Bezos might have preserved the local news and sports journalists of The Washington Post

Greetings and welcome to Regulator, a newsletter for Verge subscribers discussing tech-related political maneuvers in the era of Trump. If you’re a subscriber, you are influential and talented, akin to the Seattle Seahawks. If you haven’t subscribed yet, it’s time to elevate your status, similar to the New England Patriots. (I’m from Boston, so I can state this.)

The foremost tech narrative shaping Washington at this moment, interestingly enough, is also a media tale. Recently, right after The Washington Post terminated 400 employees and shut down various sections, and prior to the ousting of its absentee CEO Will Lewis, I penned a column attempting to discern whether there was even a self-serving rationale for Amazon founder Jeff Bezos to retain ownership of the Post: Was it to bolster journalism, generate profit, or curry favor with Donald Trump?

This past weekend, I uncovered details of a dialogue that could have saved the Post financially while also safeguarding several journalists, yet ultimately fell through: Following reports in late January that the Post was considering the removal of its sports desk, the Washington City Paper, a prominent publication with rich ties in DC, had proposed acquiring both the Post’s sports and local sections, thus retaining those journalists in jobs.

Individuals close to the negotiations indicated that Mark Ein, the proprietor of the City Paper and a minority owner of the Washington Commanders, had approached then-CEO Lewis with a proposition weeks earlier: Instead of cutting sports and local, they could create a separate entity that the City Paper would fund and operate on its platform. (It’s not uncommon for news organizations to sell off sections and intellectual properties.)

While Lewis was allegedly open to the idea, talks unexpectedly ceased last Wednesday, when the Post shuttered those sections entirely and laid off the journalists in those roles. Notably, the journalists covering sports were actively engaged in the Winter Olympics and were set to cover the Super Bowl.

That decision particularly resonated with long-time Washington Post readers: A generation of sports journalists had flourished on the Post’s coverage of local teams, and it was two local beat reporters who played pivotal roles in exposing the Watergate scandal.

In response to a post on X encouraging him to hire the newly available Post journalists “to provide the region with the coverage it deserves,” Ein replied that he was “on it.” The Washington Post did not provide a comment when requested.

Over the weekend, I reached out to more insiders in journalism, technology, and Trump-related gossip circles, all of whom had experience with Bezos and the Post, in search of clarity. It appears they were just as bewildered as I am, and two offered to share their insights.

One executive involved in journalism and philanthropy having worked with Bezos stated:

“The way I typically depict billionaires owning media outlets is they wish to avoid writing additional checks, meaning their perception of a subsidy is based on the fact that they aren’t pressured to write the newspaper a check each year. All their other businesses generate dividends, correct? In this case, they think, Fine. Just ensure it doesn’t lose money, and stop bothering me. They are attempting to justify the business model by minimizing losses.

“So, his endeavor to reduce losses makes sense. What remains puzzling is why he is engaging at all. What is the outcome for him? Is he passionate about the enterprise? He has never publicly declared any affection for it. I think there are aspects of this puzzle that remain unresolved, in some respects. Consequently, that is what people fill in with, He seeks influence with Trump or has ulterior motives concerning his other ventures. I’ve never heard him make such claims. I’ve never seen anyone at The Washington Post assert such notions. I haven’t observed any proof to support it. However, it’s what you might conclude when the math doesn’t add up. What I believe is true is that it is illogical for him to maintain ownership of this venture.”

Kara Swisher, a technology journalist and host of Pivot, who made a public attempt last year to acquire the Post without receiving a response from Bezos. (Note: Swisher’s podcast Pivot is produced by Vox Media.) Here is her complete response:

“I have no idea except that somewhere within a less dulled area of his once sharp intellect he believes he is undertaking what is necessary to ensure the Post’s long-term viability. However, I suspect, considering how instinctually driven he has always been, he wants to exhibit loyalty to Trump while simultaneously stifling it gradually to maintain his avenues should he require them.

This much is certain: Bezos has consistently been about maintaining options and will take whatever measures are needed to advance his goals. It would be far more advantageous if he divested and acquired Vogue, but as he is ten times wealthier than when he took on the Post in 2013, why not have everything? Or perhaps, just perhaps, he’s merely a jerk.”

Intriguing. An often overlooked detail regarding the layoffs, first reported by Sara Fischer at Axios: Of the 400 individuals let go, 75 were from Arc XP, the Post’s tech publishing division, which was also financed by Bezos.

A new wave of backlash against Trump is emerging on the right, spearheaded by the cable network that was once staunchly loyal to him.

Today, Chris Ruddy, the CEO of the conservative cable network Newsmax and a close Trump ally, testified in the Senate against the $6.2 billion Nexstar-Tegna merger, alongside several nonprofit journalism organizations advocating for local news. This deal would necessitate the Federal Communications Commission, under Chairman Brendan Carr, to lift a regulatory cap limiting companies to owning only 39 percent of the television market. Should this merger succeed in the Senate, the Nexstar-Tegna entity would control 54 percent.

“What they’re claiming is absurd,” Ruddy told me via phone following the hearing. “Initially, they assert that they’re enhancing competition through a massive merger. Then, they maintain they’re safeguarding local news. Local news is on the verge of being wiped out, and Nexstar has a history of terminating journalists and merging newsrooms wherever feasible.”

In his opening statement, Ruddy contended that the merger would result in increased corporate media concentration and inhibit independent, local, non-corporate entities from entering the market. “With the decline of local newspapers and the dismantling of local radio due to earlier consolidations, television is now primarily the mainstay for local news,” he articulated, highlighting that even viral local news stories on tech platforms generally originate from local TV reports. “When you raise the national ownership threshold, you’re effectively suggesting that only two or

three corporations could ultimately own the majority or all television outlets in America — and thus control local news. That epitomizes what true consolidation entails.”

Newsmax itself bears scars from similar acquisitions: Despite being the seventh-most-watched cable network in the nation according to Nielsen ratings, it frequently finds itself targeted by national media conglomerates that jeopardize its ability to broadcast nationwide. For instance, Ruddy specifically accused Nexstar of creating a competing channel and marketing it cheaply:

“Nexstar insists that cable providers carry its little-viewed news channel, NewsNation. Last year, Newsmax recorded ratings at least five times higher than NewsNation, yet cable operators were compelled not only to include NewsNation in their offerings but also to pay license fees vastly exceeding those allocated to Newsmax. We talk a lot about the free market; however, this is not the free market. This is

market leverage and exploitation aimed at harming consumers and stifling competition — especially competition from independent entities like Newsmax.”

In November 2025, Trump, who Ruddy has supported financially since 2016, vehemently criticized the merger on Truth Social, asserting that it would “permit the Radical Left Networks to ‘expand,’” thereby granting mainstream media more control over the nation: “NO EXPANSION OF THE FAKE NEWS NETWORKS. Make them SMALLER!” Fast forward to last Saturday, and Trump unexpectedly revised his stance, posting on Truth Social that the merger would actually “help eliminate the Fake News because there will be increased competition, and at a superior and more sophisticated level.”

What prompted this change? There exists a particular category of “appeasing Trump” that dates back to his first term when Trump was frequently engaging with cable news: Special interest groups would purchase advertising in specific markets and air them on Fox News in hopes that Trump was watching. Over the last few months — particularly during college and professional football playoff games — I have come across two very specific advertisements funded by a group named Keep News Local, seemingly directly inviting Trump to support the Nexstar-Tegna merger. Their rhetoric carries a very Trump-like tone: Accompanied by visuals of the president, a narrator states that the merger would bolster “independent voices,” would “defeat the fake news media,” and is “essential for MAGA’s survival.” (The crowning statement: “President Trump overcame the fake news monopolies previously through independent voices and local news.”)

Punchbowl reported last week that Keep News Local, which also conducted a campaign on X, is a right-wing coalition supporting the merger, including Building America’s Future, a group associated with Elon Musk. I’d like to point out that this may be the most brazen influence campaign advertisement I’ve ever witnessed on Washington television. Yet subtlety has not played a significant role in Nexstar’s overall Trump strategy; consider that time last September when they sought to have Jimmy Kimmel Live! canceled following Carr’s attack on the late-night host due to a remark related to the political aftermath of Charlie Kirk’s demise. Conversely, an opposing group named Keep It Local Media began promoting its own ads against the deal.

Ruddy mentioned to me that while he is not connected to any political groups advocating for or against the merger, he is aware that the pro-merger factions are investing “a significant amount of money” into their campaign. Nonetheless, he could not determine if they would produce the desired outcome: “I believe, ultimately, Trump makes his own decisions. I’m uncertain if an ad campaign will influence him.”

After several weeks of inquiring about whether the Trump Phone (remember that?) is actually legitimate, our very own Dominic Preston, who has evaluated numerous smartphones, managed to have Trump Mobile executives at least show him the phone via Zoom. However, it will not be “manufactured in the USA” as promised — rather, the devices will go through “final assembly” in Miami.

TPUSA declares that its Super Bowl halftime performance featuring Kid Rock — MAGA counterprogramming to the NFL’s official Bad Bunny halftime show — attracted 6.1 million simultaneous viewers on YouTube TV.

Streaming statistics are notoriously imprecise, but one thing is clear: That figure would have been more substantial if they managed to livestream the performance on Musk’s X. Unfortunately, TPUSA had to abort the X livestream at the last moment, reportedly due to copyright and music licensing conflicts. Allegedly, one song was not authorized for streaming on the “everything app” because of an old clause that was carried over from its Twitter days.

My colleagues Charles Pulliam-Moore and Jess Weatherbed sorted through the clutter of Super Bowl generative AI advertisements, which apparently were in excess. I would like to contribute my perspectives to the discourse:

Catch you next week, and send any tips to in every manner we have outlined here.