Sen. Elizabeth Warren is charging that Amazon MGM Studios engaged in bribery in plain sight by vastly outbidding competitors to secure a documentary about first lady Melania Trump, a deal she argues may run afoul of federal anti-bribery statutes.
According to The Washington Times, the Massachusetts Democrat is pressing Amazon for answers after the studio paid $40 million to acquire the rights to Melania, a documentary chronicling the first ladys path to her husbands second inauguration. The studio then committed an additional $35 million to market the film, a staggering $75 million total investment in a project that has so far generated just $16.6 million at the global box office before moving to Amazon Prime.
Variety, which first reported the exchange of letters between lawmakers and the studio, noted that Amazon MGMs $40 million offer was $26 million higher than the next-best bid from Disney. If theres nothing corrupt about this deal and the bidding process was truly competitive, why wont Amazon explain why it reportedly paid three times as much as the next highest bidder? Ms. Warren said in a statement.
The logical explanation is that Amazon is trying to buy the Presidents favor by dumping millions into the Trump familys pockets. This looks like bribery in plain sight, and Amazon must give Congress and the American people answers now, she added, framing the transaction as a potential attempt to curry favor with the Trump White House. Her comments reflect a familiar pattern in progressive politics, where corporate dealings involving conservative figures are often cast as inherently suspect, even when similar arrangements with liberal icons draw far less scrutiny.
Ms. Warren and Rep. Hank Johnson, Georgia Democrat, sent a letter to Amazon on March 15 asserting that the studios investment in Melania may be part of a corrupt pay-to-play arrangement with the Trump administration. They pointed to federal anti-bribery law, which prohibits offering anything of value, including business opportunities and financial arrangements, to elected officials or their close associates with the intent to influence official acts.
The lawmakers further highlighted Amazons broader relationship with the Trump administration, noting that since President Trumps 2024 election, the company donated $1 million to his inauguration fund and contributed an undisclosed amount toward construction of a new White House ballroom. They also cited Amazons financial interests in matters before the administration, including an antitrust case recently settled with the Federal Trade Commission, foreign trade negotiations and federal contracts.
Amazon has firmly rejected the bribery narrative, insisting the deal was driven by standard business considerations rather than political favoritism. Brian Huseman, the companys vice president of public policy, said in a March 30 statement that the studios decision was based solely on the projects creative and commercial potential.
We disagree with any suggestion that Amazons decision to license this film and accompanying series was improper. We regularly release documentaries that offer unique perspectives on cultural and historical figures across the political spectrum, Mr. Huseman said, according to Variety.
Amazon MGM Studios became the licensor of the film and accompanying series following a thorough and competitive bidding process. That defense underscores the companys claim that the bidding war was legitimate, even if the final price appears outsized for a documentary that has yet to break even.
Melania traces the first ladys journey leading up to President Trumps second inauguration, offering a rare, more sympathetic portrayal of a Republican woman often vilified by the legacy media. After its late-January theatrical release, the films $16.6 million global box office haul was strong by documentary standards but still far short of covering Amazons combined acquisition and marketing costs, especially with exhibitors retaining roughly half of ticket revenue.
The dispute comes amid a broader pattern of major media corporations reaching costly settlements with Mr. Trump, suggesting that large payouts involving the president are hardly unprecedented. Paramount paid $16 million last summer to settle a lawsuit tied to 60 Minutes that the company had initially dismissed as meritless, while Disney paid $15 million to Mr. Trumps presidential library to resolve a defamation suit against ABC News anchor George Stephanopoulos.
Ms. Warren, however, has portrayed Amazons written response to Congress as further evidence of wrongdoing rather than a good-faith explanation. She said the companys reply reeks of desperation to please Donald Trump, doubling down on her theory that the deal was politically motivated.
Mr. Johnson echoed that line of attack, arguing that Amazons refusal to answer certain detailed questions only heightens suspicion on Capitol Hill. If there were truly nothing to see, then Amazon would have answered these basic questions, he said, as Democrats continue to press a narrative of corruption around a transaction that, to date, remains unaccompanied by any formal legal finding.
Login