

State of play: In a town hall meeting discussing the changes, deputy managing editor Mark Smith — who has been tasked by Murray with leading newsroom transformation — announced 10 new principles that will guide the Post's journalism and culture moving forward.

• Those principles include things like "We center reader value and impact in all of our journalistic decision making and commit to measuring this impact" and "We know the best journalism and reporting has humans at the core. We work in interdisciplinary teams so that our audience benefits from the diverse skills in our newsroom."

The big picture: The newsroom "reinvention," as Murray describes it, reflects a broader scramble at the Post to transform itself following years of profit losses and shrinking readership.

• Murray was named interim executive editor after Lewis announced sweeping changes to the newsrooms's editorial structure and leadership last spring. Murray was quietly named permanent executive editor late last year.
• Those changes include the creation of a "third newsroom," called WP Ventures, that focuses on video, audio, newsletters and social engagement. New roles will be posted for WP Ventures shortly, per Murray.
• During the town hall, WP Ventures editor Krissah Thompson gave examples of ways the Post is innovating its approach to social journalism, including allocating more resources for journalists to film their own social videos, piloting video podcasts and YouTube shows, and experimenting more with AI video.

What to watch: Murray acknowledged that the new changes may not align with everyone at the company.

• "It is a time of change across The Post, including for our colleagues in the company and in Opinion. This is a big effort involving all of us, and it is disruptive. There will be some confusion and even some mistakes. Candidly, I realize it may not be for everyone," he wrote.

Editor's note: This story has been updated with comments from Washington Post executive editor Matt Murray and additional details from the publication's town hall.

The Washington Post's Opinion Section editor David Shipley resigned after owner Jeff Bezos mandated the section prioritize two topics, personal liberties and free markets, and not publish dissenting views in those areas.

Why it matters: The changes will dramatically reshape The Post's opinion coverage, which has focused on a broad array of issues, especially politics and policy, for decades.

• "This is a significant shift, it won't be easy, and it will require 100% commitment — I respect his decision," Bezos wrote in a note to staff Wednesday. "We'll be searching for a new Opinion Editor to own this new direction."

The big picture: The new announcement, following a controversial move by Bezos to kill presidential endorsements last year, shows how much Bezos is willing to assert his power to shape public opinion as the owner of one of the country's largest newspapers.

• The Post lost thousands of subscribers last year over Bezos' endorsement decision. Members of the Opinion Board resigned in protest.

Zoom in: Bezos said the Post will cover other topics "but viewpoints opposing those pillars will be left to be published by others."

• "There was a time when a newspaper, especially one that was a local monopoly, might have seen it as a service to bring to the reader's doorstep every morning a broad-based opinion section that sought to cover all views. Today, the internet does that job," Bezos wrote.
• "I am of America and for America, and proud to be so. Our country did not get here by being typical. And a big part of America's success has been freedom in the economic realm and everywhere else. Freedom is ethical — it minimizes coercion — and practical — it drives creativity, invention, and prosperity," he added.
• "I'm confident that free markets and personal liberties are right for America. I also believe these viewpoints are underserved in the current market of ideas and news opinion. I'm excited for us together to fill that void."

Between the lines: Bezos said he offered Shipley the opportunity to lead the section under the new guidelines, but "after careful consideration, David decided to step away," he wrote.

State of play: Bezos' announcement quickly drew backlash from journalists online, including at The Post.

• "Massive encroachment by Jeff Bezos into The Washington Post's opinion section today — makes clear dissenting views will not be published or tolerated there," The Post's chief economics reporter Jeff Stein posted on X. "I still have not felt encroachment on my journalism on the news side of coverage, but if Bezos tries interfering with the news side I will be quitting immediately and letting you know."

Zoom out: The vast majority of America's largest newspapers by circulation didn't endorse a presidential candidate this year, marking a stark departure from previous election cycles and a turning point in the history of American opinion journalism.

• Opinion sections become a major source of contention within newsrooms during the first Trump administration, with journalists at major newspapers urging their bosses to reevaluate their policies.

What to watch: Efforts by the Trump administration to scrutinize media have forced media, entertainment and tech companies to make difficult decisions about how far they will go to defend their editorial values.

• Most notably, ABC in December settled a lawsuit filed against it by Donald Trump, even though some legal experts said ABC could've won the case.
• CBS News faces pressure to settle a $20 billion lawsuit with Trump, as its parent Paramount awaits regulatory approval to merge with Skydance Media.

Editor's note: This story has been corrected to reflect that Bezos is mandating the section prioritize coverage of personal liberties and free markets (not publish articles on those topics only).

MSNBC's new president Rebecca Kutler plans to announce broad programming changes to the network that elevate some of its most progressive voices, sources told Axios.

Why it matters: The changes signal the network's intent to double down on its liberal bend instead of moving toward the center in a new Trump era.

State of play: The programming shifts, which will impact dayside, weekend and primetime programming, include moving former White House press secretary Jen Psaki, currently the host of the weekend show, "Inside with Jen Psaki," to anchor one of the primetime hours during the week.

• Psaki could be named anchor of MSNBC's 9 p.m. hour, which Rachel Maddow currently helms, sources told Axios. Maddow has returned to the anchor chair five times per week during the first 100 days of the Trump administration. She plans to return to anchoring just once per week on Mondays after that.
• Alex Wagner, who had been anchoring MSNBC's 9 p.m. hour Tuesday-Fridays since 2022, will remain with the network as a correspondent, sources said.
• Psaki, who joined the network in 2022, served in the Obama and Biden administrations. Her show has become the network's most-watched weekend program.

Zoom in: Symone Sanders Townsend, Michael Steele and Alicia Menendez, the trio of co-hosts that currently anchor MSNBC's weekend program "The Weekend," will move to anchor a weekday program in the 7 p.m. hour, sources added.

• Menendez would be the first Latina woman to host a primetime cable news program on MSNBC.
• Steele, formerly the chairman of the Republican National Committee, would join MSNBC anchor Nicole Wallace and "Morning Joe" host Joe Scarborough, a former Republican Congressman, as a host of a daily program on the network.

Between the lines: Sanders Townsend, formerly a spokesperson for former Vice President Kamala Harris, was hired by MSNBC in 2022, shortly before Pskai. Kutler spearheaded both programs in her previous role as MSNBC's senior vice president of content strategy.

• Kutler, a longtime producer and former head of content development and talent at CNN, has a history of developing reporters and commentators into cable news stars.
• Sources said talks are underway for Kutler to add Politico's Eugene Daniels and NYU law professor Melissa Murray to the network's lineup.
• A network spokesperson declined to comment.

The big picture: MSNBC and several of its sister cable networks are expected to be spun out from Comcast as part of a separate, standalone company that will be publicly traded.

• The split will force MSNBC to build up some of its own reporting and newsgathering infrastructure, especially in Washington D.C., where Kutler is expected to announce a new Washington Bureau for the network in coming months.

What to watch: Kutler is also hiring for a Washington bureau chief and new heads of talent, newsgathering, and content strategy.