What did the Wall Street Journal report about Melania Trump’s share of the Amazon deal?
Executive summary
The Wall Street Journal reported that Amazon paid $40 million to license the Melania Trump documentary and that Melania Trump’s personal share of that licensing fee exceeded 70% — reported as roughly $28 million to her production company or pocketed personally [1] [2]. The Journal’s reporting has driven questions about whether the fee reflected market value or was aimed at currying favor with the incoming administration, a point critics and other outlets have amplified [3] [4].
1. What the Journal actually said about the payout
The Journal described a $40 million licensing payment for the documentary and reported that Melania Trump would personally receive a sum that amounted to more than 70% of that licensing fee — commonly cited in subsequent coverage as “about $28 million” or “at least $28 million” [1] [2] [3]. Multiple later outlets repeated the Journal’s figure when describing how the Amazon payment was allocated [5] [6].
2. How other outlets framed the same Journal reporting
News organizations from Forbes to Business Insider and international papers relied on the Journal’s sourcing to state that the first lady’s take equaled roughly $28 million and that this was an unusually large slice of the $40 million licensing fee [2] [5] [4]. Commentators used the Journal’s numbers to argue the payout was “cushy” or “suspiciously large,” while some industry coverage focused on the scale of Amazon’s overall $75 million campaign — $40 million for rights plus roughly $35 million in marketing — rather than the split alone [7] [5] [8].
3. The context the Journal supplied about how the deal happened
The Journal reported calendar and meeting context that fed scrutiny: it said the Amazon bid followed a December Mar‑a‑Lago dinner involving Donald and Melania Trump and Jeff Bezos, with the $40 million bid arriving soon after that meeting, a fact that other outlets cited from the Journal’s reporting [9] [1]. That sequence — meeting, then bidding — underpins much of the public concern about motive that reporters and critics have highlighted [3] [4].
4. What the Journal’s reporting did not — and cannot — prove on its own
The Journal’s reporting, as cited widely, relayed the size of the licensing fee and the reported allocation to Melania’s company or her personally, drawing on unnamed sources familiar with the deal; it does not by itself prove intent or quid pro quo, nor does it disclose the contract text or Amazon’s internal valuation rationale [2] [1]. Subsequent commentary has extrapolated motive — suggesting Amazon sought goodwill with the administration — but those inferences extend beyond the Journal’s cited figures and are interpretations reported by other outlets [3] [4].
5. How Amazon and defenders responded to the reporting cited by the Journal
Amazon defended its decision publicly as a commercial licensing choice and said the company “licensed the film for one reason and one reason only — because we think customers are going to love it,” language repeated in coverage that referenced the Journal’s account of the deal price [2] [8]. Industry sources and Amazon staff dissenters noted internal discomfort about the optics, a detail picked up by reporting that leaned on the Journal’s initial disclosure of the fee and timing [8] [10].
6. Why the Journal’s figure mattered in the broader debate
The Journal’s reporting crystallized a simple numeric story — $40 million paid, ~70% to Melania — that other outlets used as a fulcrum to examine ethics, business strategy, and political optics: critics labeled the payment a potential buy‑in for influence; defenders stressed market dynamics and promotional strategy; and fact‑driven coverage returned repeatedly to the Journal’s original dollar figure as the key reported datum [1] [3] [5].