Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren has accused Amazon MGM Studios of “blatant bribery” after spending extravagant money on a documentary about first lady Melania Trump. However, the company disagrees with that assessment and insists it has done nothing wrong.
In March, Massachusetts Sen. Hank Johnson (D-Ga.) led an investigation into whether Amazon MGM’s investment in Melania was “part of an improper compensation arrangement with the Trump administration.”
That comes after Amazon MGM paid $40 million to acquire “Melania” and an additional $35 million to bring it to market, an unprecedented amount considering the documentary is not a box office juggernaut. Warren noted that Amazon-MGM’s offer was $26 million more than the next highest bidder, Disney. “Melania” opened in theaters in January and closed with a worldwide box office gross of $16.6 million. That’s an impressive result for the genre, but Amazon MGM is far from breaking even on this film, as sellers keep half of the ticket sales. It’s worth noting that many movies (especially in the post-pandemic era) haven’t been able to make a profit in theaters.
“The fact that Amazon is paying far above market prices to produce and promote a Trump family film while seeking preferential treatment from the Trump administration calls into question its ability to be prosecuted under federal anti-bribery laws,” the lawmakers wrote in a March 15 letter to Amazon. “The American people deserve assurance that powerful companies are not using their funds to gain political influence or preferential treatment in public funds, and that these companies are not violating federal bribery laws.”
Federal anti-bribery laws make it illegal to offer anything of value, such as business opportunities or financial arrangements, to elected officials or their associates for the purpose of influencing official conduct.
Warren and Johnson asked Amazon to explain its $40 million payment for the documentary and to say whether the company discussed the bid directly with Melania Trump or with someone within the administration. Amazon, on the other hand, pushed back against the idea that financial promises were bribes. The company said its decision to license “Melania” was based on “access, story, and cultural and historical relevance.”
“We disagree with any suggestion that Amazon’s decision to license this film and its accompanying series was inappropriate,” Brian Huesman, Amazon’s vice president of public policy, said in a March 30 statement obtained by Variety. “We regularly release documentaries that span the political spectrum and provide unique perspectives on cultural and historical figures.”
He added, “Amazon MGM Studios became the licensor of this film and its accompanying series after a thorough competitive bidding process. ‘Melania’ gave us the opportunity to tell a story that had not been told before. It gave us unprecedented access to a historic presidential transition through the perspective of the first lady. Our decision was based on the film and series itself: access, story, and its cultural and historical relevance.’
Warren responded by saying Amazon’s response “reeks of a desperate attempt to please Donald Trump.”
“If there was nothing fraudulent about this transaction and the bidding process was truly ‘competitive,’ why doesn’t Amazon explain why it allegedly paid three times as much as the next highest bidder?” Warren said in a new statement. “The logic is that Amazon is trying to buy the president’s favor by pouring millions of dollars into the pockets of the Trump family. This looks like bribery on its face. Amazon must answer to Congress and the American people now.”
The letter notes that since Trump’s election in 2024, Amazon has contributed $1 million to President Trump’s inaugural fund and an unspecified amount toward the construction of a new “gold-encrusted” ballroom at the White House. Lawmakers also allege that Amazon and its founder Jeff Bezos have financial interests in several issues that predate the administration, ranging from antitrust cases recently settled with the Federal Trade Commission to foreign trade deals and federal contracts.
“Watching Trump’s second inauguration gather front-row seats for oligarchs and tech executives, some of whom donated millions of dollars to Trump’s re-election campaign, has heightened fears that the rich and powerful will wield dangerous levels of power and influence over the nation through this deal and millions of dollars to a corrupt president,” Johnson said in a new statement. “Amazon’s ‘there’s nothing to see here’ response makes this fear even more real. If there really was nothing to see, Amazon would have answered these basic questions.”
“Melania” generated many negative headlines during its theatrical run, and speculation was rife that the film was an attempt by retailers to pander to the current administration. During President Trump’s second term, media outlets have become increasingly deferential to the president. Last summer, Paramount paid the president $16 million to settle what the company initially called a “baseless” lawsuit related to “60 Minutes,” and a year earlier, Disney wrote a $15 million check to President Trump’s library to settle a defamation lawsuit filed against ABC News anchor George Stephanopoulos.
When Amazon MGM acquired Melania in early 2025, a studio spokesperson said, “We licensed this movie for one reason: we thought our customers would love it.”
