Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren is accusing Amazon MGM Studios of committing “bribery in plain sight” after the media giant spent lavishly to land a documentary about First Lady Melania Trump. However the company disagrees with that assessment and maintains it has done nothing wrong.

In March, the Massachusetts senator and Rep. Hank Johnson (D-Ga.) led an investigation into whether Amazon MGM’s investment in “Melania” was “part of a corrupt pay-to-play arrangement with the Trump administration.”

That’s after Amazon MGM paid $40 million to acquire — and another $35 million to market — “Melania,” an unprecedented sum considering documentaries aren’t box office juggernauts. Warren pointed out that Amazon MGM’s offer was $26 million above the next-highest bidder, Disney. After “Melania” opened theatrically in January, the film ended its run with $16.6 million at the global box office. It’s an impressive result for the genre but nowhere near enough for Amazon MGM to break even on the film since exhibitors keep half of ticket sales. To note, plenty of films (especially in post-pandemic times) fail to turn a profit in theaters.

“The fact that Amazon is seeking favorable treatment from the Trump Administration while paying a far-above-market sum to produce and promote the Trump family’s film raises questions about Amazon’s exposure under federal anti-bribery law,” the lawmakers wrote in a letter to Amazon on March 15. “The American people deserve assurance that powerful corporations are not using their financial resources to gain political influence or favorable treatment at public expense — and that these corporations are not violating federal bribery laws.”

Federal anti-bribery law makes it illegal to offer “anything of value,” including business opportunities and financial arrangements, to elected officials or people closely associated with them with the goal of influencing official acts.

Warren and Johnson asked Amazon to explain its $40 million payment for the documentary and clarify whether the company discussed its bid with Melania Trump directly or with anyone in the administration. In response, Amazon pushed back against the notion that its financial commitment was a bribe. The company said its decision to license “Melania” was based on “the access, the story, and its cultural and historical relevance.”

“We disagree with any suggestion that Amazon’s decision to license this film and accompanying series was improper. We regularly release documentaries that offer unique perspectives on cultural and historical figures across the political spectrum,” Amazon’s VP of public policy Brian Huseman said in a March 30 statement obtained by Variety.

He added, “Amazon MGM Studios became the licensor of the film and accompanying series following a thorough and competitive bidding process. ‘Melania’ gave us the opportunity to tell a story that’s never been told before, with unprecedented access to a historic presidential transition through the perspective of the First Lady. Our decision was based on the film and series itself — the access, the story, and its cultural and historical relevance.”

Warren is firing back, saying Amazon’s response “reeks of desperation to please Donald Trump.”

“If there’s nothing corrupt about this deal and the bidding process was truly ‘competitive,’ why won’t Amazon explain why it reportedly paid three times as much as the next highest bidder?” Warren said in a new statement. “The logical explanation is that Amazon is trying to buy the President’s favor by dumping millions into the Trump family’s pockets. This looks like bribery in plain sight, and Amazon must give Congress — and the American people — answers now.”

The letter notes that since President Trump’s 2024 election, Amazon has donated $1 million to his inauguration fund, along with an unknown sum to the construction of the White House’s new “gold-encrusted” ballroom. The lawmakers also argue that Amazon and its founder Jeff Bezos have financial stakes in several matters before the administration ranging from an antitrust lawsuit it recently settled with the Federal Trade Commission to foreign trade deals and federal contracts.

“When we saw the oligarchs and tech bros gather in front-row seats at Trump’s second inauguration — some of whom gave him millions for his re-election campaign — it raised the specter that the rich and powerful were going to wield dangerous levels of power and influence on the nation through their largess to this transactional and corrupt president,” Johnson said in a new statement. “Amazon’s ‘nothing-to-see-here’ response makes this fear even more of a reality. If there were truly nothing to see, then Amazon would have answered these basic questions.”

“Melania” generated plenty of critical headlines during its theatrical run, with rampant speculation that the doc was the retailer’s attempt to cozy up to the current administration. During Trump’s second term, media companies have been more willing to bend to the president. Last summer, Paramount paid $16 million to the president to settle what the company initially called a “meritless” lawsuit tied to “60 Minutes,” while a year earlier, Disney wrote a $15 million check to Trump’s presidential library to settle a defamation lawsuit brought against ABC News anchor George Stephanopoulos.

When Amazon MGM acquired “Melania” in early 2025, a studio spokesperson said, “We licensed the film for one reason and one reason only — because we think customers are going to love it.”