Original Content From

Rivian R2 prototypes have now been driven by a select few in digital media, and we have learned quite a bit more about this price-friendly SUV, including potential performance specs.

News surrounding Rivian and its second flagship model, the R2, has been heating up in 2026, as we patiently await the market launch of this smaller, all-electric SUV, which will be the American automaker’s most affordable option by far.

Since the R2’s announcement, performance targets and other details have trickled in from Rivian HQ ahead of its planned launch this year. In January, Rivian’s team rallied around manufacturing validation prototypes that were rolling off its assembly lines in Normal, Illinois (see image below). Crazy to think that a year ago, the area where these new EVs are being assembled was just grass.

Yesterday, Rivian shared that the R2 has entered the final phase of validation testing before it removes the camouflage and officially launches in the US market, with pricing and confirmed performance specs to follow. While we were awaiting that milestone, a small group of content creators received an invite to test-drive the R2 validation prototypes and report back. Unfortunately, we didn’t make the list this go-around (we forgive you, Rivian, as long as we get an invite next time).

Advertisement – scroll for more content

Anyways, plenty of other outlets shared their drive experiences online and pointed out some hints to (potential) performance specs of the production version of the Rivian R2.

After drives, Rivian R2 specs are all but confirmed

Before we begin, I want to point out two things. First, I wasn’t at this R2 drive event, so I’m just gathering intel from all the other outlets that posted video content today. Secondly, remember that the R2 vehicles driven were still prototypes, so any specs noted may not match what we see when the sheet is pulled for the production model in the coming months.

From what I’ve heard, Rivian didn’t share many performance specs for the production R2, nor did it provide details on trim variations or pricing. Rivian has previously said the R2 will start at $45,000, but whether it will actually be able to hit that target remains to be seen.

We have learned that the initial Launch version of the R2 will be higher-performing and thus have a higher price point. That’s a standard approach to EV model launches, though, so no surprises there. Marques Brownlee delivered a very concise walkthrough of the exterior of the R2, detailing how it looks exactly like the R1S I currently have in my garage, only shorter in length (two rows instead of three) and narrower. As you can see in his Auto Focus video, many of the exterior elements are either the same or have been simplified/streamlined.

While again, these were prototypes being driven for the first time by media, Rivian engineers explained that those EVs are pretty close to what the Launch Edition trim of the R2 will be when it hits the market. Based on those drives in those prototypes, combined with previous statements by Rivian, here are some of the R2 specs we have gathered:

• EV Architecure: 400V (Completely bespoke)
• Battery size: 87.4 kWh (In the version driven by media)
• Powertrain: Dual Motor AWD
• Power: 656 hp
• Torque: 609 lb-ft
• 0-60 mph Acceleration: 3.6 seconds
• Max Charge Rate: N/A
• DCFC Charge time: 10-80% in 30 mins

Another notable feature is the transition from active air suspension in the R1 EVs to a new multi-link suspension in the R2, described by RJ Scaringe as “Soooo good.” The smaller SUV will also feature new batteries and the new Maximus electric drive unit. As we learned during Rivian’s AI & Autonomy Day (we got invited to that one!) R2 will be powered by Rivian’s new in-house silicon chip, significantly bolstering its software capabilities and, when combined with a new LiDAR sensor, paving the way for Level 4 self-driving.

From a user-gadget standpoint, we’ve learned that the rear window of the Rivian R2 goes down, but the rear side windows do not fan out. The steering wheel has also been equipped with new haptic wheels, which saw mixed reviews from the outlets on the test drive.

I recommend checking out all the coverage of those who got to test-drive the Rivian R2 prototype, as each person offers their own insight into what went into this new EV, what is working, and which specs stand out most to them. For example, Doug DeMuro said the R2 is the best all-around EV he’s driven.

We are sure to learn more about R2, including more specs and, hopefully, pricing, next month when Rivian struts its stuff at SXSW 2026. Stay tuned.

Original Content From

U.S. Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell speaks during a press conference at the end of a Monetary Policy Committee meeting in Washington, D.C., on Oct. 29, 2025.

JIM WATSON/AFP via Getty Images

hide caption

toggle caption

JIM WATSON/AFP via Getty Images

President Trump recently nominated Kevin Warsh to become the next chairman of the Federal Reserve’s Board of Governors. And it’s got us thinking about the power of the Fed chair, and where that power comes from.

On paper at least, the chair of the Fed doesn’t seem like he or she should be that powerful. The Federal Reserve Act, which created America’s central bank, established a bunch of limits on the authority of any one person to shape our economy.

The Fed chair, for example, only has one out of 12 votes on the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC), the crucial decision-making body that sets interest rates. One of 12! It’s hard enough for me and a small group of my friends to pick which movie to watch. I can’t even imagine trying to convince a majority of eggheads — at least seven — on some fancy committee what the proper interest-rate policy should be to achieve the Fed’s dual, sometimes-conflicting mandate of low, stable inflation and a strong labor market. That said, the Fed chair obviously does more than just try and herd cats on this important committee.

And, so, we’ve been wondering, is the Fed chair actually that powerful? And, if so, why?

Princeton University economist Alan Blinder researches and teaches about the Fed (he’s been a frequent guest on Planet Money). Blinder served as vice chair of the Fed back in the mid-1990s. That’s the Fed’s number 2, right behind the head honcho, who was then Alan Greenspan.

“He was the boss,” Blinder says of Greenspan. And yeah, he says, Fed chairs actually do have “a great deal” of power. “Now, you wouldn’t learn that by just reading the Federal Reserve Act.”

To understand the scope of this “great deal” of power, we first need to make clear what “the Fed chair” job actually entails. The Fed chair is actually the chair of two different bodies — the Board of Governors and the FOMC. They’re appointed by presidents and confirmed by the Senate to be the Chair of the Board of Governors for four-year terms. The board is made up of six other members who are also presidentially appointed and confirmed by the Senate (in staggered, 14-year terms to safeguard the institution’s independence from any particular president).

The Board of Governors has a big professional staff and oversees a bunch of important financial stuff, from banking supervision and financial regulation to payment systems to economic research to the day-to-day operations of the Fed. That’s one important area where the Fed chair exercises power.

But Fed chairs are — by tradition, not law — also the chair of the FOMC, which, again, is arguably the most important policymaking organ of the Fed because they’re the group that makes the crucial decisions about interest rates. It’s where most of the exciting action is. Each year, typically at their first meeting in January, FOMC members vote on who will chair their important committee — and by long-standing tradition, they always select the Fed chair (they don’t have to; more on this in a bit, because the fact that the president doesn’t actually appoint the head of the FOMC could be relevant if there was ever a battle over Fed independence).

It’s true, Blinder says, that the Fed chair “only has one vote out of 12 on the FOMC and could in principle be outvoted.” However, in practice, “it has never happened in the history of the Federal Reserve.”

Wow. That’s worth repeating. On the crucial FOMC decisions about whether interest rates should go up or down, the Fed chair has never been outvoted!

Meanwhile, it’s also extremely rare for the Fed chair to be outvoted on the Board of Governors.

David Wessel, a long-time economics journalist who now is director of the Hutchins Center on Fiscal and Monetary Policy at the Brookings Institution, pointed to what seems to be the last instance where the Fed chair was outvoted on the Board of Governors. That was under the chairmanship of Paul Volcker, all the way back in 1986 — the same year the band Europe released “The Final Countdown” and people apparently thought it was cool to wear neon spandex and leg warmers. In other words, a long time ago.

What explains the Fed chair’s incredible track record?

Now, just because the Fed chair has always been in the majority at the FOMC and has almost always been in the majority at the Board of Governors doesn’t mean that they’re dictating to these bodies what they should do.

That said, a recent working study by Cooper Howes, an economist at the Fed, and three other academic economists, analyzed FOMC meeting transcripts over a few decades. And they found that the final policy decision that the FOMC made about interest rates lined up virtually “one-for-one with the Chair’s preferred change.” They conclude that “while disagreement is pervasive among FOMC members, when it comes time to make a decision, the Committee largely follows the Chair’s preferences.” It confirms previous findings from other economists and political scientists, including Chappell, McGregor, and Vermilyea (2005).

Gary Richardson, an economist at UC Irvine who served as the first official historian of the Federal Reserve System, says this evidence may overstate how all-powerful Fed chairs actually are. He suggests that the Fed chair’s incredible track record of triumphing in committee votes may be partly the result of a give and take between them and the other committee members. Fed chairs, he suggests, read the room in the weeks or months prior to official votes and — seeking a consensus — they reshape their own policy preferences in anticipation of what they know other committee members will want.

We were curious what people who served on the Board of Governors and FOMC had to say about this debate over the Fed chair’s influence over votes.

Lael Brainard served as a member and then vice chair of the Board of Governors between 2014 and 2023, under the leadership of Fed chairs Janet Yellen and Jerome Powell. She says it’s true that FOMC members can influence the Fed chair’s policy preferences through their public speeches, conversations, and so on.

But, in her experience, when it came close to the FOMC meeting, the chair usually had clear preferences for what they wanted the Fed to do. They would call her and other members on the phone in the run-up to FOMC meetings to get a sense of what they were thinking and how they would likely vote on the chair’s proposed actions. However, they didn’t do this with “a blank slate,” she says. “It was really about getting people on board with their preferences.” In other words, they lobbied the FOMC to get what they wanted.

Lael Brainard takes the oath of office as vice chair of the Federal Reserve on May 23, 2022, in Washington, D.C.

Drew Angerer/Getty Images

hide caption

toggle caption

Drew Angerer/Getty Images

Blinder had a similar story about Alan Greenspan. “He had firm opinions most of the time,” Blinder says. “He let you know what those opinions were before you voted, so it wasn’t like everyone’s gonna vote and then, ‘Oh, Greenspan had a different view.’ No, he let everybody know. And so the choice you had when it came time to vote was whether you were gonna defy this deeply respected and exalted chairman or go along with him, even if you didn’t quite agree with him.”

In short, all the sources we spoke to agreed that the Fed chair exercises a ton of power over both the FOMC and the Board of Governors, even though much of that power can’t be found formally written down in the law.

So where does the Fed chair’s power come from?

So why, if the Fed chair is only one of many votes in a crucial financial institution that shapes our economy, does he or she seem to have so much power over it? There are at least a few important reasons.

First, the Fed chair has power over the Fed’s communications. Fed chairs are the ones who hold the important press conferences. They are the ones, who, by law, testify before Congress. They are the “most visible figure at the Fed,” Wessel says. Call it the economic bully pulpit.

Imagine a Fed chair going in front of microphones and cameras, and saying something like, “Inflation is out of control, and there’s nothing we can do about it.” Markets would go bananas. People would be crying about their 401Ks. There would be pandemonium on Wall Street. Fed chairs speak for their institution, and that institution really matters for the economy. Their mouths have power — and the other board and committee members know it. That may be one reason why they tend to defer to the Chair.

Second, the Fed chair isn’t just the chair. He or she is effectively the Fed’s CEO, says Richardson. That is spelled out in the law: the Federal Reserve Act says the chair is the Fed’s “active executive officer.” And just like any other CEO, the Fed chair has broad authority over day-to-day management — including significant influence over hiring, firing, and promotions among the Fed’s staff. They are the staff’s boss. And that authority can help Fed chairs shape which data, analyses, and reports other Fed authorities see when they vote on crucial matters.

In the run up to FOMC meetings, Brainard says, committee members are given what’s known as “The Tealbook.” Basically, it’s a report, put together by the Fed’s economists, that contains data, charts, and deep-dive analyses about the direction of the economy that are relevant for the votes FOMC members have to make.

Brainard says this report was always super high-quality. It’s not like Fed chairs get staff to cook the books or anything like that. The data is real. “But the data lends itself to different interpretations, particularly at turning points in the economy,” she says. And the way the data is presented can sometimes matter. Through their sway over the staff, the chair can use the Tealbook and other staff reports to influence how members vote.

Being the Fed’s chief executive also gives the Fed chair the power to make small decisions, like “who gets parking, and who gets to park where,” Richardson says, and big decisions, like who serves on which committees. In that recent study by Howes and colleagues, they hypothesize that FOMC dissenters are met with “punishment” by the chair that reduces their influence in the institution. In other words, the chair has some carrots and sticks that they may use to nudge members in directions they want.

Additionally, Fed chairs tend to serve much longer on the Board and FOMC than other members. While Governors can serve up to 14 years on the Board, most spend much less time than that. The longer tenure, Richardson says, may increase the chair’s gravitas and institutional knowledge, and it may be another reason why Board and FOMC members defer to them.

Third — and importantly — the Fed chair sets meeting agendas, including proposed policy actions. “The  Federal Open Market Committee meetings and the Board meetings are not just free-for-alls where anybody brings up anything they want,” Blinder says. “There’s an agenda, and they stick to the agenda — and the agenda is set by the chair.”

One prominent example of why agenda control matters came after the 2008 financial crisis, when Ben Bernanke was Fed chair. Basically, the Fed cut interest rates all the way to zero — and then it couldn’t push them any lower to stimulate the economy. The Fed’s conventional weapon had lost its power. So Bernanke had to develop and put on the agenda an entirely new, unconventional weapon — “Quantitative Easing” (QE) — to try and get the economy growing again (QE was basically the Fed buying a boatload of mortgage-backed and other securities to try and push down longer-term interest rates).

Bernanke was uniquely qualified to lead this agenda, because he had spent years studying things like the Great Depression as well as Japan’s more recent struggles with near-zero interest rates, which were instances where central banks found their traditional policy levers no longer worked.

Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke participates in a press briefing at the Federal Reserve building, on June 22, 2011, in Washington, D.C.

Mark Wilson/Getty Images

hide caption

toggle caption

Mark Wilson/Getty Images

Wessel had a fun way of describing this. “ One way to think about it is Ben Bernanke was like the guy who was studying dinosaurs, and everybody said, ‘Well, that’s intellectually interesting, but who cares?’ And then one day on the horizon, a Tyrannosaurus Rex shows up — and they were like, ‘Well, thank God the guy in charge knows something about dinosaurs.'”

This gave Bernanke extra gravitas. And, combined with his institutional authority and powers — he was able to put unconventional monetary policies on the agenda. While those policies proved to be controversial, he was able to convince strong majorities on both the Board of Governors and the FOMC to pursue them during a time of crisis. (Side Note: Trump nominee Kevin Warsh once served on the Fed Board and the FOMC. He voted for early rounds of QE, but later became an influential critic of the policy).

Finally, and relatedly, the Fed chair has shown an incredible power to build consensus within the decision-making bodies of the Fed. We alluded to this before when we shared the incredible fact that the Fed chair has never been outvoted on the FOMC and has rarely been outvoted at the Board of Governors.

One big reason for this consensus, Blinder says, is a tradition of deferring to the chair. “The belief on the Fed is that it’s damaging to the institution to defy the chair.”

Brainard agreed that there’s an institutional norm on supporting the chair, especially in difficult moments for the economy. “There is — for people like myself —  a desire to show some unity and support for the chair — even if you might have modest differences in terms of where you think that outcome should be,” Brainard says.

Fed officials are public servants, and they know their actions and words can have huge effects on the economy. The Fed is most powerful and effective when it speaks with one voice. Speaking with one voice is a clear and powerful signal to markets, and officials like Brainard have deferred to the chair because they believe it helps “shore up the strength and credibility of the institution.”

For example, Brainard says, back in 2015, when she was fresh on the Board of Governors, she faced a difficult decision about whether to support raising interest rates. Fed Chair Janet Yellen had “put in place a lot of communications and work to prepare to raise rates for the first time since the Great Financial Crisis,” Brainard says. At the same time, markets were looking a tad bit shaky. “So I thought it was the wrong moment to raise rates,” she says. “But because it was so significant that it was the first interest rate rise since the Great Financial Crisis, I thought it was very important to show solidarity and support of the chair, defer to her judgment and move forward with that.”

Part of this tendency of members to defer to and support the chair depends on who is actually selected to serve in these positions. For example, President Trump appointed Stephen Miran last year, and since then Miran has defied the tradition of consensus and become a consistent dissenting vote against Chairman Jerome Powell, pushing the Fed to more forcefully cut interest rates.

A new Fed chair

So, yeah, historically, the Fed chair has really mattered for the actions of America’s central bank. But much of their authority boils down to a kind of soft power, which is a product of tradition, norms, and the social and political dynamics of serving in these bodies. In extreme circumstances — like, say, if a president tried to strip the Fed of independence and forced them to pursue inflationary policies — that could change.

“The chairman depends on the loyalty and respect of the other people on the FOMC,” Wessel says. “And if we had a chairman who was really out to lunch, then I think we would learn the chair’s power is limited  by his ability to command the respect of the committee.  So the challenge that every new Fed chair has coming in is that the institution is loyal to the chair. They give you the benefit of the doubt, but if it turns out that they think you’re nuts or irresponsible, they can turn on the chair and make it impossible for him to get his way.”

In other words, within the internal structure of the Fed lies a dormant power that could be awakened.

Over much of the past year, President Trump has been pressuring Jerome Powell to lower interest rates and many believe it’s not a coincidence that there’s now a federal criminal investigation of cost overruns in a major Fed building renovation project pursued under his tenure. Indeed, Jerome Powell released a statement and said, “The threat of criminal charges is a consequence of the Federal Reserve setting interest rates based on our best assessment of what will serve the public, rather than following the preferences of the President.” Trump has also sought to fire Biden appointee Lisa Cook from the Board of Governors. It’s all been pretty unprecedented, and, within that context, the nuances of the Fed’s structure have gotten more focus.

For example, the fact that the Fed chair doesn’t, by law, have to be the head of the FOMC was cited by some observers as a potential way for the Fed to safeguard their independence and fight President Trump’s push to get them to lower interest rates. Many fear that handing the Fed’s power to President Trump — or, really, any president — would ultimately result in worse inflation and be damaging to the economy (check out this Planet Money Spotify playlist of episodes about Fed independence).

Jason Ma, writing over at Fortune, stressed that Jerome Powell’s term as Fed Governor ends in 2028, and, even if he was replaced as Fed chair by a Trump ally who wanted to push rates to the floor, it would be possible for Powell to continue serving as FOMC chair and command the necessary majority to fight that.

However, President Trump’s recent nomination of Kevin Warsh seems to have tamped down on this talk.

“ This view of a possible civil war on the FOMC has been greatly diminished by the nomination of Kevin Warsh,” Blinder says.

That’s because Warsh previously served on the Fed’s Board of Governors and FOMC, has a track record of caring a lot about runaway inflation, and he’s well respected. Plus, Blinder says, he’s personable and isn’t the type of person who would bang on the table at FOMC meetings.

Kevin Warsh (to the left), then a Fed official, talks with then-EU Finance Minister Elena Salgado during the G-20 meetings in 2010.

Chung Sung-Jun/Getty Images

hide caption

toggle caption

Chung Sung-Jun/Getty Images

For many, Trump’s selection of Warsh was surprising, considering the president has been urging a more dovish stance at the Fed for significantly lower interest rates — and Warsh has a reputation as an inflation hawk.

That said, nobody knows what sort of conversations Warsh has had with President Trump, whether he would have a stiff backbone in the face of presidential pressure, and what decisions Warsh will ultimately make if he gets approved by the Senate and takes the big job.

One thing is for sure though: the job he does will significantly matter for all of us.

Original Content From

The first four months of fiscal year 2026 got off to an expensive start for the U.S., according to the latest estimates from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) .

The CBO released a report yesterday detailing that, for the first third of FY26 (which began in October), the U.S. government operated at a deficit, and so borrowed $696 billion. That included $94 billion in January alone, and works out to an average of $43.5 billion for each of the 16 weeks of the four months since.

While America’s government spending outweighs its revenue generation, its finances are also negatively compounded by the interest payments needed to maintain its debt. Total national debt now sits at more than $38.5 trillion. U.S. GDP is about $31 trillion, according to the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis.

Original Content From

Novo Nordisk referenced the FDA’s concerns in its lawsuit announcement on Monday, saying Hims & Hers’ compounded drugs “may contain dangerous impurities or incorrect amounts of active ingredients, which can result in life-threatening immune responses”.

Original Content From

David Ellison’s Paramount Skydance is adding some additional financial promises to its hostile takeover bid for Warner Bros. Discovery as it continues to try to kill Netflix’s deal for WB.

Paramount on Tuesday said it will add an “incremental cash consideration” to WBD shareholders of 25 cents per share, equivalent to approximately $650 million cash value each quarter, for every quarter the proposed Paramount acquisition is not closed beyond Dec. 31, 2026.

That extra “ticking fee” reflects the confidence of Ellison and his team that a Paramount-WBD deal will have a smoother path to regulatory approval than Netflix’s merger with Warner Bros. Paramount (and others) have alleged that Netflix, if it owns HBO Max, would have a virtual monopoly on subscription streaming in multiple markets; Netflix has dismissed this, claiming that even with HBO Max its share of U.S. TV viewing would be 10%, still behind YouTube.

In addition, as part of Paramount’s sweetened deal terms for Warner Bros. Discovery, the company said it would pay the $2.8 billion breakup fee due to Netflix with the termination of the Netflix agreement if WBD shareholders accept Paramount’s $30-per-share offer for Warner Bros. Discovery in its entirety.

Paramount also said it will eliminate WBD’s potential $1.5 billion financing cost associated with its debt exchange offer by “fully backstopping an exchange offer that relieves WBD of its contractual bondholder obligations.” Paramount said it will fully reimburse WBD shareholders for the $1.5 billion fee, without reducing the separate $5.8 billion reverse-termination fee, in the “unlikely event” that the Paramount transaction is blocked by regulators.

Paramount also extended the expiration date of its tender offer, with the revised terms, to March 2, 2026. WBD is expected to hold a special meeting of shareholders in late March or early April to vote on the Netflix deal.

Warner Bros. Discovery said that its board would review the new Paramount terms but said that — for now — it’s not changing its recommendation that shareholders OK the deal with Netflix. Netflix did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Paramount sent a letter to the WBD board of directors outlining the terms of its enhanced offer. So far, the WBD board has rejected Ellison’s M&A overtures eight times — and has repeatedly said it will stick with Netflix’s $27.75/share deal to acquire Warner Bros.’s films and TV studios and HBO Max, inked in early December.

David Ellison, chairman and CEO of Paramount, said in a statement: “The additional benefits of our superior $30-per-share, all-cash offer clearly underscore our strong and unwavering commitment to delivering the full value WBD shareholders deserve for their investment. We are making meaningful enhancements — backing this offer with billions of dollars, providing shareholders with certainty in value, a clear regulatory path, and protection against market volatility.”

Other promises Paramount Skydance is making in its amended takeover offer:

Paramount’s amended offer, with an enterprise value of about $108 billion, is “fully financed” by an increased $43.6 billion of equity commitments from Larry Ellison (David’s tech-billionaire father) and RedBird Capital Partners, alongside $54 billion of debt commitments from Bank of America, Citigroup and Apollo. Other backers of Paramount’s WBD bid include the sovereign wealth funds of Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Abu Dhabi.

As with Paramount’s Dec. 22 offer, Paramount’s financing includes an “irrevocable personal guarantee from Larry Ellison” of $43.3 billion, which covers the equity financing for the M&A offer as well “any damages claims against Paramount.”

Warner Bros. Discovery has said it expects to spin off Discovery Global, which will comprise CNN, TNT, TBS, Food Network, HGTV and other cable nets as well as Discovery+ and other assets, in the third quarter of 2026, prior to the Netflix deal close.

WBD has said the target amount of net debt for Discovery Global is $17.0 billion as of June 30, with decreases over time to $16.1 billion as of Dec. 31, 2026.

Paramount claims its analysis shows that if Discovery Global is spun off with debt leverage in line with Versant Media Group — the TV-centric entity that separated earlier this year from Comcast’s NBCUniversal — the Netflix cash consideration would be reduced to $23.20 per share. Assuming both a valuation multiple and leverage ratio in line with Versant, Discovery Global’s equity value would be about $3.55 per share, resulting in total value of only about $26.75 for the Netflix deal, according to Paramount. That would make Paramount’s $30/share all-cash offer 12% higher than what WBD shareholders get from the Netflix transaction, Paramount claims.

With the Netflix deal, WBD shareholders would have equity in Discovery Global, “whose business is in decline and would need to support an unrealistic debt load of $17 billion (at June 30, 2026) to achieve the high end of the Netflix consideration range,” Paramount said.

Also Tuesday, Paramount said it “continues to make progress in its regulatory clearance process.” On Feb. 9, 2026, Paramount Skydance certified that is has complied with the Department of Justice’s December 23, 2025, Second Request for Information related to its all-cash tender offer to purchase shares of Warner Bros. Discovery. Separately, Paramount also secured clearance for its tender offer from the foreign investment authorities in Germany on Jan. 27, 2026.

Original Content From

Peacock, the streaming service of Comcast’s entertainment unit NBCUniversal, has posted a widened fourth-quarter loss of $552 million, compared with $372 million in the year-ago period.

Comcast, which announced its latest financial results on Thursday, put the higher Peacock loss down in part to the launch of the NBA and an exclusive NFL game. Due to its sports and entertainment lineup, Peacock posted $1.6 billion in total revenue, up from $1.3 billion the year-ago quarter. The streamer recorded 44 million paying subscribers, compared with 41 million at the end of the third quarter and 36 million a year ago, the company said Thursday.

Comcast CFO Jason Armstrong on a morning call said Peacock had “reached meaningful scale,” and “in 2026 we expect Peacock losses to meaningfully improve again” as the media conglomerate continues to navigate a disrupted landscape for traditional Hollywood studios. Comcast chairman and CEO Brian Roberts discussed the wider market backdrop for Peacock amid continuing industry consolidation that had the company eyeing and then calling off any run at Warner Bros. Discovery.

“In terms of Warner Bros., what can you say, it’s still underway, obviously. We saw an opportunity to see if we could build value for Comcast shareholders, looking at their international reach, and would have been additive. But once it looked like all-cash, we were just not interested in these values stretching our balance sheet to do something like that,” Roberts explained.

He added Comcast is taking a wait-and-see stance as the face off between Netflix and Paramount for WBD had unleashed another round of industry consolidation: “A lot of companies are [asking] what does this mean to me? And there’s a lot of conversations on whether there are opportunities to build value, and we’re always open to that. So we’re looking at ways to creatively compete, succeed and go into a part of the business that is perhaps not the same everybody else and I think we’re doing a great job of that.”

Overall Comcast revenue came to $32.3 billion, in line with an analyst forecast for $32.34 billion, and up 1.2 percent from a year-earlier $31.9 billion in revenue. Net income attributable to Comcast was down 55 percent to $2.16 billion, while the adjusted earnings per share fell 12.4 percent to 84 cents. That beat an analyst forecast for adjusted earnings per share at 76 cents.

Content and experiences revenue rose 5.4 percent to $12.7 billion, as media revenue, which includes NBCUniversal, was up 5.5 percent to $7.6 billion. That offset the Universal film studios revenue dropping 7.4 percent to $3.02 billion on a fall in licensing and theatrical revenue.

The slip in studios revenue was also offset by the theme parks revenue — a key metric for investors — rising 22 percent to $2.9 billion in the fourth quarter after the opening of Epic Universe in May 2025.

Comcast’s connectivity and platforms revenue fell 1.1 percent to $20.2 billion. The core cable and telecom distribution business continued to lose pay TV and broadband subscribers in the fourth quarter as Comcast continues to grapple with cord-cutting and competitive pressures. The division shed 245,000 video customers during the fourth quarter and lost another 181,000 broadband subscribers.

Comcast recently announced it had completed the separation of most of its cable networks into a separate entity called Versant Media Group, led by Mark Lazarus as CEO. Thursday’s analyst call included a focus on Comcast stepping up support for its broadband, wireless and entertainment distribution platforms, including on packaging and pricing, after Steve Croney, CEO of its Connectivity and Platforms division, came on board to succeed Dave Watson as he becomes vice chairman of Comcast Corp.

Original Content From

Amazon did not allow talent to opt out of working on Melania for political reasons, a new report alleges.

That order came straight from Amazon’s leadership, forcing studio staff to choose between working on an absurdly expensive documentary about Melania Trump or risk losing their jobs, three sources told The New York Times

“They were told that the project was mandated by the company’s leadership and that employees could not opt out of working on the film for political reasons,” the Times reported.

Amazon CEO Andy Jassy and Mike Hopkins, who runs Amazon Studios, both attended a private screening of the documentary at the White House on Saturday. The film hits theaters Friday, a day after the first lady attends a screening at the MAGA-fied Kennedy Center.

Amazon Studios did not respond to a request for comment.

Money appears to be tight at the Jeff Bezos company. Despite the newlywed Amazon founder growing his net worth by $16 billion in MAGA 2.0—bringing his total to $261 billion, according to Insider—he has been cutting jobs as of late.

Amazon eliminated 14,000 corporate positions in October, which it labeled as “removing layers” and “speeding up decision‑making.” It then announced another 16,000 corporate job cuts worldwide this week, as rumors also swirl that the Bezos-owned Washington Post is preparing major cuts that could arrive at any time.

While costs are cut elsewhere, it appears no expense was spared in producing and promoting Melania. Amazon spent $40 million on the film rights alone, $26 million more than Disney, the next-highest bidder.

The tech giant then spent another $35 million to promote the film, far exceeding the typical marketing budget for a documentary. The massive spending has been likened to a “bribe” to win favor with the Trump administration.

“This has to be the most expensive documentary ever made that didn’t involve music licensing,” Ted Hope, who was instrumental in founding Amazon Studios, told the Times. “How can it not be equated with currying favor or an outright bribe? How can that not be the case?”

By comparison, Amazon reportedly paid about $12 million in total to promote four of its previous high-profile documentaries: I Am Not Your Negro, Mayor Pete, All In: The Fight for Democracy, and Time.

Despite spending heavily and having Melania, 55, promote the film through appearances on conservative media, the film is expected to be a box-office flop.

The 104-minute film, billed as an intimate look at the first lady’s life ahead of Donald Trump’s 2025 inauguration, opens nationwide this Friday. The industry-tracking firm National Research Group expects Melania to earn just $5 million in its opening weekend, trailing behind Send Help, Iron Lung, and Shelter—a trio that are not exactly blockbusters themselves.

Some tracking firms, like Box Office Pro, project that Melania may earn as little as $1 million its opening weekend. International sales are also expected to be in the gutter as European disdain for the Trump administration only grew amid Trump’s threats to seize Greenland from Denmark.

Original Content From