President Donald Trump addresses an audience at the General Motors Proving Ground on Monday, July 27, 2026, in Milford, Michigan. (AP Photo/Paul Sancya).
A storm of controversy swirls around former President Donald Trump for charging an eye-popping fee of $100,000 per month for premium access to his posts on Truth Social. Legal experts argue this move contravenes the U.S. Constitution, a claim central to a newly filed lawsuit by a media organization and a press advocacy group.
The detailed 30-page complaint, lodged on Wednesday by The Intercept and the Freedom of the Press Foundation, targets Trump as well as the White House and various senior staff members, alleging a breach of First Amendment rights.
Plaintiffs argue that the venture deals with information that is officially governmental in nature and thus should not proceed under its current operation.
“By charging $100,000 monthly for early access to President Trump’s official government communications on Truth Social, which he owns, this practice is blatantly corrupt, unprecedented, and unconstitutional,” the lawsuit asserts. “We are filing this case to put an end to it.”
The lawsuit briefly recounts the history of Trump’s homegrown social media platform — which was created in 2021 amid a since-reversed ban from Twitter (now X) — and notes that he remains the largest shareholder in Truth Social’s parent company.
“With the help of the other defendants in this case, President Trump frequently—and exclusively—posts official government announcements on Truth Social, declaring military attacks and subsequent ceasefires, hiring (and firing) agency heads, and announcing major domestic policies,” the lawsuit goes on.
In July, parent company Trump Media & Technology Group announced what the lawsuit terms “an astounding scheme.”
The CEO of Trump Media announced that starting Aug. 1, Truth Social would roll out Truth API, allowing well-heeled users to get early access to “market-moving” messages from the president and other officials on the platform. At the same time, the CEO announced the company would try to stop users from “systematically gathering” or “scraping” posts from the platform, according to the lawsuit.
“The scheme is now live, and paying customers are already gaining advance access to official government announcements,” the lawsuit notes.
To hear the plaintiffs tell it, Truth API cannot be allowed to go on.
“This scheme is profoundly corrupt,” the lawsuit continues. “The President stands to gain financially by giving ‘market-moving’ government information to those who are willing and able to pay his personal company.”
Allegations of corruption, however, at least in such vague terms, are not necessarily actionable. The causes of action in the lawsuit, therefore, hinge on alleged constitutional violations.
“This scheme is also unconstitutional,” the complaint goes on. “The First Amendment guarantees equal access to the President’s public announcements…There is no legitimate interest, let alone a significant one, in permitting President Trump to profit from selling government information.”
The First Amendment argument dovetails with another argument in the complaint — sourced from an obscure 1888 Supreme Court case.
“The Constitution guarantees that public officials ‘can themselves have no pecuniary interest or proprietorship, as against the public at large, in the fruits of their [official] labors,” the lawsuit continues. “The President is profiting by selling government information. That is illegal.”
“There is no legitimate, let alone significant, governmental interest in giving preferential access to government information to those who pay the President’s private company. This is particularly true because President Trump retains a direct financial interest in Truth Social,” the complaint continues.
A separate First Amendment argument advanced by the plaintiffs relies on Trump’s comments as president remaining objects of public interest that must be preserved and made accessible.
“A public official’s social media posts—which users can like, share, reply to, and comment on—constitute designated public fora where there is state action, and the official has made their posts generally available,” the lawsuit continues.
The plaintiffs then expand this argument by putting forward a series of what might be called negative rights — or rights not to engage. This is effectively, an iteration of the compelled speech doctrine.
Generally, under First Amendment jurisprudence, the government cannot force a person to speak or engage in a certain kind of expression.
From the lawsuit:
The First Amendment protects Americans’ rights not to subsidize Truth Social’s message and to choose not to associate with Truth Social by making an account. As the Supreme Court has explained, “[The state] violates . . . free speech rights” when it compels individuals to “subsidize private speech on matters of substantial public concern.”
Plaintiffs have First Amendment rights not to associate with Truth Social or subsidize its expressive activity.
The lawsuit also alleges a violation of the Fifth Amendment, arguing that Trump’s plan creates tiers of access to government information based on the amount of money one is willing or able to spend.
“Because Defendants’ actions subject Plaintiffs to differential treatment from others similarly situated without a rational connection to any legitimate government interest, they violate the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment,” the lawsuit continues.
The plaintiffs, who are represented by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), are asking a court to issue an injunction to put a stop to Truth API.
The post ‘That is illegal’: Trump selling early access to ‘market-moving’ Truth Social posts is unconstitutional and ‘profoundly corrupt,’ lawsuit says first appeared on Law & Crime.