Former Federal Prosecutors Say Trump Media’s Paid Early Access to Truth Social Posts May Be Criminal
A group of 53 former federal prosecutors and federal agents told a federal court Monday that President Donald Trump’s media company is likely committing federal crimes by selling Wall Street investors faster access to his Truth Social posts. In a proposed amicus brief filed in the Southern District of New York, the former law enforcement officials said the arrangement poses an “obvious risk of corruption” and appears to violate a wide array of federal criminal statutes, including laws prohibiting insider trading, illegal gratuities, conflicts of interest, and the unauthorized disclosure of government information.
The filing comes in a lawsuit brought by The Intercept and the Freedom of the Press Foundation against Trump, two of his aides, and the White House. The media organizations are seeking a preliminary injunction to block the transmission of early access to Trump’s posts, arguing that the new service is unconstitutional and “profoundly corrupt.” The former prosecutors and agents filed their amicus brief in support of the plaintiffs’ request, saying the business model of selling early access to market-moving information goes far beyond ordinary government public relations.
At the center of the dispute is the Truth API, a data feed launched recently by Trump Media & Technology Group. The service charges Wall Street subscribers $100,000 for “real-time access to posts from the highest-ranking Truth Social accounts.” Because Trump uses Truth Social as his primary platform for official announcements, the paid feed gives financial firms an opportunity to receive, analyze, and act on his statements before the general public has seen them. The plaintiffs argue that this creates an unconstitutional paid information pipeline that allows wealthy investors to trade on presidential communications ahead of everyone else.
The former prosecutors and agents said the scheme is not merely ethically troubling; it is plausibly criminal. They wrote in the brief that the Truth Social arrangement “implicates federal public corruption laws imposing criminal penalties, including the Securities Exchange Act; the federal prohibitions on illegal gratuities, conflicts of interest, and outside compensation for federal employment; and the Trade Secrets Act.” They added: “Because the scheme is so far from legitimate that it is possibly criminal, it cannot serve any legitimate government interest.”
The brief was signed by a notable group of former officials. Among them is Ryan Crosswell, a former federal prosecutor in the Justice Department’s Public Integrity Section who resigned last year in protest after senior department officials moved to dismiss an indictment against New York City Mayor Eric Adams. Other signatories include Michael Bromwich, a former federal prosecutor and former Justice Department inspector general, and Ty Cobb, a former federal prosecutor who served as White House counsel during Trump’s first administration. The brief was organized jointly by the law firm Singleton Schreiber and the Campaign Legal Center, a nonpartisan election law organization.
To illustrate the potential criminal exposure, the former prosecutors offered a detailed hypothetical scenario. They asked the court to imagine that President Trump decides to announce at 11 a.m. that he is imposing tariffs on a country that exports computer chips. Paid subscribers to the Truth API gain access to the announcement at 9 a.m. One subscriber, acting on the nonpublic information, sells computer chip stocks before the news becomes public at 10 a.m., when chip stocks plummet. In that scenario, the brief argues, both the president and the subscriber would have violated the Securities Exchange Act and could be criminally liable.
“The President and the paid subscriber would have therefore violated the Securities Exchange Act and could be criminally liable, just as they would be if the President had secretly emailed or texted the subscriber market-moving information, and the paid subscriber traded on that information,” the former prosecutors and agents wrote.
The brief also notes that the scheme could create criminal liability not only for executive branch officials, but also for anyone paying the fee for early access to Truth Social posts. A subscriber who receives market-moving information through the paid feed and then trades on it could face insider trading charges, according to the former officials. The arrangement, they argue, effectively hands nonpublic government information to a select group of paying customers, giving them an unfair and potentially unlawful advantage in the financial markets.
The underlying lawsuit was filed against Trump, his aide Natalie Harp, Deputy Chief of Staff Dan Scavino, and the White House. Harp has been described in previous reporting as a close aide who helps Trump manage his social media presence, and Scavino has been a longtime adviser responsible for Trump’s online communications. The plaintiffs allege that these aides are involved in the Truth API arrangement, making them participants in an unconstitutional scheme to commercialize access to the president’s official statements.
The plaintiffs argue that the Truth API violates the First Amendment by creating a preferential channel of access to presidential communications, and violates the Fifth Amendment by depriving ordinary citizens of equal protection and due process. The government, they argue, cannot sell a faster lane to the president’s public statements. The former prosecutors’ brief goes further, asserting that the criminal implications of the scheme undermine any claim that the service serves a legitimate government interest.
CBS News has reached out to the White House and to the Justice Department, which is defending the government in the case. As of Monday evening, neither had responded to requests for comment.
The case has drawn significant attention because it sits at the intersection of social media, financial markets, and presidential communications. During his campaign and his second term, Trump has used Truth Social as his primary megaphone for policy announcements, including tariffs, trade decisions, and foreign policy matters. Historically, presidential announcements carrying market-moving information have been carefully controlled to ensure equal access, often through White House press releases, press briefings, or embargoed calls open to all journalists. The Truth API appears to break with that tradition by selling early access to a select group of paying customers.
Trump Media & Technology Group, the company that owns Truth Social, went public in 2024 after merging with a special purpose acquisition company. Trump is the company’s majority shareholder. Because the president has a substantial financial stake in Trump Media, any revenue generated by the Truth API could financially benefit him directly, intensifying the conflict-of-interest concerns raised by the plaintiffs and the former prosecutors.
The former prosecutors’ brief cites a range of federal statutes in support of its argument. The Securities Exchange Act prohibits insider trading, including trading on material nonpublic information in breach of a duty of trust. The federal illegal gratuity statute makes it a crime to give or receive anything of value for, or because of, an official act. The conflict-of-interest statute bars federal employees from participating personally and substantially in matters in which they have a financial interest. The outside compensation statute bars federal employees from receiving compensation for government work from outside sources. The Trade Secrets Act prohibits employees from disclosing confidential government information not authorized for release.
The brief argues that the Truth API business model fits within these statutes because it appears to sell access to official, market-moving information that has not been made equally available to the public. The fact that the information is posted on a publicly accessible social media site may not immunize the scheme, because the paid feed provides access ahead of the public disclosure, and the recipients are paying specifically for that timing advantage.
A hearing on the request for the preliminary injunction is scheduled for Oct. 7 at the federal courthouse in Manhattan. The plaintiffs are asking the court to block the Truth API’s operation while the case proceeds. If the court grants the injunction, it could prevent Trump Media from offering early access to the feed pending a final ruling.
Legal experts say the case raises novel questions about whether a president’s social media posts are government records, whether the public has a constitutional right to simultaneous access to presidential communications, and whether a commercial data feed can transform official statements into a private commodity. The amicus brief adds a sharp new dimension by suggesting that, regardless of the constitutional questions, federal criminal law may already provide a clear answer.
The former prosecutors and agents urged the court to take the criminal implications seriously in evaluating the plaintiffs’ request for emergency relief. A court may consider the public interest when deciding whether to issue a preliminary injunction, and the former officials argued that the public interest strongly favors stopping a potentially criminal enterprise.
“The Truth Social scheme poses an obvious risk of corruption, defying the compelling anti-corruption interests embodied in the Constitution, ethics codes, and federal laws,” the group wrote in the brief.
The case is being closely watched by transparency advocates, government ethics groups, and securities lawyers. If the court agrees with the plaintiffs or the amicus brief, it could set a precedent limiting how presidents can monetize their official communications. If the court rejects the challenge, it could open the door to widespread commercialization of government information.
For now, the Truth API remains active, and the legal battle is set to unfold over the coming months. With the Oct. 7 hearing approaching, the intervention by former federal prosecutors raises the stakes, putting the possibility of criminal liability at the center of an already contentious constitutional dispute.
