Key takeaway: Team Trump’s attempt to counter criticism by pointing to the Obamas’ Netflix deal is misleading because the Obamas partnered with Netflix only after leaving the White House. The more pressing issue is Amazon MGM Studios’ roughly $40 million payment to acquire a Melania Trump documentary while the subject’s husband holds the presidency. Critics argue that timing and access to power, not the mere existence of deals, determine whether a transaction raises ethical concerns.
Team Trump Misfires — Attacking the Obamas’ Netflix Deal Distracts From $40M Melania Documentary Controversy
Late last year Paramount reportedly agreed to distribute the next installment in the Rush Hour franchise, Rush Hour 4, after pressure that sources say came from then-President Donald Trump. When CNBC’s Andrew Ross Sorkin pressed a Trump administration official, Scott Bessent, about whether that intervention was appropriate while Paramount sought the administration’s approval on a merger, the official did not directly deny the reports and instead deflected to an unrelated topic.
“I don’t know, the Obamas have a contract with Netflix. Is that appropriate?” Bessent said.
The exchange resurfaced this week after an unrelated controversy: outside the Kennedy Center, following a screening of a documentary about First Lady Melania Trump, reporters asked the president about a separate entertainment-industry payment. Amazon MGM Studios paid roughly $40 million to acquire the rights to the film — a sum that immediately prompted questions about whether the deal had political motivations given Jeff Bezos’s ownership ties.
When asked about criticism of that payment, the president anticipated the line of questioning and replied, “Well, I think they’d have to go and ask President Obama, who got paid a lot of money and hasn’t done anything.”
WASHINGTON, DC - JANUARY 20: US President Donald Trump speaks with former President Barack Obama during the Presidential Inauguration at the US Capitol on January 20, 2017 in Washington, DC. Donald J. Trump became the 45th president of the United States today. (Photo by Saul Loeb - Pool/Getty Images)(Saul Loeb / Pool via Getty Images)
Why the Comparison Misses the Mark
The key fact repeatedly overlooked by the administration’s defenders is simple and central: Barack and Michelle Obama formed their production company, Higher Ground, and entered a partnership with Netflix after they left the White House. That timing matters. As private citizens with no official access to federal decision-making, the Obamas’ business deals did not raise the same conflict-of-interest concerns that surround payments linked to a sitting president.
If a corporate giant had funneled tens of millions of dollars to projects owned or directed by a sitting president while seeking favorable treatment from that administration, it would — rightly — be viewed as deeply problematic. That is the distinction commentators say Team Trump is trying to cloud by pointing to the Obamas’ post-presidential Netflix partnership.
No Recent Precedent Matches What We’re Seeing
Republicans searching for an historical precedent to justify or explain the current situation should come up empty: few modern examples match the scale or brazenness alleged in recent reports about payments and favors tied to the current presidency. The two comparisons are not equivalent in timing or in potential conflicts of interest, and conflating them risks obscuring the more salient ethical questions.
At its core, this is less about who made a movie deal and more about when and why those deals occurred — and whether access to power was used to extract personal or political benefits. That’s the debate that critics say deserves the spotlight, not a deflection to a post-presidential Netflix partnership.
Help us improve.
