On July 28, President Donald Trump’s attorneys filed an urgent motion in federal court demanding the expedited deposition of Rupert Murdoch—a move justified, they argued, by both Murdoch’s central role in News Corp’s decision-making and his allegedly precarious health.
Murdoch is 94. He could die at any moment, Trump’s lawyers argued.
The legal maneuver, connected to the president’s $10 billion defamation lawsuit against the mogul and the Wall Street Journal over a story about Trump’s alleged letter to Jeffrey Epstein, has thrown the king of modern media’s longevity and his empire’s future into question.
Trump’s lawyers seem to believe the titan is in no condition to testify at trial, citing a litany of health issues including a severe back injury, seizures, two bouts of pneumonia, atrial fibrillation, a torn Achilles tendon, a serious case of COVID-19 in 2022, and an incident in February 2025 when Murdoch collapsed and fainted at breakfast with a journalist.
“Taken together, these factors weigh heavily in determining that Murdoch would be unavailable for in-person testimony at trial,” Trump’s lawyers wrote.
For decades, Murdoch’s iron grip steered titanic assets—Fox Corporation and News Corp—across continents, through scandal, boardroom intrigue, and relentless media cycles. Yet the court’s focus on his fragility, and the legal assertion that his control has been contingent on his ability to act, accelerates what could become the defining story of the next era in global media: the fractious, uncertain, and high-stakes succession battle for one of the most powerful empires in news and entertainment.
Much of the Murdoch media dynasty’s fate hangs in the balance of the Murdoch Family Trust. Established in 1999, after Rupert’s second divorce, the trust was created to control the family’s significant stake and voting power in both Fox Corporation and News Corp. Although the trust owns only about 14% of News Corp’s equity, it controls roughly 40-41% of the company’s voting shares, giving the Murdoch family effective control over these major media businesses through a dual-share structure.
Tom Stoddart—Getty Images
The trust was designed so that Rupert himself holds four votes during his lifetime, while his four eldest children—Lachlan, James, Elisabeth, and Prudence—hold one vote each. Upon Rupert’s death, his four votes will be distributed equally to these four children, so each will then have two votes, ensuring shared control. At the moment, Lachlan is the sole chair of News Corp and the CEO of Fox Corporation, having taken over for his father after his retirement in 2023.
Ultimately, the trust enables the Murdoch family to control its media empire by concentrating voting power among the four eldest children following Rupert’s death. But its irrevocability and the principle of equal control have sparked ongoing legal and familial conflict that stand to jeopardize the media powerhouse Murdoch built.
In late 2023, Murdoch attempted to alter the trust to grant sole posthumous control to his eldest son, Lachlan, allowing him to take over the family business entirely. This move was legally contested by the other three children, who argued it violated the original mandate of equal control. A Nevada probate court ruled in December 2024 against Rupert’s attempt, but the mogul’s legal team has since filed an appeal.
“Lachlan is having to pay his siblings a higher and higher value to get out of his way. … So he’s in a real bind.”Paddy Manning, Australian journalist and Lachlan biographer
The trust also contains a 2030 expiration date that has only contributed to the ongoing contentious family dynamics that impact the Murdochs’ businesses. The deadline could decide the fate of Fox Corporation and News Corp. Should the trust expire, its terms and centralized structure will dissolve, forcing the Murdoch heirs to determine among themselves the future structure of ownership and control over the family’s immense assets.
Above all, the legal battle over the trust has caused an immense divide in the family. Lachlan and Rupert’s attempt to maintain control has galvanized Lachlan’s three other siblings. “They’ve unified them in a way that they weren’t unified before and so it has been in some ways a miscalculation,” Australian journalist and Lachlan biographer Paddy Manning told Fortune.
Given the long history of Murdoch sibling infighting, succession in a post-Rupert world stands to have significant impacts on the media empire. With control of the businesses passing equally to the four eldest children, boardroom gridlock—if the siblings are unable to reach consensus—could potentially paralyze key business decisions. And ongoing family divisions may shake shareholder confidence.
Majority rules
Murdoch biographer Michael Wolff foresees Lachlan’s three vote-holding siblings ultimately aligning against him and relieving him of his command over News Corp and Fox, and eventually an implosion of the Murdoch media empire we know today.
“The voice of the three would rule. And right now that appears to be that the three would relieve their brother of control and then make a determination about what happened to the remaining assets,” he told Fortune. (James, it’s worth noting, has denied there has even been a secret conspiracy between the siblings to unseat Lachlan in a rare interview with the Atlantic.)
The children, Wolff predicts, will then sell off some of the assets, namely those within News Corp which includes the Wall Street Journal and the Times of London, and James could take over and pivot the editorial slant of Fox News.
“This all comes down to four people, and whether they get along or they don’t get along.”Michael Wolff, Murdoch biographer
James, who is deeply involved in social-justice initiatives and left-leaning politics, has long been outspoken about his deep disagreements with the editorial direction of both News Corp and Fox News, having resigned from the News Corp board in 2020, explicitly citing “disagreements over certain editorial content published by the Company’s news outlets and certain other strategic decisions.” In interviews, he’s criticized his family’s business for “legitimizing disinformation.”
James Murdoch declined a Fortune request for comment.
Even if James were to take over Fox, he would face an uphill battle with the Fox Corporation board that has aligned itself with Lachlan and Rupert’s vision. Since taking over, Lachlan has appointed two of his own directors, including former Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott. According to Manning: Abbott’s role on the board is largely to buttress Lachlan’s leadership. And shareholders, Manning told Fortune, would be pretty concerned about a strategy that tampered with the editorial line, or the programming, in a way that could dilute its earnings potential.
Fox Corporation declined a Fortune request for comment.
As for the remaining businesses in the Murdoch portfolio, finding a suitable buyer for the myriad lesser-known assets within News Corp would be a significant undertaking. The Wall Street Journal, Wolff said, would be somewhat of an exception. “You have vanity buyers to strategic buyers,” he added, throwing Michael Bloomberg’s name into the mix.
News Corp did not respond to a Fortune request for comment.
Billion-dollar buyout:
Acquiescing to his siblings isn’t Lachlan’s sole option. The eldest Murdoch son could buy out his siblings, but past attempts, in 2019 and 2023, were unsuccessful. Lachlan has never been willing to offer his siblings more than 60% of the market value of their shares.
Manning sees Lachlan buying out his siblings as the most logical move, one made by Rupert himself in the 1990s. But, according to Manning, Lachlan’s successful leadership at Fox and News Corp would allow his siblings to ask a high price, into the several billions of dollars, for control of the companies.
“Lachlan is having to pay his siblings a higher and higher value to get out of his way, and he’s having to pay them for effectively the fruits of his strategy, which they have criticized. So he’s in a real bind,” Manning told Fortune.
Under Lachlan’s leadership, Fox Corporation’s stock has performed well, even rising throughout the initial months of his appointment. Although the stock has seen some fluctuation due to ongoing legal battles, its price reached an all-time high of $58 in February 2025. In its third-quarter financial reporting, the company disclosed $4.37 billion in revenues, a 27% year-over-year increase.
As for News Corp’s performance, the company’s stock has soared, reflecting steady financial performance and strong growth. In 2024, the company’s earnings jumped nearly 79%.
Jackie Luna—REUTERS/Redux
Business as usual
Author and journalist Claire Atkinson, who has covered the Murdochs extensively and is writing a forthcoming book on the media dynasty, points to Lachlan’s business wins as a potential reason for Lachlan’s siblings to allow him to remain in control. She doesn’t view sweeping changes to the Murdoch businesses as inevitable following Rupert’s death.
“Lachlan has run it for more than five years. The stocks have done better than other media stocks,” she told Fortune.
Aside from the stock’s performance, Lachlan has also helped propel Fox News’ success. Fox News remains the top-rated cable news channel, leading primetime and outpacing ABC, NBC, and CBS. And he has continued Fox’s expansion into streaming following the company’s 2020 acquisition of Tubi, which as of July 2025, has since surpassed 100 million monthly active users.
But beyond Lachlan’s success, Atkinson doesn’t see Elisabeth and James attempting to reclaim power at their family’s enterprise. “They’ve got these billion-dollar fortunes of their own to create whatever media companies they want,” she said, something Elisabeth has long been doing. The youngest Murdoch daughter started her global TV and film production and development company, Sister Pictures, in 2019.
Elisabeth Murdoch did not immediately return a Fortune request for comment.
Regardless of the potential outcomes, both Atkinson and Manning expect Lachlan to fight tooth and nail to remain heir to the Murdoch empire. “I don’t see him stepping aside or stepping down or relinquishing that position anytime soon at all. I think he is absolutely committed to his role,” Atkinson said.
Wolff, however, questions Lachlan’s willingness to go above and beyond for control over the businesses. “There’s always the sense that he would rather be doing something else, spear fishing,” he said, referring to Lachlan’s favorite hobby.
How hard Lachlan will have to fight to remain atop his father’s enterprise is ultimately dependent upon his siblings, with whom his relationships have been strained by the weight of the Murdoch legacy and divided ideals.
“This all comes down to four people, and whether they get along or they don’t get along, and whatever accommodation they can come to with each other. Nothing else matters, nothing except what these four people will want at a given moment in time,” Wolff said.
He said it four times in seven seconds: Somali immigrants in the United States are “garbage.”
It was no mistake. In fact, President Donald Trump’s rhetorical attacks on immigrants have been building since he said Mexico was sending “rapists” across the border during his presidential campaign announcement a decade ago. He’s also echoed rhetoric once used by Adolf Hitler and called the 54 nations of Africa “s—-hole countries.” But with one flourish closing a two-hour Cabinet meeting Tuesday, Trump amped up his anti-immigrant rhetoric even further and ditched any claim that his administration was only seeking to remove people in the U.S. illegally.
“We don’t want ‘em in our country,” Trump said five times of the nation’s 260,000 people of Somali descent. “Let ’em go back to where they came from and fix it.” The assembled Cabinet members cheered and applauded. Vice President JD Vance could be seen pumping a fist. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, sitting to the president’s immediate left, told Trump on-camera, “Well said.”
The two-minute finale offered a riveting display in a nation that prides itself as being founded and enriched by immigrants, alongside an ugly history of enslaving millions of them and limiting who can come in. Trump’s U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids and deportations have reignited an age-old debate — and widened the nation’s divisions — over who can be an American, with Trump telling tens of thousands of American citizens, among others, that he doesn’t want them by virtue of their family origin.
“What he has done is brought this type of language more into the everyday conversation, more into the main,” said Carl Bon Tempo, a State University of New York at Albany history professor. “He’s, in a way, legitimated this type of language that, for many Americans for a long time, was seen as outside the bounds.”
A question that cuts to the core of American identity
Some Americans have long felt that people from certain parts of the world can never really blend in. That outsider-averse sentiment has manifested during difficult periods, such as anti-Chinese fear-mongering in the late 19th century and the imprisonment of some 120,000 Japanese Americans during World War II.
Trump, reelected with more than 77 million votes last year, has launched a whole-of-government drive to limit immigration. His order to end birthright citizenship — declaring that children born to parents who are in the United States illegally or temporarily are not American citizens despite the 14th Amendment — is being considered by the Supreme Court. He has largely frozen the country’s asylum system and drastically reduced the number of refugees it is allowed to admit. And his administration this week halted immigration applications for migrants from 19 travel-ban nations.
Immigration remains a signature issue for Trump, and he has slightly higher marks on it than on his overall job approval. According to a November AP-NORC poll, roughly 4 in 10 adults — 42% — approved of how the president is handling the issue, down from about half who approved in March. And Trump has pushed his agenda with near-daily crackdowns. On Wednesday, federal agents launched an immigration sweep in New Orleans,
There are some clues that Trump uses stronger anti-immigration rhetoric than many members of his own party. A study of 200,000 speeches in Congress and 5,000 presidential communications related to immigration between 1880 and 2020 found that the “most influential” words on the subject were terms like “enforce,” “terrorism” and “policy” from 1973 through Trump’s first presidential term.
The authors wrote in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences that Trump is “the first president in modern American history to express sentiment toward immigration that is more negative than the average member of his own party.” And that was before he called thousands of Somalis in the U.S. “garbage.”
The U.S. president, embattled over other developments during the Cabinet meeting and discussions between Russian President Vladimir Putin and U.S. envoys, opted for harsh talk in his jam-packed closing.
Somali Americans, he said, “come from hell” and “contribute nothing.” They do “nothing but bitch” and “their country stinks.” Then Trump turned to a familiar target. Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., an outspoken and frequent Trump critic, “is garbage,” he said. “Her friends are garbage.”
His remarks on Somalia drew shock and condemnation from Minneapolis to Mogadishu.
“My view of the U.S. and living there has changed dramatically. I never thought a president, especially in his second term, would speak so harshly,” Ibrahim Hassan Hajji, a resident of Somalia’s capital city, told The Associated Press. “Because of this, I have no plans to travel to the U.S.”
Omar called Trump’s “obsession” with her and Somali-Americans “creepy and unhealthy.”
“We are not, and I am not, someone to be intimidated,” she said, “and we are not gonna be scapegoated.”
Trump’s influence on these issues is potent
But from the highest pulpit in the world’s biggest economy, Trump has had an undeniable influence on how people regard immigrants.
“Trump specializes in pushing the boundaries of what others have done before,” said César Cuauhtémoc García Hernández, a civil rights law professor at Ohio State University. “He is far from the first politician to embrace race-baiting xenophobia. But as president of the United States, he has more impact than most.” Domestically, Trump has “remarkable loyalty” among Republicans, he added. “Internationally, he embodies an aspiration for like-minded politicians and intellectuals.”
In Britain, attitudes toward migrants have hardened in the decade since Brexit, a vote driven in part by hostility toward immigrants from Eastern Europe. Nigel Farage, leader of the hard-right Reform U.K. party, has called unauthorized migration an “invasion” and warned of looming civil disorder.
France’s Marine Le Pen and her father built their political empire on anti-immigrant language decades before Trump entered politics. But the National Rally party has softened its rhetoric to win broader support. Le Pen often casts the issue as an administrative or policy matter.
In fact, what Trump said about people from Somalia would likely be illegal in France if uttered by anyone other than a head of state, because public insults based on a group’s national origin, ethnicity, race or religion are illegal under the country’s hate speech laws. But French law grants heads of state immunity.
One lawyer expressed concerns that Trump’s words will encourage other heads of state to use similar hate speech targeting people as groups.
“Comments saying that a population stinks — coming from a foreign head of state, a top world military and economic power — that’s never happened before,” said Paris lawyer Arié Alimi, who has worked on hate speech cases. “So here we are really crossing a very, very, very important threshold in terms of expressing racist … comments.”
But the “America first” president said he isn’t worried about others think of his increasingly polarizing rhetoric on immigration.
“I hear somebody say, ‘Oh, that’s not politically correct,’” Trump said, winding up his summation Tuesday. “I don’t care. I don’t want them.”
___
Contributing to this report are Associated Press writers Will Weissert and Linley Sanders in Washington, John Leicester in Paris, Jill Lawless in London, Evelyne Musambi in Nairobi, Kenya, and Omar Faruk in Mogadishu.
President Donald Trump and his administration insist that costs are coming down, but voters are skeptical, including those who put him back in the White House.
Despite Republicans getting hammered on affordability in off-year elections last month, Trump continues to downplay the issue, contrasting with his message while campaigning last year.
“The word affordability is a con job by the Democrats,” Trump said during a Cabinet meeting on Tuesday. “The word affordability is a Democrat scam.”
But a new Politico poll found that 37% of Americans who voted for him in 2024 believe the cost of living is the worst they can ever remember, and 34% say it’s bad but can think of other times when it was worse.
The White House has said Trump inherited an inflationary economy from President Joe Biden and point to certain essentials that have come down since Trump began his second term, such as gasoline prices.
The poll shows that 57% of Trump voters say Biden still bears full or almost full responsibility for today’s economy. But 25% blame Trump completely or almost completely.
That’s as the annual rate of consumer inflation has steadily picked up since Trump launched his global trade war in April, and grocery prices have gained 1.4% between January and September.
Meanwhile, Vice President JD Vance pleaded for “patience” on the economy last month as Americans want to see prices decline, not just grow at a slower pace.
Even a marginal erosion in Trump’s electoral coalition could tip the scales in next year’s midterm elections, when the president will not be on the ballot to draw supporters.
A soft spot could be Republicans who don’t identify as “MAGA.” Among those particular voters, 29% said Trump has had a chance to change things in the economy but hasn’t taken it versus 11% of MAGA voters who said that.
Across all voters, 45% named groceries as the most challenging things to afford, followed by housing (38%) and health care (34%), according to the Politico poll.
“If the crisis threshold—the floor below which families cannot function—is honestly updated to current spending patterns, it lands at $140,000,” he wrote. “What does that tell you about the $31,200 line we still use? It tells you we are measuring starvation.”
Apple is currently undergoing the most extensive executive overhaul in recent history, with a wave of senior leadership departures that marks the company’s most significant management realignment since its visionary co-founder and CEO Steve Jobs died in 2011. The leadership exodus spans critical divisions from artificial intelligence to design, legal affairs, environmental policy, and operations, which will have major repercussions for Apple’s direction for the foreseeable future.
On Thursday, Apple announced Lisa Jackson, its VP of environment, policy, and social initiatives, as well as Kate Adams, the company’s general counsel, will both retire in 2026. Adams has been Apple’s chief legal officer since 2017, and Jackson joined Apple in 2013. Adams will step down late next year, while Jackson will leave next month.
The scope of the turnover is unprecedented in the Tim Cook era. In July, Jeff Williams, Apple’s COO who was long thought to succeed Cook as CEO, decided to retire after 27 years with the company. One month later, Apple’s CFO Luca Maestri also decided to step back from his role. And the design division, which just lost Dye, also lost Billy Sorrentino, a senior design director, who left for Meta with Dye. Things have been particularly turbulent for Apple’s AI team, though: Ruoming Pang, who headed its AI Foundation Models Team, left for Meta in July and took about 100 engineers with him. Ke Yang, who led AI-driven web search for Siri, and Jian Zhang, Apple’s AI robotics lead, also both left for Meta.
Succession talks heat up
While all of these departures are a big deal for Apple, the timing may not be a coincidence. Both Bloomberg and the Financial Times have reported on Apple ramping up its succession plan efforts in preparation for Cook, who has led the company since 2011, to retire in 2026. Cook turned 65 in November and has grown Apple’s market cap from about $350 billion to a whopping $4 trillion under his tenure. Bloomberg reports John Ternus has emerged as the leading internal candidate to replace him.
Apple choosing Ternus would be a pretty major departure from what’s worked for Apple during the past decade, which has been letting someone with an operational background and a strong grasp of the global supply chain lead the company. Ternus, meanwhile, is focused on hardware development, specifically for the iPhone, iPad, Mac, and Apple Watch. But it’s that technical expertise that’s made him an attractive candidate, especially as much of the recent criticism about Apple has revolved around the company entering new product categories (Vision Pro, but also the ill-fated Apple Car), as well as its struggling AI efforts.
Now, of course, with so many executives leaving Apple, succession plans extend beyond the CEO role. Apple this week announced it’s bringing in Jennifer Newstead, who currently works as Meta’s chief legal officer, to replace Adams as the company’s general counsel starting March 1, 2026. Newstead is expected to handle both legal and government affairs, which is essentially a consolidation of responsibilities among Apple’s leadership team, merging Adams’ and Jacksons’ roles into one.
Alan Dye, meanwhile, will be replaced by Stephen Lemay, a move that’s reportedly being celebrated within Apple and its design team in particular. John Gruber, who’s reported on Apple for decades and has deep ties within the company, wrote a pretty scathing critique about Dye, but in that same breath said employees are borderline “giddy” about Lemay—who has worked on every major Apple interface design since 1999, including the very first iPhone—taking over.
Meanwhile, on the AI team, John Giannandrea will be replaced by Amar Subramanya, who led AI strategy and development efforts at Google for about 16 years before a brief stint at Microsoft.
Hitting the reset button
All of the above departures cover critical functions for Apple: AI competitiveness, design innovation, regulatory navigation, and operational efficiency. Each replacement brings specialized expertise that aligns with the challenges Cook’s successor will inherit.
The real test will be execution across multiple fronts simultaneously. Can Subramanya accelerate Apple’s AI development to match competitive threats? Will Lemay’s design leadership maintain Apple’s interface advantages as AI reshapes user interaction? Can Newstead navigate regulatory challenges while preserving Apple’s privacy-first approach?
What’s certain is the company will look fundamentally different in 2026—and the executive team that grew Apple into a $4 trillion behemoth is departing. The transformation could be as profound as any since Jobs handed the reins to his COO at the time, Tim Cook, 14 years ago.