The millionaire Murdochs are at war with each other

Reality often surpasses fiction. And the internal power struggles of the Murdoch clan, led by the 93-year-old mogul Rupert Murdoch, exceed in fury both the plot of Succession (which was based on the Murdoch family) and that of House of the Dragon, another story about the transition of power that is captivating our screens these weeks. As explained by the New York Times, Rupert Murdoch is currently involved in a secret legal battle against three of his children over the future of the family's vast media empire, which includes Fox Corporation, a tool of family political power; but also important newspapers like The Times, WSJ, the publishing house Harper Collins, significant stakes in Sky, and even the app Tubi and TMZ – just to name a few of the most important assets. The conflict arises from Murdoch's attempts to ensure the conservative political orientation of his empire after his death, a move revealed in a sealed court document obtained by The New York Times. The saga began late last year when Murdoch made the surprising decision to alter the terms of the family's irrevocable trust. His goal was to ensure that his eldest son and designated successor, Lachlan Murdoch, would retain unchallenged control over the family media empire, particularly the powerful political influence channels represented by Fox News and The Wall Street Journal.

The trust, ironically named “Project Harmony,” grants control of the company to Murdoch’s four eldest children in the event of his death, but the family head wants to convince the court that only by placing Lachlan in sole command can the company’s conservative editorial direction—and, consequently, its commercial value—be preserved for all his heirs. Indeed, Murdoch's real power comes from his ability to sway and influence public opinion, and his close ties with the American conservative party. To be clear: Trump considers Fox News the only valid news channel for holding his debates and communicating his campaign. The remaining children of the entrepreneur, James, Elisabeth, and Prudence Murdoch, suddenly sidelined, have allied to prevent the trust from being altered. And since dirty laundry is washed within the family, the legal dispute has been conducted out of the spotlight until now. In a recent ruling, the Nevada probate commissioner stated that Rupert Murdoch could amend the trust if he could demonstrate that his actions are in good faith and intended solely for the benefit of his heirs. A trial to assess the family head’s intentions is set for September. The crux of the dispute clearly lies in the family’s divergent political views. On one side, Rupert and Lachlan Murdoch aligned to the right and loyal to Donald Trump; on the other, the more moderate James, Elisabeth, and Prudence who, we assume, aim to cleanse Fox’s reputation from the historic accusations of influencing and misleading the public through sensationalistic news.

But because the stakes are the throne of the Murdoch empire, the dispute concerns not only corporate power but also the political world and especially the family’s personal dynamics – for example, the three “rebel” children were not present at the father's recent wedding. Essentially, Murdoch established that his son Lachlan would be his successor only after (and here we are simplifying) having “promised” that power would be distributed equally among the four children. The problem is that if Lachlan were to actually ascend to the highest position, the other siblings might undermine his authority, a classic case of “united we stand, divided we fall”. This legal dispute, however, is just the most recent chapter of a genuine family album filled with ongoing disputes and conflicts: since 2019, James has publicly opposed Fox News’s direction, particularly its handling of political issues and climate change; James and Elisabeth have previously fought for leadership positions within the company, often clashing with their father and each other; James, who co-managed the company with Lachlan until 2019, then left to run his investment fund while Elisabeth focused on her film studio but maintained diplomatic relations with all family members. Prudence, the eldest and least involved in the Murdoch empire, leads a more private life but seems to have entered the fray this time. In December, after filing the petition to amend the trust, patriarch Murdoch attempted to gain support from Elisabeth and Prudence in London, but the meeting turned into a clash. A few days later, Murdoch’s representatives advanced the motion at a special trust meeting in Reno, Nevada. The representatives for the three siblings tried to block the changes but were unsuccessful.

The issue is that the trust was specifically created to balance power and despite its irrevocable nature, there is indeed a provision allowing amendments if made for the collective benefit of the heirs. The “irrevocable” nature of the trust is the subject of legal contention because, however rational it may be, the family head is going back on his word - though his reasoning makes sense given that, by losing his political influence, the entire empire would lose value. In this sense, in court, the family is staging an almost allegorical struggle between the logic of profit and that of culture. Murdoch's legal team argues that consolidating power in Lachlan’s hands will prevent disruptions and internal conflicts and, by ensuring Fox News’s political orientation, will also guarantee the value of the family’s most important asset. For the children, however, the disenfranchisement is not only a de facto breach of the original agreement but also a bad-faith decision to deprive them of their rights. To highlight how the Murdoch family operates with preferential lanes, the family trust includes all six of the mogul's children but only four of them have voting power: in practice, besides the three “excluded” who protest, there are two others who cannot even voice their opinions but hold an equal share. Control and veto power still rest in the hands of the patriarch, with his voting rights (according to current provisions) to be evenly distributed among the four voting children. This distribution could also change if the motion is accepted, giving Lachlan much greater weight in the votes and, essentially, final control over everything. This issue is important as Fox News is somewhat the public voice of all the conspiracy theorists, anti-vaxxers, and climate deniers who have changed the face of the Republicans during the era of Trumpism.