EFF to Court: Trump's Use of Truth Social's Pay-To-See-Posts-First Scheme Violates Americans' 1st Amendment Equal Access Rights (www.eff.org)
<div class="field field--name-body field--type-text-with-summary field--label-hidden"><div class="field__items"><div class="field__item even"><p><em>EFF legal intern Simar Kaur also contributed to this article.</em></p>
<p><span data-contrast="auto">Americans’ First Amendment right to equal access to official government statements is violated by the Trump administration’s use of Truth Social’s preferential treatment scheme, which blocks people who won’t pay Trump’s company up to $100,000 a month early access to government news, EFF <a href="https://www.eff.org/document/intercept-media-inc-et-al-v-trump-et-al-effs-amicus-brief-iso-plaintiffs-pi-motion">told a federal court.</a><br /><br /></span><span data-ccp-props="0}">The First Amendment guarantees that members of the public have equal access to public officials’ public comments, we reminded the court.<br /><br /></span><span data-ccp-props="0}">EFF filed an <a href="https://www.eff.org/document/intercept-media-inc-et-al-v-trump-et-al-effs-amicus-brief-iso-plaintiffs-pi-motion">amicus brief</a> in support of <a href="https://www.citizensforethics.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/ECF-36.01-Exhibit-Memorandum-in-Support-of-Preliminary-Injunction_Redacted.pdf">a motion for a preliminary injunction</a> in the </span><a href="https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.670362/gov.uscourts.nysd.670362.1.0.pdf"><span data-contrast="none">lawsuit</span></a><span data-contrast="auto"> filed by The Intercept Media and the Freedom of the Press Foundation against</span><a href="https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.670362/gov.uscourts.nysd.670362.1.0.pdf"><span data-contrast="none"> President Trump</span></a><span data-contrast="auto"> and other administration officials. The lawsuit challenges their use of Truth Social as their primary social media method of making official announcements when that platform provides people who pay a fee for early access to such posts. <br /><br /></span><span data-ccp-props="0}">Trump uses his Truth Social account as his primary means of communicating with the public, including to announce military operations and ceasefires, foreign and domestic policy, and the removal and appointment of heads of federal agencies. Earlier in the year, Trump Media, which owns Truth Social, </span><a href="https://s3.amazonaws.com/b2icontent.irpass.cc/2660/rl168199.pdf"><span data-contrast="none">announced “Truth API,”</span></a> <span data-contrast="auto">a service that provides investors early access to “market-moving” messages from the president and other high-ranking officials for a fee of up to $100,000 per month.<br /><br /></span><span data-ccp-props="0}">The plaintiffs, the Freedom of the Press Foundation and The Intercept, contend that the president and other officials’ preferred use of Truth Social with this service violates the First and Fifth Amendments of the Constitution. The plaintiffs are asking the court to immediately prevent the president from posting on Truth Social in a manner that allows him to profit from selling early access to government information.<br /><br /></span><span data-ccp-props="0}">EFF’s amicus makes two main points.<br /><br /></span><span data-ccp-props="0}">First, the brief establishes that social media is pervasively used by government officials and agencies as a medium for official communication with the public, including to disseminate critical public safety information and make official announcements.<br /><br /></span><span data-ccp-props="0}">Second, the brief explains that the challenged practice violates the First Amendment, which guarantees a right to access public officials’ public comments on equal terms with other members of the press and public. Giving some people preferential access must at a minimum be reasonably justified to satisfy First Amendment scrutiny, a test the administration does not meet.<br /><br /></span><span data-ccp-props="0}">Lining the president and his company's pockets is not a legitimate government interest for restricting timely access to the government's statements. Further, the fact that the public could ultimately access the information from other, less direct channels does not eliminate the need for First Amendment scrutiny; mere delays in timely access still trigger First Amendment scrutiny.<br /><br /></span><span data-ccp-props="0}">EFF has been advancing the First Amendment right of equal access to government’s public social media posts </span><a href="https://www.eff.org/document/knight-first-amendment-institute-v-trump"><span data-contrast="none">since at least 2018</span></a><span data-contrast="auto">. We’ve argued that the right of equal access, which is well established in offline contexts, must apply to official government social media posts as well. This case presents an excellent opportunity for a court to directly adopt that position.</span><span data-ccp-props="0}"> </span></p>
</div></div></div>
<p><span data-contrast="auto">Americans’ First Amendment right to equal access to official government statements is violated by the Trump administration’s use of Truth Social’s preferential treatment scheme, which blocks people who won’t pay Trump’s company up to $100,000 a month early access to government news, EFF <a href="https://www.eff.org/document/intercept-media-inc-et-al-v-trump-et-al-effs-amicus-brief-iso-plaintiffs-pi-motion">told a federal court.</a><br /><br /></span><span data-ccp-props="0}">The First Amendment guarantees that members of the public have equal access to public officials’ public comments, we reminded the court.<br /><br /></span><span data-ccp-props="0}">EFF filed an <a href="https://www.eff.org/document/intercept-media-inc-et-al-v-trump-et-al-effs-amicus-brief-iso-plaintiffs-pi-motion">amicus brief</a> in support of <a href="https://www.citizensforethics.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/ECF-36.01-Exhibit-Memorandum-in-Support-of-Preliminary-Injunction_Redacted.pdf">a motion for a preliminary injunction</a> in the </span><a href="https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.670362/gov.uscourts.nysd.670362.1.0.pdf"><span data-contrast="none">lawsuit</span></a><span data-contrast="auto"> filed by The Intercept Media and the Freedom of the Press Foundation against</span><a href="https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.670362/gov.uscourts.nysd.670362.1.0.pdf"><span data-contrast="none"> President Trump</span></a><span data-contrast="auto"> and other administration officials. The lawsuit challenges their use of Truth Social as their primary social media method of making official announcements when that platform provides people who pay a fee for early access to such posts. <br /><br /></span><span data-ccp-props="0}">Trump uses his Truth Social account as his primary means of communicating with the public, including to announce military operations and ceasefires, foreign and domestic policy, and the removal and appointment of heads of federal agencies. Earlier in the year, Trump Media, which owns Truth Social, </span><a href="https://s3.amazonaws.com/b2icontent.irpass.cc/2660/rl168199.pdf"><span data-contrast="none">announced “Truth API,”</span></a> <span data-contrast="auto">a service that provides investors early access to “market-moving” messages from the president and other high-ranking officials for a fee of up to $100,000 per month.<br /><br /></span><span data-ccp-props="0}">The plaintiffs, the Freedom of the Press Foundation and The Intercept, contend that the president and other officials’ preferred use of Truth Social with this service violates the First and Fifth Amendments of the Constitution. The plaintiffs are asking the court to immediately prevent the president from posting on Truth Social in a manner that allows him to profit from selling early access to government information.<br /><br /></span><span data-ccp-props="0}">EFF’s amicus makes two main points.<br /><br /></span><span data-ccp-props="0}">First, the brief establishes that social media is pervasively used by government officials and agencies as a medium for official communication with the public, including to disseminate critical public safety information and make official announcements.<br /><br /></span><span data-ccp-props="0}">Second, the brief explains that the challenged practice violates the First Amendment, which guarantees a right to access public officials’ public comments on equal terms with other members of the press and public. Giving some people preferential access must at a minimum be reasonably justified to satisfy First Amendment scrutiny, a test the administration does not meet.<br /><br /></span><span data-ccp-props="0}">Lining the president and his company's pockets is not a legitimate government interest for restricting timely access to the government's statements. Further, the fact that the public could ultimately access the information from other, less direct channels does not eliminate the need for First Amendment scrutiny; mere delays in timely access still trigger First Amendment scrutiny.<br /><br /></span><span data-ccp-props="0}">EFF has been advancing the First Amendment right of equal access to government’s public social media posts </span><a href="https://www.eff.org/document/knight-first-amendment-institute-v-trump"><span data-contrast="none">since at least 2018</span></a><span data-contrast="auto">. We’ve argued that the right of equal access, which is well established in offline contexts, must apply to official government social media posts as well. This case presents an excellent opportunity for a court to directly adopt that position.</span><span data-ccp-props="0}"> </span></p>
</div></div></div>
Comments