Trial of Truth API: Can a president sell access to his own statements?
An unprecedented legal case is unfolding in the U.S. jurisdiction that could redefine the boundaries between public information and private business. Proceedings have begun in the Southern District of New York, centered on the Truth API service from Trump Media & Technology Group. The plaintiffs' claims—journalists and human rights advocates—boil down to the argument that a president cannot monetize access to his official statements, which by their nature are government information.
My analysis shows that this is not just a dispute over tweets, but a test of the strength of constitutional principles in an era when the head of state is simultaneously the owner of a media platform. If the court rules in favor of the plaintiffs, it would set a precedent limiting the ability of top officials to profit from their own public rhetoric.
A business model worth $100,000 per month
Launched on August 1, the Truth API service offers institutional clients—primarily high-frequency trading firms—direct and instant access to posts from the platform's top accounts, including Trump himself. The price tag ranges from $60,000 to $100,000 per month. More than ten companies have already signed up for the service, with revenue exceeding $1 million.
This is a critically important sum for Trump Media, which posted a net loss of $238.1 million in the second quarter on revenue of just $1.7 million. Against this backdrop, Truth API looks like a lifeline for a business whose market capitalization, by estimates, has fallen from $4 billion to roughly $1 billion.
Constitutional arguments from both sides
The plaintiffs, backed by the organization Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), appeal to two amendments. The First Amendment guarantees equal access to information for all citizens—selling priority access violates this principle. The Fifth Amendment, in turn, protects against "unreasonable seizure"—here, the argument is that charging for equal access undermines the idea of equal protection under the law. CREW's chief legal counsel, Nyhel Sus, calls such a model "pure extortion."
The defendants are not only Trump Media but also the White House administration, including presidential aide Natalie Harp and Deputy Chief of Staff Dan Scavino. Notably, none of them have publicly commented on the situation so far.
Historical precedents and prospects
Washington has already seen similar schemes. In 2013, Thomson Reuters sold hedge funds a two-second head start on consumer sentiment data for $6,025 per month—the program was shut down within three weeks after intervention by the New York Attorney General. Later, under pressure from authorities, Business Wire stopped direct data feeds to high-frequency traders.
The difference is that back then, the "commodity" was data from private companies, whereas now it is the text of a sitting president, sold by his own firm. And while regulators resolved the issue in the past, now the answer will likely come from a court.
My verdict: This case is a signal for all public figures combining politics with business. Even if the court does not directly ban Truth API, the reputational and legal costs could make such a model unprofitable. The market is already watching this precedent, and its outcome will matter far beyond the United States.