Connect with us

Business

Commentary: Trump Media’s financial report revives doubts for investors

Published

on

Commentary: Trump Media’s financial report revives doubts for investors

So much Trump-related news has appeared lately on the airwaves and in web pixels — what with Iran and Epstein and Minnesota and so on — that inevitably a nugget will fall between the cracks.

That seems to have been the fate of the most recent annual financial report of Trump Media and Technology Group, which covered calendar year 2025 and was issued Friday.

Trump Media, which is 52% owned by Donald Trump and trades on Nasdaq with a ticker symbol based on his initials (DJT), is the holding company for Trump’s social media platform, Truth Social.

The value of TMTG’s brand may diminish if the popularity of President Donald J. Trump were to suffer.

— A risk factor disclosed by Trump Media

Advertisement

The annual financial disclosure has garnered minimal press coverage. That’s a pity, because it makes fascinating reading, though not in a good way.

Here are the top and bottom lines from the 10-k annual report: Trump Media lost $712.1 million last year on revenue of about $3.7 million. That’s quite a bit worse than its performance in 2024, when it lost $409 million on revenue of about $3.6 million. The company attributed most of the flood of red ink to “loss from investments,” of which more in a moment.

Truth Social isn’t an especially strong keystone of this operation. The platform is chiefly an outlet for Trump’s social media ramblings and the occasional official White House statements. But no one has to sign in to Truth Social to see them — they’re almost invariably picked up by the news media or reposted by users on other platforms such as X.

That might explain Truth Social’s relatively scrawny user base. The platform is estimated to have about 2 million active users, according to the analytical firm Search Logistics. By comparison, X has about 450 million monthly active users and Facebook has more than 2.9 billion.

Advertisement

It’s no mystery, then, why TMTG disdains “traditional performance metrics like average revenue per user, ad impressions and pricing, or active user accounts, including monthly and daily active users,” according to its annual report.

Relying on those metrics, which are used to judge TMTG’s social media rivals, “might not align with the best interests of TMTG or its stockholders, as it could lead to short-term decision-making at the expense of long-term innovation and value creation.”

Instead, the company says it should be evaluated based on “its commitment to a robust business plan that includes introducing innovative features, new products, new technologies.” But it also acknowledges that, at its heart, TMTG is a proxy for “the reputation and popularity of President Donald J. Trump.” The company warns that “the value of TMTG’s brand may diminish if the popularity of President Donald J. Trump were to suffer.”

How has that played out in real time? Trump Media notched its highest closing price as a public company, $66.22, on March 27, 2024, the day after its initial public offering. In midday trading Monday, the shares were quoted at $11.08, for a loss of 83% since the IPO.

One can’t quibble with stock market price quotes; nor can one finagle annual profit and loss statements, at least not without receiving questions, and perhaps lawsuit complaints, from attentive investors and the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Advertisement

In recent months, TMTG has engaged in a number of baroque financial transactions.

In May, the company announced that it was planning to raise $3.5 billion from institutions to invest in bitcoin, with the money to come from issues of common and preferred shares. The goal was to climb onto the cryptocurrency train, which Trump himself was fueling by, among other things, issuing an executive order promoting the expansion of crypto in the U.S. and denigrating enforcement efforts by the Biden administration as reflecting a “war on cryptocurrency.”

Under Trump, federal regulators have dropped numerous investigations related to cryptocurrencies. Trump has also talked about creating a government crypto strategic reserve, which would entail large government purchases of bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies; a March 3 announcement on that subject briefly sent bitcoin prices soaring by nearly 20%, though they promptly fell back.

Then there’s TMTG’s relationship with Crypto.com, a Singapore-based crypto “service provider” best known to Angelenos unfamiliar with the crypto world as the firm with naming rights to the Los Angeles arena that hosts the NBA Lakers and Clippers, WNBA Sparks and NHL Kings.

In August, Crypto.com and TMTG announced a deal in which TMTG would pursue a crypto treasury strategy consisting mostly of Cronos tokens, a cryptocurrency sponsored by Crypto.com. The initial infusion would consist of 6.4 billion Cronos valued at $1 billion, or about 15.8 cents per Cronos.

Advertisement

As of Dec. 31, TMTG said in its 10-K, it owned 756.1 million Cronos, acquired at a cost of about $114 million, or 15 cents each. By year’s end, they were worth only about nine cents each, for a paper loss of about $46 million. In trading this week, Cronos was quoted at about 7.6 cents, producing a paper loss for TMTG of about $56.5 million, or roughly half the investment.

The financial maneuvering involved in this trade is a little dizzying. The initial transaction was a 50% stock, 50% cash trade in which Crypto.com bought $50 million in TMTG stock and TMTG bought $105 million in Cronos. Who gained in this deal? It’s almost impossible to say.

Crypto.com did gain, if not purely in cash, then arguably through the Trump administration’s good graces.

On March 27, the SEC formally closed an investigation of the company that it had launched during the Biden administration, when the agency was headed by a known crypto skeptic, Gary Gensler. Trump appointed a crypto-friendly regulator, Paul Atkins, as Gensler’s successor.

It’s reasonable to note that as a business model, crypto treasuries have been in vogue over the last year or so, allowing investors to play the crypto market without all the complexities of actually buying and holding the digital assets by buying shares in treasury companies.

Advertisement

I asked Crypto.com whether the steady decline in Cronos’ price suggested that the hookup with TMTG wasn’t bearing fruit. “The fluctuation in value during this time period is consistent with the entire crypto market, which is typical in a bear market,” company spokeswoman Victoria Davis told me by email.

Davis also asserted that the SEC’s investigation of the company had been closed by Gensler, “not the current administration” (i.e., Trump). That’s misleading, at best. Gensler put the investigation on hold after the 2024 election, when it became clear that Trump was going to be in charge.

Crypto.com’s March 27 announcement of the formal end of the case attributed the action to “the current SEC leadership” and blamed the case on “the previous administration.” I asked Davis to explain the discrepancy but got no reply.

TMTG, like Crypto.com, attributed the decline in Cronos’ value to the secular bear market raging in the entire cryptocurrency space, a reflection of “temporary price swings across the crypto market,” said TMTG spokeswoman Shannon Devine. She said the price decline “will not diminish our enthusiasm for the enormous potential of the [CRONOS] ecosystem.”

Trump’s coziness with crypto companies hasn’t gone unnoticed by Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee, who issued a scathing report on the topic in November. (The White House scoffed at the report, saying in response to the report that Trump “only acts in the best interests of the American public.”)

Advertisement

In mid-December, TMTG launched yet another remaking — this time, plunging into the business of fusion power. The instrument is TAE Technologies, a Foothill Ranch-based company working to develop the technology of nuclear fusion as a clean energy source. According to a Dec. 18 announcement, TMTG and TAE will merge, creating what they say is a $6-billion company.

According to the announcement, TMTG will contribute $200 million to the merged company when the deal closes in mid-2026, and an additional $100 million subsequently. Following the merger, TMTG said last month, it will consider spinning off Truth Social into a new publicly traded company.

These arrangements are murky. TAE is privately held and the value of Truth Social is conjectural at best, so TMTG shareholders could be hard-pressed to assess their gains or losses from the merger and spin-off.

What makes them even murkier is the speculative nature of fusion as an electrical power source. Although numerous companies have leaped into the field — and TAE, which has been backed by Alphabet, the parent of Google, is among the oldest — none has shown the capability of generating electrical power at commercial scale with the elusive technology.

Although some researchers say that fusion could become a technically and economically feasible power source within 10 years, only in 2022 did fusion researchers (at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory) achieve the goal of using fusion to produce more energy than is required to sustain a reaction. They were able to do so only for less than a billionth of a second.

Advertisement

Others working on the technology have expressed doubts that fusion could become a viable power source before the 2040s. The technical challenges, including how to convert the energy produced by a fusion reactor into electricity, remain daunting.

All this points to the fundamental question of what TMTG is supposed to be. TMTG’s original mission, according to its own publicity statements, was to build Truth Social into an alternative social media platform “to end Big Tech’s assault on free speech by opening up the Internet.”

Spinning off Truth Social would place that goal on the side. TMTG is on its way too becoming a hodgepodge of crypto, fusion and other investments selected without regard to whether they fit together or are even achievable. The only constant is Trump himself.

If you want to invest in him, TMTG may be the best way to do it. But judging from its latest financial disclosure, that’s not the same as being a good way to do it.

Advertisement

Business

Howard Lutnick Faces Questions From Congress About Epstein Ties

Published

on

Howard Lutnick Faces Questions From Congress About Epstein Ties

Howard Lutnick, President Trump’s commerce secretary, faced questions on Wednesday in a closed-door session of the House Oversight Committee over his ties to Jeffrey Epstein, the convicted sex offender.

Mr. Lutnick is one of the highest-profile cabinet members to come under scrutiny in connection with Mr. Epstein. The commerce secretary’s name appeared in more than 250 documents in the Epstein files released by the Justice Department, a review by The New York Times found.

Asked whether Mr. Lutnick’s credibility had been undermined, Representative James Comer, a Republican of Kentucky who chairs the House Oversight Committee said Wednesday, “we’re going to ask him all these questions, and we’ll let the American people judge whether the credibility was damaged or not at the end of the day.”

Mr. Comer said that Mr. Lutnick “wasn’t 100 percent truthful with whether he or not he had been on the island.”

He added that it was the first time in the last decade that a chairman of the oversight committee had brought in a cabinet secretary of his own party.

Advertisement

During the hearing Mr. Lutnick downplayed his ties to Mr. Epstein, claiming their relationship was inconsequential, according to two people familiar with his testimony.

Mr. Lutnick lived next door to Mr. Epstein on the Upper East Side of Manhattan for over a decade. Until recently, he had claimed to have not been in the same room with Mr. Epstein after an encounter in 2005. But millions of documents that were released by the Justice Department earlier this year showed that Mr. Lutnick had traveled to Mr. Epstein’s private island in 2012.

The documents suggest Mr. Lutnick had another encounter with Mr. Epstein at his house in 2011, years after Mr. Lutnick claimed to have cut ties with him. The records also indicated that the men invested in the same privately held company together and dealt with each other on neighborhood and philanthropic issues.

Mr. Epstein, who was convicted in Florida in 2008 of soliciting prostitution from a minor, died in a Manhattan jail in 2019 while being held on federal sex-trafficking charges.

Mr. Lutnick has received questions from lawmakers about his connections with Mr. Epstein in congressional hearings on other topics, first in February and again last month.

Advertisement

All Democrats and some Republicans on the Oversight Committee signaled that they would try to force a vote on a subpoena for Mr. Lutnick. But the panel’s Republican chairman, Representative James R. Comer of Kentucky, said that Mr. Lutnick had volunteered to testify.

The Commerce Department said in a statement on Wednesday that Mr. Lutnick looked forward to “putting to rest the inaccurate and baseless claims in the media.”

Though the committee’s investigation into Mr. Epstein and the Justice Department’s handling of the case against him has sprawled to include a number of political figures, Mr. Lutnick is the first current Trump administration official to testify before the panel.

The committee also issued a subpoena to Pam Bondi, the former attorney general who Mr. Trump fired last month, before she was dismissed from her position. She has not yet appeared for a deposition.

Questions by lawmakers in the closed-door session on Wednesday could touch on Mr. Lutnick’s former nanny. The files showed that Mr. Epstein expressed an interest in meeting the nanny in 2013 and had her résumé sent to him. It is not clear if they ever met.

Advertisement

Mr. Lutnick said in February that he did not know if the nanny had met Mr. Epstein, or if she was one of the nannies Mr. Lutnick had brought to the island. Mr. Lutnick has four children.

In October, Mr. Lutnick said in a podcast interview that he had decided after a 2005 incident not to associate with Mr. Epstein, after Mr. Epstein alluded to his sexual encounters with women while giving Mr. Lutnick and his wife a tour of his house.

“My wife and I decided that I will never be in the room with that disgusting person ever again,” Mr. Lutnick said on the podcast, “Pod Force One.” “So I was never in the room with him socially, for business or even philanthropy.”

But in a congressional hearing in February, Mr. Lutnick told lawmakers that he not only met with Mr. Epstein after that encounter, but that he and his family also traveled to his private Caribbean island, Little St. James, in 2012 for lunch. Mr. Lutnick was traveling aboard his yacht, accompanied by his wife, children, nannies and another family.

The visit took place four years after Mr. Epstein had pleaded guilty in Florida to soliciting prostitution from a minor as part of a plea bargain with federal prosecutors.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Business

Last resort in Primm, former gambling mecca at the California-Nevada border, will close

Published

on

Last resort in Primm, former gambling mecca at the California-Nevada border, will close

Primm Valley Resorts, the last full-time casino among a cluster of three off Interstate 15 in Primm, at the California-Nevada border, is permanently closing, according to a termination notice sent to employees on Tuesday.

The letter, posted by Las Vegas insider publication Las Vegas Locally, noted that employees who worked at Primm Valley would be let go by July 4. It’s not known if the casino will close that day or before.

An email to Primm Valley Resorts owner Affinity Gaming was not immediately returned.

Primm Valley was the last of three operating casino resorts in Primm, formerly known as State Line. The castle-shaped Whiskey Pete’s opened in 1977, followed by Primm Valley in 1990 and Buffalo Bill’s in 1994.

In a letter to the Clark County Board of Commissioners, Erin Barnett, Affinity’s vice president and general counsel, wrote in October 2024 that “traffic at the state line has proved to be heavily weighted towards weekend activity and is insufficient to support three full-time casino properties.”

Advertisement

Along with Primm Valley Resorts, Primadonna Co. LLC, owned by Affinity Gaming, is closing the Primm Center gas station and the Flying J truck stop located at Whiskey Pete’s; that casino closed in December 2024.

The termination notice comes nearly a year after Affinity Gaming ended 24/7 operations at Buffalo Bill’s Resort on July 6. The casino opened on days in which its concert venue, the Star of the Desert Arena, hosted special events.

Lights glow on the Buffalo Bill’s Resort and Casino sign on July 6, 2025, in Primm, Nev.

(Bridget Bennett / For The Times)

Advertisement

It’s unclear what happens to music and magic acts booked until July 25.

It’s not known how long other Affinity-owned properties in the area, such as the popular Lotto Store on the California side of the border, will continue to operate. Nevadans have been known to drive for several miles and wait in long lines to buy Powerball tickets, particularly when jackpots creep into 10 figures.

The notice informed employees “this action is expected to result in the permanent termination of employment for all employees at these locations.”

As late as September, Primm Valley Resorts emailed media members promoting renovated rooms and signature experiences at its final resort.

Primm once shined as one of Nevada’s more popular gambling resorts. The three-casino complex served as a less expensive, less flashy, slightly more kitschy alternative to Las Vegas that benefited from being a good 45 minutes closer to Los Angeles than Sin City.

Advertisement

Several factors have contributed to Primm’s slow decline, including the COVID pandemic and increased competition from casinos popping up on tribal lands in California.

Those newer casinos are easier to get to than Primm from key Southern California population centers, reducing the value proposition.

Continue Reading

Business

‘Avatar’ Suit Focuses on Hot Topic in A.I. Age: A Character’s Face

Published

on

‘Avatar’ Suit Focuses on Hot Topic in A.I. Age: A Character’s Face

An actress accused the director James Cameron of stealing her likeness to create an “Avatar” character in a lawsuit filed on Tuesday in California — a case that reflects a core fear among Hollywood performers in the artificial intelligence age: losing control of their own faces.

The actress, Q’orianka Kilcher, also sued Disney, which controls the multibillion-dollar “Avatar” franchise, which started in 2009.

“In the age of A.I., our likeness is no longer safe,” Ms. Kilcher, 36, said in an interview. “While what happened to me is personal, it’s also a big warning that, if we don’t act now, this type of thing will become standard. This case is about the future of identity.”

The lawsuit involves Neytiri, the digitally created, blue-skinned warrior princess in Mr. Cameron’s three “Avatar” blockbusters. According to the complaint, Mr. Cameron used a photo of Ms. Kilcher as a teenager — without her knowledge — as the foundation for Neytiri, incorporating her features “directly into his production art” and digital production pipeline.

“Neytiri’s lips, chin, jawline and overall mouth shape” in the trilogy “are Q’orianka Kilcher’s,” the complaint said. “This was not a fleeting inspiration or a vague homage; it was a literal transplant of a real teenager’s facial structure.”

Advertisement

In 2010, Ms. Kilcher, who is also an Indigenous rights activist, met Mr. Cameron by chance at a charity event in Hollywood, where he told her that she was the “early inspiration” for Neytiri’s look, according to the complaint. “She did not take this to mean that her actual face had been replicated,” the complaint said.

Ms. Kilcher is suing now, the complaint said, because of an interview that Mr. Cameron gave to a French media outlet in 2024. In the interview, Mr. Cameron mentions Ms. Kilcher and “points to an image of Neytiri and says unambiguously: ‘This is actually her lower face,’” the complaint said. The interview came to her attention a year later.

“For the first time in a public forum, Cameron explicitly admitted the full truth about Neytiri’s design,” according to the complaint, which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California in Los Angeles. “One of Hollywood’s most powerful filmmakers exploited a young Indigenous girl’s biometric identity and cultural heritage to create a record-breaking film franchise, without credit or compensation to her.”

A lawyer for Mr. Cameron did not respond to a request for comment. Disney had no immediate comment.

Ms. Kilcher’s action is the latest in a large number of legal attacks on “Avatar” over the years — almost all of them resolved by courts in Mr. Cameron’s favor, including five separate lawsuits accusing him of copyright infringement or the stealing of ideas. A sixth infringement lawsuit is ongoing and was expanded last month.

Advertisement

In part, Ms. Kilcher is suing under California’s decades-old “right of publicity” statute, which allows people to bring claims against unauthorized use of their identities. It’s a complex area of the law that has taken on a new immediacy in the age of generative A.I., an emerging technology that allows anyone with an internet connection to easily create images that replicate existing art, photographs and human likenesses.

Generally speaking, right-of-publicity laws (about 25 states have one) balance First Amendment protections by distinguishing between commercial exploitation (using a likeness to sell a product) and expressive works (such as news, art, parody). But “there is not always a bright line,” said Jennifer E. Rothman, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania’s Carey Law School who is viewed as a leading authority on right-to-privacy law.

Ms. Kilcher’s break in Hollywood came in 2005 when, as a 14-year-old, she was cast as Pocahontas in Terrence Malick’s “The New World.” She has since acted in films like “Dog” and TV shows like “Yellowstone,” and is a member of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences.

Ms. Kilcher is asking for damages that include “all profits” attributable to the unauthorized use, including from the sale of “Avatar” tickets; the three “Avatar” films have collected $1.8 billion at the North American box office alone.

“The damages we are asking for are commensurate with the exploitation,” Arnold P. Peter, one of Ms. Kilcher’s lawyers, said in an interview.

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending