Monetization of public statements: court to decide whether Trump can sell access to his posts
A precedent-setting dispute is brewing in the U.S. jurisdiction that could radically change the rules of the game at the intersection of politics, information, and financial markets. In the Southern District of New York, proceedings have begun over a lawsuit challenging the very possibility of a president selling prioritized access to his official statements through the Truth API service. The plaintiffs insist: the president's posts are government information, not a private asset that can be monetized.
Business on the presidential word
The essence of the conflict is simple and simultaneously revolutionary. Trump Media & Technology Group, controlled by Donald Trump, launched a service on August 1 that sends subscribers posts from the platform's top accounts in real time. The key commodity is the president's own messages, which, as is well known, have moved markets more than once. For this privilege, high-frequency trading firms pay from $60,000 to $100,000 per month. More than ten firms have already connected to the service, and revenue has exceeded $1 million.
The figure is symbolic. For comparison: in the second quarter, Trump Media recorded a net loss of $238.1 million with revenue of just $1.7 million. If Truth API continues to generate more than $1 million monthly, it could become the main revenue driver for the entire company. Trump's own shares, as the largest shareholder through a trust, have recently depreciated from $4 billion to approximately $1 billion, adding urgency to attempts to find new sources of income.
Constitutional arguments of the plaintiffs
The lawsuit, supported by the advocacy organization Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), relies on two constitutional guarantees. The First Amendment, according to the plaintiffs, grants all citizens and journalists an equal right to access official information. Selling prioritized access violates this right. The second line of argument concerns the Fifth Amendment: charging "unreasonable sums" for equal access undermines the principle of equal protection under the law. The complaint directly calls this "pure extortion."
Among the defendants are not only the president himself, but also his aide Natalie Harp, Deputy Chief of Staff Daniel Scavino, and the Executive Office of the President. None of them have publicly commented on the situation so far.
A bad omen for monetization
History knows similar precedents, and they ended poorly for data sellers. In 2013, Thomson Reuters sold hedge funds a two-second head start on consumer sentiment data for $6,025 per month. The New York Attorney General intervened, and the program was shut down within three weeks. Later, under pressure from authorities, Business Wire ceased direct data feeds to high-frequency traders.
Back then, it was about private commercial companies, and the price was many times lower. Now the "commodity" is the text of a sitting president, and his own company is selling it. The difference is fundamental. This time, the fate of the scheme may be decided by a court, not a regulator. And the answer to whether a price can be set on the president's official statements will determine not only the future of Truth Media, but also the boundaries of permissible monetization of public power.
My view: This case is a litmus test for the entire industry of monetizing information advantage. If the court sides with the plaintiffs, it will create a dangerous precedent for any platform attempting to sell exclusive access to market-relevant information. Investors should closely monitor developments: the verdict could not only crash Trump Media's stock but also hit the entire high-frequency trading sector.