Trump sued over paid access to his posts
A federal lawsuit has been filed against U.S. President Donald Trump over the paid Truth API service, which gives clients priority access to his posts on the Truth Social network.
The lawsuit was filed on August 12 by the civil rights organization Freedom of the Press Foundation and the publication The Intercept. Along with Trump, presidential aide Natalie Harp and deputy White House chief of staff Dan Scavino are named as defendants.
The plaintiffs claim that selling faster access to the president's official statements violates the First and Fifth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. In their view, citizens and media should have equal access to the head of state's messages, and a paid subscription creates an unjustified advantage for wealthy clients.
The organizations are asking the court to declare the use of Truth API in this format illegal and unconstitutional. They also demand that Trump and White House staff be prohibited from using Truth Social as the sole platform for disseminating state information while simultaneously giving paid clients priority access.
Trump Media & Technology Group launched Truth API on August 1. The service delivers publications from Truth Social in a format suitable for automated processing, particularly by trading algorithms. The subscription costs up to $100,000 per month, and the first clients were about ten organizations.
Trump's statements on tariffs, foreign policy, and government decisions can affect stock, currency, and commodity prices. Therefore, even a slight advantage in receiving information speed is of interest to financial companies and high-frequency traders.
The plaintiffs also point to the president's financial interest. Trump is the sole beneficiary of a trust that owns approximately 41.4% of Trump Media shares worth over $1 billion.
As reported by Current Ukraine, critics of Truth API had called on U.S. regulators to investigate a possible conflict of interest even before the service launched. At the same time, Trump Media called the product an ordinary commercial data transmission channel.
The court has not yet considered the plaintiffs' demands on the merits. The White House did not publicly comment on the case as of the first reports.
Based on materials from: Freedom of the Press Foundation, Engadget
