Paramount Begs FCC for Green Light on Middle Eastern Sovereign Funds

Just days after Warner Bros. Discovery shareholders gave the nod to Paramount Global’s $111 billion takeover, the Hollywood giant has already raced to the Federal Communications Commission with a petition seeking formal approval for nearly half a billion dollars in fresh equity from three Middle Eastern sovereign wealth funds.

Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund (PIF), Abu Dhabi’s L’Imad sovereign wealth fund, and the Qatar Investment Authority are ponying up $24 billion in capital to back the deal. In return, they’ll walk away with a combined 38.5 percent of Paramount’s non-voting equity: PIF at 15.1 percent, L’Imad at 12.8 percent, and Qatar at 10.6 percent. When added to other passive foreign stakes, the aggregate indirect foreign ownership in Paramount hits approximately 49.5 percent.

Paramount insists this is all perfectly routine. In its FCC filing, signed by chief legal officer Makan Delrahim, the company calls the petition a “customary” procedural step required because the new investors will have indirect stakes in Paramount’s broadcast television stations. The filing even asks the FCC to bless up to 100 percent foreign ownership of equity or voting shares — though Paramount swears it has no plans to go that far. The company’s spokesperson emphasized that David Ellison, Larry Ellison, and RedBird Capital will retain 100 percent of the voting shares and all governance rights. The sovereign funds get zero board seats, zero votes, and zero say in day-to-day operations.

Paramount also took the opportunity to tout the supposed benefits of the investment money. The fresh capital will “preserve and enhance” local news programming, upgrade its technology stack, boost programming diversity, and make the combined company a stronger competitor in the marketplace. The deal, the company claims, will create “a strong champion for creative talent and consumer choice.”

But let’s be clear about what’s really happening here. Paramount isn’t just merging with a rival — it is exploding in size. The acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery instantly transforms the company into one of the largest media conglomerates on the planet, controlling an enormous portfolio of broadcast stations, cable networks, film studios, and streaming platforms that reach tens of millions of American households every day. This isn’t some minor investment; it’s a massive power consolidation in the hands of a single corporate entity that already shapes much of what Americans watch and read.

Now layer on top of that nearly 50 percent foreign equity ownership coming straight from governments that do not exactly share America’s values when it comes to press freedom or national security. Saudi Arabia’s PIF, Abu Dhabi’s L’Imad, and Qatar’s sovereign fund are not passive pension managers — they are arms of their respective ruling regimes. These are state-directed entities whose governments have long records of using media influence, soft power, and financial leverage to shape narratives both at home and abroad.

The national security implications are impossible to ignore. Even without formal voting rights or board seats, a combined 38.5 percent non-voting stake in the parent company of a major American broadcaster creates undeniable leverage. Content decisions on news programming, documentaries, entertainment series, and even children’s programming do not happen in a vacuum. Investors with that kind of financial skin in the game, especially state-controlled investors, inevitably expect their interests to be respected. History is littered with examples of foreign governments quietly steering coverage away from uncomfortable topics: Qatar’s well-documented influence operations through Al Jazeera, Saudi Arabia’s aggressive public-relations campaigns following the Khashoggi affair, and the UAE’s sophisticated lobbying machine in Washington. Giving any of them a seat at the table (or even near it) of a company producing the news and information consumed by millions of Californians and Americans is playing with fire.

The FCC’s own review process acknowledges these risks. The petition was routed to the Committee for the Assessment of Foreign Participation in the United States Telecommunications Services Sector, better known as Team Telecom, precisely because indirect foreign ownership of broadcast licenses triggers national-security and law-enforcement scrutiny. Yet Paramount’s filing reads more like a victory lap than a sober acknowledgment of those concerns.

This is not about xenophobia or opposing foreign investment on principle. It is about basic common sense: when foreign governments that routinely suppress dissent and promote their own geopolitical agendas acquire significant stakes in the American media apparatus, the American public has every right to demand rigorous scrutiny. Especially now, as Paramount swells to unprecedented scale through the Warner Bros. Discovery acquisition, the stakes for editorial independence and national security have never been higher.

The FCC should treat this petition with the seriousness it deserves, not as a rubber-stamp formality, but as a genuine test of whether America is still willing to protect its own airwaves from foreign state influence. Californians, whose state is home to the heart of the entertainment industry, have a particular interest in ensuring that the stories told on our screens are not quietly shaped by Riyadh, Doha, or Abu Dhabi.