Why Has Trump Threatened to Veto Netflix’s $72B Megadeal?

The primary driver behind President Trump’s threat to block Netflix’s acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery is the looming threat of a digital monopoly. While Netflix views the $83 billion deal (including debt) as a strategic evolution, the White House sees a concentration of power that could fundamentally break competition in the American media landscape.

The “Monopoly Threshold” and Market Dominance

The chief reason for the potential veto is market share concentration. By absorbing HBO Max and Warner Bros., Netflix would control approximately 34% of the U.S. streaming market. In antitrust legal terms, crossing the 30% threshold is often viewed as the point where a company transitions from a “market leader” to an “illegal monopoly.” Trump explicitly noted that adding Warner Bros. causes Netflix’s share to “go up a lot,” triggering concerns that a combined entity would become too dominant to compete with fairly.

Consumer Price Gouging and Economic Impact

A core pillar of the “America First” economic agenda is protecting the purchasing power of the middle class. The administration fears that this monopolistic merger would lead to aggressive subscription price hikes. Without the pressure of HBO as a direct competitor, Netflix would have the “monopoly power” to dictate prices to millions of American households who would have fewer high-quality alternatives to turn to.

Labor Suppression and the Creative Ecosystem

The veto threat is also fueled by concerns over labor market dominance. Hollywood guilds, including the Writers Guild of America, have raised alarms that an “all-powerful” Netflix would hold an unfair advantage over creative talent. By becoming the single largest employer in the streaming world, the merged company could use its monopoly position to suppress wages for actors and writers and dictate harsh terms for creative projects, citing “synergy” and “cost-cutting.”

Political Preference for Competitive Alternatives

Trump’s move to block the deal has paved the way for a rival $108.4 billion hostile bid from Paramount, led by the Ellison family. Unlike the Netflix deal, the Paramount bid is being framed as “pro-competition” because it doesn’t merge the top two streaming platforms into one. Because this alternative is backed by figures with close ties to the administration—including Jared Kushner’s investment firm—Trump can position the veto as a strike against “Big Tech Monopoly” while supporting a deal perceived as more politically aligned and economically balanced.