Prosecutors Ask Judge to Block Trump's Truth Social Insider Trading Scheme

More than 50 former federal prosecutors and law enforcement officials have urged a federal judge to block Donald Trump's proposed $100,000 monthly service offering early access to Truth Social posts. The group filed an amicus brief on Monday in the Southern District of New York, arguing that this arrangement could violate several federal criminal statutes, particularly by providing traders with a paid window into potentially market-moving government information. The filing supports a preliminary injunction sought by The Intercept and the Freedom of the Press Foundation.

The signatories include 53 former officials with extensive experience in public corruption and public integrity matters. These individuals previously served at the Department of Justice, the FBI, and various U.S. attorneys' offices, spanning 11 presidential administrations, encompassing both Republican and Democratic leadership. Collectively, these former officials bring over 880 years of government service to their assessment of the situation. Renata O’Donnell, senior legal counsel at the Campaign Legal Center, which collaborated with Singleton Schreiber on the filing, stated to Fortune that such practices are "so corrosive to democracy and to the public interest when we see the president financially benefitting from his official role." She emphasized the historical context of founders seeking to insulate government officials from personal financial gain tied to their official capacities.

The amicus brief explicitly states that "There is no legitimate, let alone significant, government interest in allowing public officials to profit personally by selling early access to official government announcements." The filing highlights Truth Social's new scheme, which proposes charging up to $100,000 per month for users to receive early access to messages from the President and other officials on the platform. This practice is seen as potentially creating an unfair advantage for those willing to pay, by allowing them to act on information before it is publicly disseminated. The prosecutors argue that this could be construed as a form of insider trading, where non-public, potentially market-moving information is being monetized.

The concerns raised by the former prosecutors extend beyond the immediate financial implications. They point to the broader impact on public trust and the integrity of government communications. The arrangement is viewed as undermining the principle that official government information should be made available to the public equitably, without preferential treatment based on financial contributions. The filing underscores the founders' intent to create a system where public officials are insulated from personal financial impropriety, ensuring their decisions are made in the public interest rather than for private gain. The potential for abuse is significant, as early access to official announcements could allow subscribers to make profitable trades or other financial decisions before the general public is aware of the information, thereby creating an uneven playing field in financial markets.