Lawsuit against Trump: Paid access to official presidential statements violates the US Constitution

A new constitutional crisis is unfolding in Washington, linked to the activities of Donald Trump and his media empire. On August 12, 2026, it was reported that a lawsuit has been filed questioning the legality of commercializing access to official statements by the head of state. The core of the conflict is that Trump Media, which owns the social network Truth Social, began selling privileged access to its APIs, allowing clients to receive the President's posts in real-time.

Technological discrimination and violation of rights

The lawsuit was filed jointly by The Intercept and the Freedom of the Press Foundation. The plaintiffs argue that selling priority access to the President's official statements violates the First and Fifth Amendments to the US Constitution. The basis of the claims is that Trump Media began selling direct access to the Truth API, which ensures an information retrieval delay within milliseconds. While information is available instantly for paying clients, there is an indefinite delay for ordinary users and independent journalists.

According to the company, more than 10 deals for the use of this API have already been concluded. The main clients are companies engaged in high-frequency trading in financial markets. The cost of such a privilege ranges from $60,000 to $100,000 per month. The plaintiffs' lawyers, in particular Nickel Sus from Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, emphasize that even a minimal delay in access to information capable of influencing the country's economy is a violation of the principle of equal access to government information.

The question of ownership of official statements

The central legal issue in the case is determining who owns the President's official statements. The plaintiffs cite the Presidential Records Act, asserting that official documents and statements concerning the performance of the duties of the head of state are the property of the United States, not the private company Trump Media. Consequently, the state cannot delegate the right to selectively restrict access to this information to a private commercial entity.

The Freedom of the Press Foundation states that such a scheme creates insurmountable obstacles to the collection and analysis of the President's publications. The Intercept, in turn, points out that the delay in access puts them in an unequal competitive position compared to paying clients who have the ability to publish news faster and react to events. This creates a situation where the right to timely inform society becomes a commodity.

Reaction of legislators and threat to markets

The situation has caused serious concern in the US Congress. Democratic Senators Elizabeth Warren and Adam Schiff have previously appealed to federal regulators, calling the sale of early access a "shocking abuse of office." They urged the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to check whether such a scheme violates federal securities laws.

Senators argue their position by stating that Trump's publications often contain information capable of instantly affecting stock market quotes. Early access to such statements gives Wall Street companies and high-frequency traders an unfair advantage, which could be considered insider trading or market manipulation. The court must determine whether the commercial difference in access to information turns into a constitutional violation.

Contradictory data

There is a discrepancy in assessments of the scale of the impact of this scheme on the President's own financial activities. On the one hand, CNN reports that Donald Trump, while in office, bought stocks from various companies more than 40 times a few days before publicly praising them on his social networks, which led to a rise in stock prices. This creates a precedent of personal financial gain from the use of the platform. On the other hand, Trump Media positions the sale of the API as a purely technical service to ensure the stability of the platform's operation and does not link it directly to the President's investment decisions. The plaintiffs insist on the existence of a conflict of interest, while the defense may argue that these are independent commercial operations.