NextFin News - U.S. President Trump issued a direct ultimatum to streaming giant Netflix on February 21, 2026, demanding the immediate firing of board member Susan Rice or warning that the company will "pay the consequences." The threat, delivered via the Truth Social platform, follows comments made by Rice on the "Stay Tuned with Preet" podcast, where she suggested that corporations currently aligning with the administration would face an "accountability agenda" should Democrats regain power. According to TechCrunch, U.S. President Trump characterized Rice as a "political hack" and questioned her professional value to the company, marking a significant escalation in the administration’s efforts to influence the internal leadership of private American corporations.
The timing of this demand is particularly critical for Netflix, which is currently navigating the regulatory approval process for its landmark acquisition of Warner Bros. The merger, announced earlier this year, represents one of the largest consolidations in media history and requires the blessing of federal antitrust regulators within the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). While U.S. President Trump did not explicitly link the firing of Rice to the merger’s approval in his post, he previously noted that the deal involves a "lot of market share" and that the government would "have to see what happens." This ambiguity has led market analysts to conclude that the administration is utilizing the merger as a point of leverage to force personnel changes at the board level.
From a financial and regulatory perspective, this incident represents a departure from traditional antitrust enforcement, which is theoretically insulated from political grievances. By targeting Rice—a former National Security Advisor and UN Ambassador who has served on the Netflix board since 2018—U.S. President Trump is challenging the autonomy of corporate governance. The use of "consequences" as a rhetorical tool suggests that the administration may be willing to weaponize the Hart-Scott-Rodino (HSR) Act review process to achieve political ends. If the DOJ were to issue a Second Request for information or move to block the Warner Bros. deal on the grounds of market concentration, it would be difficult to decouple such a move from the President’s public demands, potentially opening the door for protracted legal battles over executive overreach.
The broader impact on the media landscape is profound. Netflix’s co-CEO Ted Sarandos has historically maintained a pragmatic relationship with the administration, even meeting with U.S. President Trump in late 2025 to discuss the Warner Bros. deal. However, the inclusion of Rice on the board has long been a point of contention for the MAGA movement, particularly given Netflix’s content partnership with the Obamas’ Higher Ground Productions. According to the Washington Examiner, the administration’s allies, including activist Laura Loomer, have frequently framed the Netflix-Warner merger as a potential "streaming monopoly" that benefits political rivals. This narrative provides the political cover necessary to justify regulatory intervention under the guise of consumer protection, even if the underlying motivation is partisan.
For investors, this creates a new category of "political risk" that must be priced into large-cap equities. The precedent set here suggests that any corporation with a pending merger or significant federal contracts must ensure its board of directors is politically palatable to the sitting executive. This could lead to a "cleansing" of corporate boards, where individuals with ties to previous administrations are sidelined to ensure smooth regulatory sailing. Data from recent SEC filings shows that Netflix shares experienced a 2.4% dip in after-hours trading following the President’s post, reflecting investor anxiety over the stability of the Warner Bros. acquisition.
Looking forward, the resolution of this standoff will serve as a bellwether for the future of the First Amendment in corporate settings. If Netflix acquiesces and removes Rice, it may secure its merger but at the cost of its institutional independence and potential backlash from Democratic lawmakers, who have already signaled they will investigate any quid pro quo arrangements. Conversely, if Netflix retains Rice, it risks a blocked merger and a hostile regulatory environment for the remainder of the Trump term. The most likely outcome involves a quiet transition where Rice steps down at the end of her current term, allowing both the administration and the corporation to claim a strategic victory without a public surrender.
Explore more exclusive insights at nextfin.ai.
