Paid advance: Trump's posts service sparks legal debate on Wall Street

President Donald Trump's tweets often trigger rapid market swings, but the current controversy is not about their content, but about who gets to see them first.

This move comes at a time when Trump still holds a significant stake in the company that owns Truth Social, raising questions about conflicts of interest.

The announcement by Trump Media & Technology Group of a paid service offering early access to the president's posts on his Truth Social platform sparked a wave of controversy, with legal experts calling it an unprecedented test of the separation between public office and private gain.

The Financial Times reported, citing informed sources, that the subscription cost could reach about $100,000 per month, raising questions about whether early access to the president's statements could become a commodity sold to investors who can afford it.

Critics argue that the service represents the latest way Trump could financially benefit while in the White House, especially since he holds a stake in the company that owns Truth Social.

Lawyers for financial institutions and investment funds have begun studying the implications of subscribing to this service, fearing that paying for early access to the president's thoughts could be seen as exploiting information arising from his official position. Richard Painter, a corporate law professor at the University of Minnesota, confirmed that the plan could expose subscribing companies to legal risks.

Meanwhile, James Cox, a professor of corporate and securities law at Duke University, stated that White House officials 'are not entitled to exploit information while holding their official positions,' adding that selling early access to such information could mean personal gain from government data.

Despite the criticism, some investment institutions may find themselves compelled to subscribe to the service. A macro hedge fund official described the proposal as a 'scandal,' but acknowledged that some funds might subscribe out of fiduciary duty to investors, to avoid falling behind competitors in obtaining information that could shift markets within seconds.

{{displayname}}

{{profession}}

{{followercount}}

{{aboutme}}

Observers believe that this service opens the door to broader questions about how to regulate access to government officials' statements. Legal concerns may also push regulatory bodies to scrutinize such practices. Amid competitive pressures, some investment institutions may find themselves forced to subscribe despite the risks. The issue is expected to continue sparking debate among legal experts and investors alike.