Trump Media’s interim CEO told CNBC that paying customers for its high speed Truth API have climbed into the “mid teens.” The growth comes as a pending federal lawsuit argues that faster paid access to presidential posts containing official announcements violates constitutional protections, a claim no court has yet accepted.
Trump Media & Technology Group is reporting additional customer growth for Truth API, the data licensing service it launched Aug. 1 for institutions seeking rapid, machine readable access to influential Truth Social posts.
In an Aug. 24 appearance on CNBC’s Squawk Box, interim CEO Kevin McGurn said the number of paying customers was getting into the “mid teens” and continuing to climb. That updates Trump Media’s Aug. 10 disclosure that it had signed more than 10 customer agreements, primarily with high frequency trading firms.
The commercial expansion is unfolding alongside The Intercept Media, Inc. v. Trump, a federal lawsuit filed Aug. 12 by The Intercept Media and the Freedom of the Press Foundation. The case remains pending in the Southern District of New York. The lawsuit presents constitutional allegations; it has not produced a ruling that Truth API or the administration’s conduct is unlawful.
What Truth API actually sells
Trump Media announced Truth API on July 16 in a release filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The company described it as a business to business feed providing licensed, real time access to posts from the highest ranking Truth Social accounts, with institutional availability beginning Aug. 1.
According to that SEC filed announcement, the product uses standard data delivery methods to send posts in milliseconds and includes a historical archive dating to 2022. Trump Media specifically identified high frequency and algorithmic trading firms as potential customers because those businesses can place a premium on low latency, machine readable information.
The company has not published a conventional public price list. During its second quarter earnings call, McGurn said the agreements signed at that point were generally priced between $60,000 and $100,000 a month. Trump Media said the initial customer group consisted mainly of high frequency trading firms and that it was also talking with major technology companies, news organizations and developers of large language models.
That distinction matters because describing the service simply as “$100,000 a month access” can overstate what every customer is paying. The company’s own executive put the current contract range at $60,000 to $100,000 monthly.
Faster does not mean unpublished
Another important distinction is what subscribers receive. Trump Media has said Truth API is not a channel for secret drafts or unpublished presidential statements.
During the Aug. 10 earnings call, McGurn described the product as delivering machine readable versions of posts that have already been published and made publicly available on Truth Social, while allowing API customers to receive and process those posts fractionally faster than people relying on ordinary platform access. CNBC separately reported that explanation when covering the lawsuit.
The lawsuit disputes the significance of that distinction. Its theory is that even if the information technically becomes public first, paying customers may obtain an economically valuable timing advantage before ordinary users, journalists or automated systems that do not subscribe can receive and process the same information.
That is the legal controversy. It is not established that Truth API customers receive information before Trump publishes it, and the pending complaint should not be described as having proven that they do.
Who is actually being sued
The case was filed in Manhattan federal court by The Intercept Media and the Freedom of the Press Foundation — not an organization called the “Freedom of the Press Association,” as some summaries of the story have stated.
The defendants are Donald Trump in his official capacity as president; presidential executive assistant Natalie Harp; White House Deputy Chief of Staff Daniel Scavino; the Executive Office of the President; and the White House Office. The complaint lists Harp and Scavino in their official capacities as well.
Trump Media itself is not named as a defendant in the complaint. That is an important procedural point because the commercial service is operated by Trump Media, but the plaintiffs have framed their constitutional claims around government officials’ use of Truth Social for official communications.
The case was assigned to U.S. District Judge J. Paul Oetken. The latest available docket shows the complaint, summonses, proof of service filings and attorney admission matters. It does not show a substantive decision on the constitutional claims or an order finding the administration liable.
What the plaintiffs allege
The complaint argues that Trump has repeatedly used Truth Social to announce government actions and policy positions while Trump Media sells subscribers a faster mechanism for receiving posts from his account and other prominent accounts.
The plaintiffs contend that this arrangement burdens access to official presidential communications and violates the First Amendment. They also assert Fifth Amendment theories involving allegedly unreasonable financial conditions and unequal treatment of people who cannot or will not buy the service. Those arguments are the plaintiffs’ legal claims, not established facts or court findings.
The complaint points to Trump’s use of Truth Social for matters including appointments, tariffs and other domestic and foreign policy announcements. It argues that some presidential posts function as official government communications even though they appear on a privately operated social network.
The plaintiffs are seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. Their requested remedy focuses on the combination of official government information being posted through Truth Social and preferential paid access to those communications. Whether the Constitution requires equal speed access in these circumstances is among the issues the litigation seeks to test.
Trump’s ownership is significant, not a majority
Trump’s financial relationship with Trump Media is another area where precision matters.
Trump transferred 114.75 million Trump Media shares to the Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust in December 2024. Trump Media’s amended annual report says the trust held about 41% of the company’s outstanding shares as of April 28, 2026. Donald Trump Jr. is the trust’s sole trustee, while President Trump is its settlor and sole current beneficiary.
The lawsuit similarly describes the nearly 115 million shares as representing approximately 41.4% of Trump Media and calls Trump the company’s largest shareholder.
That means descriptions portraying Trump or his family as holding a current majority of Trump Media are outdated or inaccurate based on the latest cited ownership figures. A roughly 41% stake is substantial and makes the trust the largest shareholder, but it is below the more than 50% threshold ordinarily meant by “majority shareholder.”
The plaintiffs say that financial interest strengthens their argument that the president can benefit from increased Trump Media revenue. The ownership facts are documented; the conclusion that the API arrangement is unconstitutional remains disputed and unresolved.
Why milliseconds interest Wall Street
Trump Media itself has emphasized the potential importance of speed to financial firms. Its July announcement said markets already move in response to Truth Social posts and promoted the API to organizations for which delays in receiving information carry a cost.
High frequency trading firms use automated systems capable of reacting to new information far faster than a human reading a social media feed. In that environment, a difference measured in milliseconds can be commercially relevant because computers can parse a message, connect it to trading rules and submit orders almost immediately.
That does not mean a Truth API subscriber has necessarily profited from a presidential announcement, nor does it establish insider trading, market manipulation or another securities violation. The available court docket contains no such finding.
The controversy instead concerns the structure of the service: a private company with a major financial connection to the president is charging sophisticated customers for a faster technical route to posts that can include official statements and potentially affect markets.
Trump Media’s position is that this is ordinary data licensing built around already public information. The plaintiffs argue that presidential use of the platform makes the arrangement constitutionally different from an ordinary commercial news feed.
Trump Media sees a new business
For Trump Media, Truth API is also part of an effort to develop revenue beyond conventional social media advertising.
In its Aug. 10 earnings materials, the company said Truth API was already generating revenue with more than 10 agreements signed. On the earnings call, McGurn described the revenue at that point as modest while saying management believed the product could grow into a meaningful, durable contributor alongside advertising, subscriptions and other parts of the business.
The Aug. 24 CNBC interview supplied the newest customer update. According to the interview as reported by Quartz and Yahoo Finance, McGurn said the number had advanced into the mid teens. Trump Media has not disclosed the identities of those customers or provided a separate revenue total attributable specifically to Truth API.
That means the latest evidence supports saying customer adoption has increased. It does not yet establish how profitable the service is, how long its contracts will remain in place or whether the current growth rate will continue.
Those are materially different claims, and Trump Media’s predictions about future revenue remain company expectations rather than realized results.
The financial backdrop is unusual
Truth API arrives at a time when Trump Media’s overall financial results remain dominated by investments and other activities far larger than its operating revenue.
Trump Media reported $1.7 million in second quarter 2026 revenue, an increase of 89% from approximately $900,000 in the same period a year earlier. It nevertheless recorded a $238.1 million net loss for the quarter.
The company said the bulk of that loss involved noncash items, including $190.4 million in unrealized losses on digital assets, pledged digital assets and equity securities, along with $11.7 million in accreted interest and $8.1 million in stock based compensation. It reported approximately $1.9 billion in financial assets at quarter end.
Reuters likewise reported that the quarterly loss widened sharply from roughly $20 million a year earlier and attributed much of the deterioration to unrealized cryptocurrency related losses.
Those numbers help explain why management is emphasizing recurring revenue streams such as data licensing. They should not, however, be used to imply that Truth API was created because of the quarterly loss unless the company explicitly establishes that causal connection.
What remains unresolved
As of the latest available case information, the most important legal questions remain open.
The lawsuit is active, but Judge Oetken has not ruled that Truth API violates either the First or Fifth Amendment. The docket reviewed through Aug. 23 primarily reflects filing, service and attorney admission activity rather than a merits determination.
The plaintiffs will still have to establish that the challenged government conduct fits the constitutional doctrines they invoke and that they are entitled to the relief requested. The defendants may dispute the plaintiffs’ characterization of the communications, the claimed injury, the constitutional theories or other threshold issues.
Meanwhile, the commercial service remains in operation. Trump Media’s latest public customer figure has moved from more than 10 agreements on Aug. 10 to the mid teens in McGurn’s Aug. 24 CNBC interview.
That creates a more precise current story than simply saying Trump has been sued over early access to his posts. The verified development is that Trump Media says demand for its high speed feed is increasing while a newly filed federal case challenges the government’s role in an arrangement that sells faster access to presidential communications.
For now, both parts of that sentence matter: the paying customer base is growing, and the constitutional challenge remains pending rather than decided.
Leave a Reply