State attorneys general from across the US are filing a high-stakes antitrust lawsuit opposing Paramount’s takeover of Warner Bros. Discovery later today.

Paramount is prepared to fight the suit vigorously. The legal battle may, or may not, ultimately delay the media mega-merger involving CNN’s parent company.

California Attorney General Rob Bonta, who is leading the coalition against the merger, is set to hold a press conference at 1 p.m. Eastern time. Some other state AGs will also speak this afternoon. I’m told the coalition includes Washington, Oregon, Arizona, New York, New Jersey, and several other states.

The political dimensions are undeniable: Democrats are lining up to oppose a deal that has been blessed by President Trump and other Republicans.

Paramount’s allies say the state AG action is a campaign stunt in a reelection year, while Paramount’s critics say the entire merger is a politically loaded move that hands control of CNN and other media assets to a Trump ally.

“If this merger challenge is filed, it would kick off the biggest legal fight over corporate power in the Trump era,” anti-monopoly crusader Matt Stoller wrote last night, asserting the lawsuit would be “shockingly good news.”

New York Post columnist Charlie Gasparino represented the other side yesterday, calling the lawsuit “just a ploy to stoke anti-Trump hate,” saying it “helps whip up the Democratic base as the midterms approach.”

There’s going to be a lot of bombastic back-and-forth in the coming days. This Semafor story is a preview: “As California tries to derail Paramount’s $110 billion takeover of Warner Bros. Discovery, Paramount CEO David Ellison’s friends and advisers have been pushing the media executive to consider shifting his business out of the state,” Rohan Goswami wrote.

It’s best to focus on the actual antitrust arguments once the lawsuit is public — and on the response from the courts.

Antitrust suits are sometimes a starting point for negotiations and settlements. Other times, they lead to full-blown trials.

The state AGs may ask a judge to block Paramount from completing the merger while the legal process plays out. A judge may or may not agree. Paramount may make legal maneuvers of its own. The company remains committed to completing the merger this summer, and will have to pay more for WBD if it doesn’t close by the end of September.

Bottom line: We’ll know a lot more later today. Check CNN.com for a full story once the suit is filed this afternoon.

Trump called into CNN’s “State of the Union” yesterday to speak about the sudden death of Sen. Lindsey Graham, marking Trump’s first televised interview with CNN since returning to power.

Trump bristled when Jake Tapper asked about other topics, and Tapper said “we would love to have you back sometime because I do have a lot of other questions for you, sir.”

“Sure. We’ll do that. We’ll do that,” Trump said, pointedly adding, “We’re trying to have CNN go on a normal path. And we’ll do that.”

Media types immediately wondered who the “we” was, and what “normal” would mean to a president who covets attention but can’t stand criticism. “Pod Save America” co-host Dan Pfeiffer wrote on X, “Trump saying WE in this sentence, ‘We’re trying to have CNN go on a normal path,’ could not be more damning for David Ellison and alarming for the people who work at CNN.”

Frankly, I’m glad Trump said it out loud. It draws attention to how he wields power. It was similarly revealing when he said last December that “it is imperative that CNN be sold.” The public comments may offer everyone a glimpse of what’s happening in private.

>> Tapper instantly responded to Trump, “Well, I’m on a normal path right here, sir.” Trump said, “Good. You are.”

This morning, one of the preeminent press freedom groups, Reporters Without Borders, issued a statement supporting the state AG action.

“This monopolistic merger would devastate American journalism by driving deep newsroom cuts, reducing editorial diversity, and further concentrating media in the hands of oligarchs who have already made damaging editorial and personnel decisions at CBS,” Ben Grazda, advocacy manager for RSF North America, said. “Several states seem ready to use their power to block this merger in court, and RSF urges more states to join them immediately.”

While concerns about CNN’s future are “paramount” in the news business, the looming antitrust lawsuit is primarily about the merger’s potential impacts in Hollywood, I’m told.

A draft of the lawsuit argues that the deal “would harm competition in the market for so-called tent pole films, the expensive blockbusters that make up a large portion of studio revenues,” the NYT’s David McCabe, Ben Mullin and Lauren Hirsch reported yesterday, citing sources.

The government’s latest hunt for leakers — involving subpoenas to The New York Times — is deeply personal to Trump, as I write in this new analysis piece for CNN.com.

Journalists involved in the matter strongly suspect that the subpoenas were rushed out in response to Trump’s anger about the news coverage of Air Force One security concerns.

In a memo to staffers over the weekend, NYT exec editor Joe Kahn called the subpoenas “impulsive” and said “the law protects news gatherers from this sort of retaliatory abuse of prosecutorial power.” I expect we’ll hear more soon about the NYT’s legal challenge to the subpoenas.

In the meantime, renowned First Amendment attorney Floyd Abrams framed the matter this way: “I can’t think of another such conflict in which the president himself is so personally involved… Nor can I think of one in which there is every reason to think that the president himself was personally involved in the decision to seek to force the press to reveal its sources.”

Abrams said the reporting last week, and now the fight over the subpoenas, highlights several crucial follow-up storylines: “The wisdom of the President in accepting the ‘gift’ plane: the safety of the president after deciding to accept it: and the candor of the administration in claiming in broad language that the plane was in all respects safe.”

Liam Reilly writes: The NYT on Friday accused the EEOC of retaliating against the news organization for its coverage of the federal agency. In a countersuit, the paper’s attorneys argued that the federal agency’s May lawsuit — filed on behalf of now-former staffer Bryant Rousseau, who said he was denied a promotion because he’s White and male — is a “retaliatory, bad faith use of its authority” that “poses a uniquely insidious threat to a free and independent press, and to our democracy.”

The Times noted how, despite the EEOC’s own eight-month investigation into the claims, the agency “tellingly does not (and could not) point to any evidence in its Complaint to show that Rousseau was discriminated against on the basis of his race or sex.” Read on…

Liam Reilly writes: A Polk County, Iowa, judge said during a Friday hearing that he will need “several weeks” to decide whether to dismiss Trump’s lawsuit against pollster J. Ann Selzer, the Des Moines Register and USA Today. Judge Scott Beattie, who was appointed by a Republican governor, signaled that he may subject Trump’s claims to greater scrutiny than usual because of the “massive First Amendment implications” of the case. “There is an element of chilling,” Beattie said, and so the case may require “a closer look.”

Tonight: The 2026 Home Run Derby, at 8 p.m. ET, airing exclusively on Netflix for the first time and with a brand-new format.

Tuesday: The World Cup semifinals begin with France vs. Spain at 3 p.m. ET.

Also on Tuesday: The MLB All-Star Game airs at 8 p.m. ET.

Thursday: Netflix reports earnings after the bell.

Friday: “The Odyssey” opens everywhere.

WaPo’s Scott Nover has a new feature on what he calls the “human toll of the Trump administration’s effort to shut down Voice of America.” He highlights how hundreds of fired contractors “had to reinvent their careers almost overnight, often leaving journalism behind entirely,” and interviews “exiled journalists” who now work at Trader Joe’s, a coffee shop, a military hospital and a real estate firm. Read on…

Today the European Union “moved closer to barring children from social media,” the NYT’s Adam Satariano and Katie Robertson write.

Experts “delivered a report to the European Commission president, Ursula von der Leyen, recommendi