Two press organisations have taken legal action in a Manhattan federal court to halt Truth API, a subscription service launched this month by Trump Media and Technology Group (TMTG) that sells Wall Street firms faster access to President Donald Trump's Truth Social posts for up to $100,000 (€86,600) a month. The Intercept and the Freedom of the Press Foundation filed the lawsuit on Wednesday, arguing that the service privatises government information and undermines the principle of equal access to presidential communications.
Truth API, which went live in early March, provides subscribers with posts from the platform's ten most-followed accounts—including Trump, the White House, Vice President JD Vance, FBI Director Kash Patel, and Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.—fractions of a second before they appear on the public timeline. That head start is enough for high-frequency trading algorithms to execute thousands of orders before the wider market can react. Contracts range from roughly $60,000 (€52,000) to $100,000 (€86,600) per month, and TMTG executives say more than ten customers, mostly high-frequency trading firms, have already signed up.
Interim CEO Kevin McGurn described the service on an earnings call as delivering news “fractionally faster” than the public feed, a pitch that has drawn sharp criticism. The complaint, which names Trump, deputy chief of staff Dan Scavino, executive assistant Natalie Harp, and the Executive Office of the President, calls the arrangement “profoundly corrupt.” It contends that the service violates the First Amendment by denying equal access to presidential announcements and the Fifth Amendment by conditioning that access on exorbitant fees. The plaintiffs note that many of the 9,000 to 11,000 posts Trump has published since January 2025 came with no accompanying White House statement, making Truth Social a primary channel for official communications.
“Trump is trying to enrich himself by privatizing government information,” said Ben Muessig, editor-in-chief of The Intercept. A TMTG spokesperson dismissed the lawsuit, saying critics show “a failure to grasp the distinction between public and nonpublic information” and accusing left-wing activists of weaponising the courts. The White House has not commented on the case.
A pattern of market-moving leaks
The lawsuit follows months of scrutiny over unusual trading patterns linked to Trump's posts. On several occasions this year, futures markets have registered spikes minutes before major Iran-related announcements appeared on his account. The clearest incident came on 23 March, when S&P 500 and oil futures saw isolated volume surges at around 6:50am New York time. Fifteen minutes later, Trump posted that talks with Iran had taken place and strikes on its energy infrastructure were paused. Equity futures jumped more than 2.5% and West Texas Intermediate fell nearly 6%.
No investigation has yet reached a conclusion, but the timing has raised questions about whether privileged access to Trump's posts is already influencing markets. The new lawsuit adds to pressure from US Senators Elizabeth Warren and Adam Schiff, who last month asked the Securities and Exchange Commission to examine whether Truth API undermines market integrity.
Trump holds roughly 41% of TMTG through a revocable trust overseen by his eldest son, Donald Trump Jr., a stake currently worth close to $1 billion (€866 million). The company, listed on Nasdaq, has seen its valuation swing wildly since its debut, and the Truth API subscription is part of a broader effort to monetise the platform beyond advertising.
The case raises fundamental questions about the intersection of social media, government transparency, and financial markets. In Europe, where regulators have been tightening rules on market abuse and insider trading, the idea of selling early access to a head of state's announcements would likely face immediate legal challenges under the Market Abuse Regulation. The European Securities and Markets Authority has consistently stressed that information likely to affect prices must be disclosed to the public in a non-discriminatory manner.
Legal experts say the plaintiffs face an uphill battle, as courts have generally been reluctant to compel the president to use specific communication channels. However, the argument that official announcements belong to the public, not to the highest bidder, resonates beyond US borders. The case could set a precedent for how leaders' social media posts are treated in an era of algorithmic trading.
As the litigation unfolds, the broader implications for market fairness and democratic accountability are likely to draw attention from European policymakers and financial regulators. The outcome may influence how other political leaders and institutions handle their digital communications, particularly in markets where high-frequency trading is prevalent.
