The Intercept and the Freedom of the Press Foundation have sued President Donald Trump over a Trump Media service that sells paid early access to his Truth Social posts, arguing that a sitting president should not be allowed to put a price on his own official words.
The service, called Truth API, gives paying subscribers a faster feed of the president’s posts. Trump Media’s interim chief executive, Kevin McGurn, unveiled it in July, and TNW previously reported that the company had pitched traders a $100,000 feed of the president’s Truth Social output.
Access reportedly runs from about $60,000 to $100,000 a month, positioning the president’s musings as a premium data product for hedge funds and traders keen to react to a market-moving post before everyone else does.
The lawsuit was filed on 12 August in the Southern District of New York, one of the busiest courts in the country for high-profile commercial disputes. It names Trump, aides Natalie Harp and Daniel Scavino, and the relevant executive offices, and it asks the court to unwind the arrangement.
The plaintiffs’ central claim is a constitutional one. They argue that the First Amendment guarantees equal public access to official government information, and that charging for a faster line to the president’s statements unconstitutionally privileges those who can afford it.
They also lean on the Fifth Amendment, contending that the fees amount to an unreasonable charge for access to government information. In their telling, the president is profiting personally from communications that belong, in effect, to the public.
“Every American is entitled to equal access to the president’s public statements,” said counsel from Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, which is helping bring the case. The line captures the plaintiffs’ framing neatly.
It is worth being clear about who is talking. The Intercept is itself a plaintiff, so its account of the dispute is a party’s rather than a neutral observer’s, and the constitutional arguments described here are claims the courts have yet to test.
Still, the case pokes at a genuinely novel question. Presidents have always spoken selectively, granting interviews to some outlets and freezing out others.
Selling structured, machine-readable early access to official posts, and pricing it well beyond the reach of ordinary citizens or most newsrooms, is a different beast entirely.
From a European vantage point, where the separation between public office and private enrichment is policed rather more tightly, the whole set-up looks jarring.
It is hard to imagine a sitting head of government in Paris or Berlin openly renting out a priority feed of their official pronouncements to the highest bidder.
Truth Social has long blurred the line between Trump the man and Trump the office. His posts there announce policy, sack officials, and move markets, which is precisely why a head start on reading them might be worth a five-figure monthly fee.
The financial backdrop helps explain the hustle. Trump Media has been bleeding money, reporting a $405.9m first-quarter loss driven almost entirely by crypto markdowns, and monetising the president’s feed is one of the few assets the company can uniquely sell.
The company has also been casting about for a strategy. It recently dropped a Truth Social spinoff to refocus on a $6bn fusion-energy merger with TAE Technologies, a pivot that says plenty about how the core social platform is faring.
Trump’s own stake has taken a beating too. Once valued at roughly $4bn, his holding in Trump Media has slid to about $1bn as the stock has fallen, which only sharpens the incentive to squeeze fresh revenue from whatever the president posts.
For now, the paywall stays up while the court considers the complaint. Whether government speech can be sold to the highest bidder is, oddly enough, not a question American law has ever had to answer.
Get the TNW newsletter
Get the most important tech news in your inbox each week.