Former Federal Prosecutors File Amicus Brief Challenging President Trump’s Truth Social Pay-for-Early-Access Scheme
NEW YORK — Singleton Schreiber, working with the Campaign Legal Center, filed an amicus brief on behalf of 53 former federal public integrity prosecutors and federal agents who served in the Justice Department’s Public Integrity Section or in field offices across 11 presidential administrations, Republican and Democratic alike. The former prosecutors argue that the Truth Social scheme has no legitimate government purpose and raises serious concerns about preferential access to presidential communications.
The brief supports a motion for preliminary injunction filed by The Intercept Media, Inc., and the Freedom of the Press Foundation in The Intercept Media, Inc., et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 1:26-cv-6867 (S.D.N.Y.), which challenges the arrangement on First Amendment and Equal Protection grounds. The plaintiffs argue that journalists and the public have long had equal, simultaneous access to presidential statements, and that selling early access to some subscribers while everyone else is left in the dark violates their constitutional rights.
The amici argue that the government has no legitimate interest that could justify the scheme because Trump Media & Technology Group, which owns Truth Social, benefits financially every time the scheme drives up the platform's value, and President Trump is the company's largest stakeholder. The brief details how the arrangement gives wealthy, high-frequency traders who pay for the subscription a head start on presidential announcements on topics ranging from tariffs to military decisions to public health matters, while the public and press are kept waiting.
Beyond the constitutional violations, the brief argues the scheme carries potential criminal exposure under the Securities Exchange Act, the federal prohibition on illegal gratuities, conflict-of-interest and outside-compensation laws for federal employees, and the Trade Secrets Act. Because a scheme that may be criminal cannot serve any legitimate government purpose, the amici argue, the law and the public interest both favor an injunction.
"Selling early access to the president's official statements isn't just bad government — it's the kind of self-dealing the public integrity laws exist to stop," said Ryan Crosswell, senior counsel at Singleton Schreiber and a former DOJ public corruption prosecutor. "I spent years at the Justice Department prosecuting officials who violated their oath of office, often for financial gain. This scheme is the same conduct, just done out in the open and with a subscription fee attached. No court should let the president charge admission to his own official acts."
“President Trump is once again seeking to profit from the presidency,” said Renata O’Donnell, senior legal counsel at the nonpartisan Campaign Legal Center. "By using a platform he owns to sell privileged access to official government announcements, the president is both breaking the law and opening the door to corruption. This scheme creates an obvious risk of corruption and undermines the anti-corruption principles embedded in the Constitution, federal ethics laws, and longstanding standards of public service. The scheme is not only potentially criminal, it also exemplifies the kind of conflict of interest that erodes public trust and the integrity of our government.”
The amici ask the court to find that the Truth Social scheme serves no legitimate, let alone significant, government interest and to grant plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction.
###
The nonpartisan Campaign Legal Center advances democracy through law. We safeguard the freedom to vote, defend voters’ right to know who is spending money to influence elections, and work to ensure public trust in our elected officials.
Learn more about CLC. Don't miss out on our latest resources: Subscribe to President Trevor Potter's newsletter on LinkedIn or email and tune in to the latest season of our award-winning podcast, Democracy Decoded.