An interview with two Harvard law professors frames the core issue: selling a tiny timing advantage on presidential posts could let paying traders profit on public information—raising possible insider‑trading and public‑access concerns.
Selling low‑latency access is standard in finance, but those arrangements usually involve private companies selling their own data, not a platform distributing presidential communications.
The arrangement raises a legal question whether buyers who trade on prepublic presidential announcements are exploiting information that belongs to the public, which could implicate insider‑trading or other market‑abuse rules.
President Trump regularly breaks news on his social media platform, Truth Social, where he posts market-moving presidential and White House announcements. The company now sells faster access to those posts for up to $100,000 a month. The advantage is apparently just 50 milliseconds, but that is enough to benefit traders.
The easiest example is arbitrageurs who are trading in two different markets and see the same asset being traded at slightly different prices. I mean, even 50 milliseconds of a timing advantage is commonly paid for by third parties in the markets. So they'll pay millions to co-locate—to physically locate their computer systems very close to the source of whatever information they're trading on.
Jack Goldsmith (Harvard Law) interviews Prof. John Coates (Harvard Law, former SEC general counsel). The arrangement effectively lets Trump profit off the presidency.
A group of major news organizations, including CNN, Politico, and MS Now, has sued the Trump administration in federal court in Washington, alleging that restrictions on their White House access amount to a viewpoint-based punishment of disfavored press outlets. The complaint frames the exclusions as a direct First Ame
A group of major news organizations, including CNN, Politico, and MS Now, has sued the Trump administration in federal court in Washington, alleging that restrictions on their White House access amount to a viewpoint-based punishment of disfavored press outlets. The complaint frames the exclusions as a direct First Ame
CNN, MS NOW, and Politico are asking a federal judge to hold the president in check for what they say is a violation of their Constitutional rights simply because he doesn't like how they cover him.
The short answer is “no,” according to KTLA law and politics expert Jessica Levinson. “This is a bedrock principal of the First Amendment… The First Amendment protects us against the government,” Levinson said on KTLA 5 Morning News Monday. CNN, MS NOW and Politico say they have notified the Trump administration that t
In a federal lawsuit, CNN, MS NOW, and Politico argue that Trump's bans violate due process and freedom of the press.
Here's an excerpt from the opposition to plaintiffs' temporary restraining order motion (for my view on why the plaintiffs should… The post President Trump's Legal Argument in Support of Excluding CNN, MS NOW, and Politico from the White House appeared first on Reason Magazine.
Loading more related stories...
Open the app view to save this story, compare related coverage, and continue from the same source.