Why US Senators Are Sounding the Alarm on the EA Saudi Arabia Acquisition

When news broke that a consortium led by Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund (PIF) and Jared Kushner’s Affinity Partners would acquire Electronic Arts in a record $55 billion deal, the gaming world took notice. Now, concerns are spreading beyond the industry. In a formal letter to Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, U.S. Senators Richard Blumenthal and Elizabeth Warren warned that the EA Saudi Arabia acquisition could pose “significant foreign influence and national security risks”, urging regulators to take a closer look.

The senators’ move injects political and regulatory scrutiny into what was already being called the largest leveraged buyout in private equity history. But beneath the headlines lie deeper questions about power, privacy, and influence in an age when cultural platforms are as potent as industries.

A Premium Beyond Market Value or Influence in Disguise?

Blumenthal and Warren’s letter doesn’t shy away from criticism. They note that the acquisition price appears to include a substantial premium, more than $10 billion above EA’s recent trading value, for a company whose stock has plateaued amid industry volatility.

To them, this isn’t just about paying more; it’s about buying influence. In their view, PIF’s reputation as a strategic arm of Saudi governance and its pattern of investing in cultural assets (sports, gaming, entertainment) suggest that the deal is part of a broader agenda.

The senators also call out Kushner’s presence in the deal. They raise the specter of regulatory leniency, questioning whether his role is meant to grease approval pathways. “What regulator is going to say no to the president’s son-in-law?” the letter provocatively asks.

Why EA Is a Strategic Pick?

What makes EA so consequential? It’s not just the size of its user base, estimated in the hundreds of millions, but its access to rich behavioral data, its role in narrative content, and its foothold in next-generation gaming and AI.

According to Blumenthal and Warren, the deal would take EA private and it would no longer be subject to the same public reporting and oversight by agencies like the SEC. They warn that unrestricted access to user data could enable surveillance, influence operations, censorship, or propaganda, especially if the Saudi government exerts editorial control over products.

They also flag the AI dimension: if PIF gained access to EA’s internal R&D, algorithms, or user-behavior insights, Saudi influence could extend into an arena already central to national-security debates.

Regulatory Crossroads: CFIUS and Congressional Leverage

The heart of the senators’ demand is that the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) must subject the deal to rigorous review. Blumenthal and Warren have pressed Bessent to publicly disclose CFIUS’s plans for mitigation or rejection, asking for staff briefings and periodic updates.

They argue that, without mitigation, the deal could allow an authoritarian regime to control a medium that shapes cultural and youth discourse. They want to know: how will user data be protected? What guardrails will prevent Saudi interference in content? How will access to U.S. talent and AI be restricted?

Political Realities and Industry Backlash

While the senators carry weight, their concerns may clash with industry momentum and political alignments. The buyer’s consortium includes massive resources, and the deal’s sheer scale creates pressure toward completion.

Within the gaming community, developers and observers have voiced skepticism about how PIF control might change EA’s creative freedoms. Some worry that studios could be reshaped to reflect new priorities, particularly in storytelling or in-game messaging. Others see this moment as part of a larger trend: sovereign wealth funds increasingly buying into entertainment and tech.

What to Watch Going Forward

• Will the committee force structural safeguards or reject the deal outright?

• Will there be binding restrictions on how user data is handled under PIF control?

• Can EA’s studios resist censorship or influence over content direction?

• Might broader legislation be introduced to tighten foreign oversight over cultural tech acquisitions?

Blumenthal and Warren’s intervention highlights a fundamental tension: in a world where culture and games carry political weight, the acquisition of a major gaming company is not just a financial transaction; it’s a potential vector of influence. Whether that influence is benign or malign will depend not only on legal outcomes but also on vigilance, safeguards, and the will of those who defend open expression and data rights in the digital age.

ALSO READ: New Study Confirms: Video Games Reduce Stress, Even Violent Ones