Two government watchdog groups have demanded investigations into whether Federal Communications Commission members violated ethics requirements by accepting luxury gala tickets from Paramount as the company sought government approval for its $111 billion acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery.
The complaints filed by Democracy Defenders Fund and Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington cite a recent ProPublica investigation that detailed how CBS or its parent company, now Paramount, have for years given FCC commissioners tickets to the Kennedy Center honors gala, which the television network sponsors. The commissioners accepted the gifts even as the FCC was reviewing or about to review major Paramount business decisions, including two megamergers.
Commissioner Olivia Trusty’s most recent financial disclosure said Paramount gave her two tickets to the December 2025 honors gala that together were worth more than $12,000. Trusty was one of two commissioners who voted last year to approve Paramount’s merger with another media company, Skydance.
ProPublica’s investigation found FCC members had long enjoyed a night out at the Kennedy Center courtesy of CBS or its parent company. Seven of the 10 commissioners who served since 2016 accepted tickets worth more than $260,000, according to a ProPublica analysis of ethics disclosures.
FCC Chair Brendan Carr’s financial statements show he has reported accepting honors gala tickets from CBS or its parent company eight times since his 2017 appointment to the commission, totaling over $75,000 in gifts.
Carr, who also voted in favor of the Paramount-Skydance merger last year, sat with his wife in a private skybox at the December gala with Paramount CEO David Ellison and other executives from Paramount and CBS. Such seats sold for $125,000 a ticket, according to Kennedy Center guidelines.
Carr disclosed on his latest financial statement that he accepted tickets from Paramount for himself and a guest to the 2025 gala and reception worth $12,390. Carr did not respond to a request from ProPublica to clarify the apparent difference in value between those tickets and the skybox seats.
The FCC only released Carr’s disclosure late on Friday, more than a month after ProPublica had first requested it. The document says the agency certified it on June 22.
Federal ethics rules ban employees from taking gifts from any entity that does business with, is regulated by or seeks official action from their agency.
“The federal gift regulations and the gratuities statute exist to ensure that government decisions are made on the merits, free from the influence of private benefits,” the Democracy Defenders Fund said in its complaint. “The public must have confidence that the FCC’s merger review process is not compromised by self-dealing or the appearance of impropriety.”
Carr, Trusty and the FCC did not respond to requests for comment. The agency’s inspector general declined to comment. An FCC spokesperson previously told ProPublica that agency ethics officers have for years cleared commissioners to accept the tickets, finding it consistent with ethics law. And Paramount’s chief of communications said it was a decades-long “CBS practice to invite government officials from both parties” to the Kennedy Center show. Carr last year defended the FCC’s approval of the Paramount merger with Skydance, saying it “advances the public interest.”
The FCC’s review of the Paramount-Warner Bros. merger is one of the final federal hurdles facing a historic consolidation of two of the five largest film studios in Hollywood. The deal would unite Paramount Skydance with Warner Bros., bringing under the control of one company Paramount+ and HBO Max streaming services; CBS and CNN; and scores of other major broadcast channels, cable networks and digital platforms.
Four ethics experts told ProPublica that by accepting the tickets, Trusty and Carr had compromised the FCC’s impartiality and should not take part in any upcoming decision on Paramount’s proposed merger.
The Democracy Defenders Fund — led by Norman Eisen, former ambassador to the Czech Republic and White House ethics czar under President Barack Obama — filed its grievance on Thursday with the federal Office of Government Ethics, the FCC’s inspector general and the FCC’s ethics office.
The group said the investigation should examine whether Carr and Trusty broke rules on accepting gifts or broke criminal laws prohibiting federal officials from accepting illegal gratuities.
Carr and Trusty should be required to repay Paramount the “fair market value” of any improper gifts and the federal ethics agency should refrain from certifying Carr’s annual disclosure report until he can prove that he has complied with ethics laws, Democracy Defenders Fund wrote. Its letter to the FCC and the Office of Government Ethics also requests that Carr be disqualified from further participation in the commission’s decision on the Paramount-Warner Bros. Discovery merger.
The nonprofit organization noted that hours after last year’s honors gala ended, Paramount announced it was launching its hostile takeover bid of Warner Bros. Discovery, a move that would later result in a merger agreement that requires FCC approval. About three months later, Carr publicly endorsed the deal on CNBC, promising swift approval.
“The facts that have been reported raise serious questions about the integrity and impartiality of FCC Chairman Carr in particular matters involving Paramount,” including the attempted merger with Warner Bros. Discovery, the letter said.
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, the other group that filed a written protest, requested an FCC inspector general probe of the luxury gifts.
“The reported gifts to FCC officials from businesses that are not only subject to agency regulation but presently engaged in billion-dollar mergers and acquisitions that must be approved by the commissioners themselves are extremely concerning threats to the integrity of FCC operations,” the CREW letter stated.
CREW, founded in 2003 as a nonpartisan organization dedicated to government accountability and ethics, is headed by Donald K. Sherman, a former House Ethics Committee attorney and special assistant to President Joseph Biden.
“Government officials have the power to make decisions that impact huge swaths of the American people,” Sherman said in a statement about the organization’s demand for an inspector general investigation. “With this tremendous power comes a higher ethical standard that apparently wasn’t met. The IG can and must get answers for the public.”
The proposed merger between Paramount and Warner Bros. Discovery has drawn a flurry of legal opposition.
California, New York and 10 other states filed a lawsuit seeking to block the merger under federal and state antimonopoly laws. The Writers Guild of America, the Freedom of the Press Foundation and the Public Interest Project filed similar court challenges in recent weeks.
Paramount has recently agreed to pause its merger until the litigation is resolved or until June 1, 2027, whichever comes first.
Facts Only
* Democracy Defenders Fund and Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington filed complaints regarding ethics violations.
* The complaints cite a ProPublica investigation concerning gifts from CBS/Paramount to FCC commissioners.
* Commissioner Olivia Trusty's financial disclosure noted receiving two tickets worth over $12,000 from Paramount for the December 2025 gala.
* Seven of ten commissioners serving since 2016 accepted tickets valued over $260,000 according to a ProPublica analysis of ethics disclosures.
* FCC Chair Brendan Carr reported accepting honors gala tickets from CBS or its parent company eight times since his 2017 appointment, totaling over $75,000 in gifts.
* Carr accepted tickets from Paramount for himself and a guest to the 2025 gala and reception worth $12,390.
* Federal ethics rules prohibit employees from accepting gifts from entities doing business with their agency.
* The Democracy Defenders Fund requested repayment of gift value and disqualification for Carr from the merger decision.
* Paramount has agreed to pause its merger pending litigation resolution or until June 1, 2027.
Executive Summary
Full Take
The pattern observed suggests a systemic tension between private access and public fiduciary duty within regulatory bodies tasked with oversight of major corporate transactions. The repeated acceptance of high-value gifts by commissioners and the Chair—gifts sourced from an entity directly involved in a pending, multi-billion dollar merger—establishes a clear nexus where personal benefit intersects with official decision-making authority. The fact that ethics officers have historically cleared these actions suggests a persistent, perhaps internalized, precedent that subordinates formal rules to established practice or perceived institutional harmony. This dynamic challenges the very premise of impartiality required for reviewing decisions that profoundly affect public interests, such as consolidation in the media landscape. The disparate reactions—the FCC's statement upholding past practice versus the watchdog groups' demands for immediate action and repayment—reveals a conflict between institutional defense and public accountability. A deeper implication is whether the appearance of impropriety, even when filtered through institutional consensus, negates the merit-based process touted as fundamental to federal decision-making.
* BRIDGE QUESTIONS: If past practice has been cleared by ethics officers, what specific procedural or philosophical shift is required for ethical standards to be applied retroactively to these accepted gifts? How can regulatory bodies create mechanisms that insulate impartial review from the political and financial realities of the regulated industries they oversee? What systemic accountability structures are necessary to ensure that public trust in an agency's decision-making process is not contingent upon opaque historical gift acceptance?
Sentinel — Human
The text is well-structured investigative reporting that synthesizes regulatory complaints with financial disclosures to build a case for ethical scrutiny, exhibiting high marks for journalistic engagement rather than purely synthetic recitation.