NEW YORK, Aug 12 — Two media organizations filed a federal lawsuit on Wednesday seeking to block a new service that charges up to $100,000 per month for early access to President Donald Trump’s Truth Social posts, including those that could influence financial markets.
The lawsuit, filed in Manhattan federal court by The Intercept and the Freedom of the Press Foundation, targets Truth API, a paid data feed launched by Trump Media & Technology Group on August 1. The service provides subscribers with faster access to posts from 10 high-profile accounts, including Trump’s, before they are publicly available. The complaint alleges the arrangement violates the First Amendment by granting preferential access to government information and the Fifth Amendment by charging "unreasonable sums" for equal public access.
Key developments in the lawsuit
- The plaintiffs, represented by legal teams including CREW and Yale Law School, argue that Trump stands to profit financially from selling early access to his posts, which often contain market-sensitive announcements on tariffs, conflicts, or other policies.
- The lawsuit seeks to block the White House from posting official government announcements exclusively on Truth Social while the paid feed exists.
- Trump Media’s interim CEO Kevin McGurn confirmed in a July earnings call that the service had signed more than 10 customers, primarily high-frequency trading firms, at rates ranging from $60,000 to $100,000 per month.
- The complaint describes the service as "extraordinary, corrupt, and unconstitutional," stating that it undermines the principle of equal public access to government information.
Background and context
Truth API was announced days after Democratic Senators Elizabeth Warren and Adam Schiff urged the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to investigate whether the service could undermine financial market integrity by enriching insiders and Trump. The senators argued that the arrangement could amount to market manipulation by providing privileged access to sensitive information.
Trump has historically used Truth Social to disclose news that moves markets, including posts on trade policies and geopolitical developments. The lawsuit cites examples where Trump’s Truth Social posts were not followed by official White House statements, raising concerns about the selective distribution of government information.
Legal arguments and responses
The plaintiffs’ complaint asserts that the service violates constitutional protections by:
- Favoring paying subscribers over the general public in accessing official government announcements.
- Enabling Trump to monetize his role as president, as his posts often contain policy updates that can impact financial markets.
- Creating an unconstitutional paywall for information that should be publicly available to all citizens simultaneously.
A Trump Media spokesperson did not immediately respond to requests for comment on the lawsuit. The White House also declined to comment when asked by multiple outlets.
Market and political reactions
The launch of Truth API has drawn criticism from legal experts and transparency advocates, who argue that it sets a dangerous precedent for privatizing government communications. Critics note that even milliseconds of advantage in accessing market-moving information can translate to significant financial gains for high-frequency traders.
The lawsuit reflects broader concerns about Trump’s blending of personal business interests with government functions, particularly as his administration continues to use Truth Social as a primary communication tool. The plaintiffs emphasize that the service undermines democratic principles by allowing wealthier individuals and corporations to gain preferential access to official government statements.
Next steps
The case has been filed in the Southern District of New York and is expected to proceed through the federal court system. Legal experts suggest the lawsuit could set a precedent for how government officials use social media platforms to disseminate official information, particularly when those platforms are owned by the officials themselves.
The plaintiffs are seeking an injunction to halt the service while the case is litigated, arguing that the harm to public access and constitutional rights is immediate and irreparable.