With its stock in sharp decline, Trump's media company will buy $400 million of its own shares
NEW YORK (AP) — President Donald Trump's media company plans to buy back up to $400 million of its stock, which have lost 46% of their value this year.
Trump Media and Technology Group, which operates the Truth Social media platform, said Monday that the acquisition will improve its financial flexibility. It will retire the shares after they are purchased, meaning these particular shares can't be reissued.
Companies can drive their stock higher by acquiring or removing the number of company shares outstanding. Trump is the largest stakeholder in Trump Media, with about 114 million shares.
Shares of Trump Media rose just over 2% Monday. But the shares appeared to peak about a month after the company went public in late March. Shares have been on a steady, downward trajectory since.
The company said early this year that it lost $400.9 million in 2024 and its annual revenue declined 12% to $3.6 million.
After winning the U.S. presidential election in November, Trump transferred all of his shares in the company — worth around $4 billion on paper — as a gift to the Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust. Trump's shares amounted to more than half of the company's stock.
The company said Monday that it will fund the buyback separately from its Bitcoin treasury strategy. Under that plan, institutional investors will buy $2.5 billion in the company's stock with the proceeds going to build up a bitcoin reserve.
Trump Media joins other companies with similar cryptocurrency strategies, including cloud and mobile software developer MicroStrategy, which is building a reserve containing billions worth of bitcoin.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Fox News
36 minutes ago
- Fox News
Ex-Clinton official applauds Trump's 'courageous' Iran call, doubts Harris would've had the nerve
A former Clinton-era National Security Council staffer broke with his party and heaped praise on President Donald Trump's successful strikes on Iran over the weekend, while remarking former Vice President Kamala Harris would have likely lacked the "courage" to execute such a mission if she were commander-in-chief. "I am not a fan of many of Donald Trump's actions, but I will speak openly and honestly when he takes bold steps defending America's interests, as he did tonight," Jamie Metzl, founder of the international social group One Shared World, posted to X on Saturday evening. Metzl served on former President Bill Clinton's National Security Counci and was former President Joe Biden's deputy staff director of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and he heaped praise on Trump repeatedly on X over the weekend, while also taking a shot at Harris' lack of "courage and fortitude." "But I'm not a blind tribalist and am perfectly comfortable praising President Trump for bold and courageous actions in support of America's core national interests, as he took last night," Metzl posted to X on Sunday morning. "Although I believe electing Kamala Harris would have been better for our democracy, society, and economy, as well as for helping the most vulnerable people in the United States and around the world, I also believe VP Harris would not have had the courage or fortitude to take such an essential step as the president took last night," he added. Metzl continued in his X messages that "Iran has been at war with the United States for 46 years," and was aiming to build a nuclear weapon with the intention of wielding it over the U.S and its allies. "Iran has been at war with the United States for 46 years. Its regime has murdered thousands of American citizens. Its slogan 'death to America' was not window dressing but core ideology. It was racing toward a nuclear weapon with every intention of using it to threaten America, our allies, and the Middle East region as a whole. No actions like this come without risks, and I imagine the story will get more complicated over time, but that's why these types of decisions are complicated," he wrote. Fox News Digital reached out to Harris' office regarding Metzl's post, but did not immediately receive a reply. Metzl's comments are among a cacophony of Democratic elected officials and traditional anti-MAGA voices who have come out to praise Trump since the successful attack on Iran, dubbed "Operation Midnight Hammer." "The destruction of Iran's nuclear program is essential to ultimate peace in the Middle East. This is not a Democratic or Republican issue — dealing with the Iranian threat is central to America's national security. The world is safer because of the actions of our brave service members. I'm praying for the safety of our service members in the region," New Jersey Democratic Rep. Josh Gottheimer said in a statement over the weekend, for example. "As I've long maintained, this was the correct move by @POTUS," Democratic Pennsylvania Sen. John Fetterman wrote on X on Saturday. "Iran is the world's leading sponsor of terrorism and cannot have nuclear capabilities. I'm grateful for and salute the finest military in the world." While New York Times columnist Bret Stephens, a frequent Trump critic, wrote in an opinion piece that Trump made a "courageous and correct decision that deserves respect, no matter how one feels about this president," while fellow Times columnist David French also said it was the "right decision" on social media. Other Democrats and frequent Trump critics, such as New York Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Republican Kentucky Rep. Thomas Massie, have slammed Trump over the strikes, arguing they bypassed Congress. Trump announced the Saturday evening strikes on Iran in a Truth Social post that was not preceded by media leaks or speculation that strikes were imminent. The unexpected social media post was followed just hours later by a brief Trump address to the nation while flanked by Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Vice President JD Vance. "A short time ago, the U.S. military carried out massive precision strikes on the three key nuclear facilities in the Iranian regime: Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan," Trump said from the White House late on Saturday in an address to the nation regarding the strikes. "Everybody heard those names for years as they built this horribly destructive enterprise. Our objective was the destruction of Iran's nuclear enrichment capacity, and a stop to the nuclear threat posed by the world's No. 1 state sponsor of terror. Tonight, I can report to the world that the strikes were a spectacular military success." The strikes "obliterated" Iranian nuclear facilities and backed the nation into a corner to make a peace deal, Trump said. This mission was also celebrated by Hegseth and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Dan Caine as one that was cloaked in secrecy and intentionally deceptive to confuse the enemy. "It involved misdirection and the highest of operational security. Our B-2s went in and out of… these nuclear sites, in and out and back, without the world knowing at all," Hegseth said. "In that way, it was historic." The operation included the longest B-2 spirit bomber mission since 2001, the second-longest B-2 mission ever flown and the largest B-2 operational strike in U.S. history, Hegseth and Caine said during the Sunday press conference. Operation Midnight Hammer followed Israel launching preemptive strikes on Iran on June 12 after months of attempted and stalled nuclear negotiations and subsequent heightened concern that Iran was advancing its nuclear program. Netanyahu declared soon afterward that the strikes were necessary to "roll back the Iranian threat to Israel's very survival."
The Hill
41 minutes ago
- The Hill
Trump knocks ‘sleazebag' journalists over Iran strikes: ‘Everyone knows' sites ‘totally destroyed'
President Trump on Monday lashed out at the media as journalists reported on the uncertainty around the extent of destruction at Iranian nuclear facilities targeted by U.S. strikes over the weekend. Trump blasted reporters and executives at CNN, ABC News and NBC News in the aftermath of the U.S. strikes. Multiple news outlets have reported on the damage to the Iranian facilities and the question of whether the sites were completely destroyed, as the president had previously said. 'The sites that we hit in Iran were totally destroyed, and everyone knows it. Only the Fake News would say anything different in order to try and demean, as much as possible — And even they say they were 'pretty well destroyed!'' Trump posted. 'It never ends with the sleazebags in the Media, and that's why their Ratings are at an ALL TIME LOW — ZERO CREDIBILITY!' he added. Trump's post came as he met in the Situation Room with members of his national security team after Iran fired missiles at a U.S. base in Qatar. The U.S. on Saturday struck three Iranian nuclear facilities: Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan. Trump described the targets in an address to the nation as 'completely and totally obliterated,' something he reiterated in a social media post late Sunday. But experts have acknowledged it would take time to determine the extent of the damage from U.S. strikes, and some reports raised the possibility that Iran moved some of its enriched uranium away from those sites ahead of the attack. 'Final battle damage will take some time, but initial battle damage assessments indicate that all three sites sustained extremely severe damage and destruction,' Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Dan Caine said Sunday. The New York Times reported there was evidence Iran had moved equipment and uranium from the Fordow site in recent days, citing two Israeli officials. The Times also cited text messages from the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency indicating Iran had moved its uranium stockpile.
New York Times
41 minutes ago
- New York Times
The Danger of an Unrestrained President to the World
Acting on President Trump's orders, the U.S. military conducted a strike early Sunday morning against three Iranian nuclear facilities. Few knew of the strikes in advance. Mr. Trump did not seek advance approval from Congress or the U.N. Security Council, as required by law. The unlawful strikes have thus laid bare the dangerous absence of any effective legal constraints — whether domestic or international — on the decision of the American president to use deadly force anywhere in the world. It has become almost quaint to observe that the Constitution gives Congress, not the president, the power to declare war. Yes, the president is commander in chief of the military, but he is obligated to seek authorization from Congress before he initiates a war. The 1973 War Powers Resolution does not change this. Enacted in response to President Richard Nixon's secret bombing campaign in Cambodia, that legislation is meant to prevent a president from launching illegal wars by legally requiring the president to seek approval of Congress before introducing U.S. armed forces 'into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances.' The only case in which the president is not required to seek the advance approval of Congress is when the United States has been attacked and the president must act quickly to protect the country. That was not true when it came to Iran. Quite the opposite. In a speech claiming credit for the attacks, Mr. Trump pointed to the fact that Iran had been making threats against the United States for '40 years.' Nothing in what he or Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth has subsequently said points to an urgent threat to America that prevented the president from seeking Congress's consent before unleashing deadly force that could provoke retaliation against the United States and U.S. forces in the region. (And indeed, such a retaliation appears to have just taken place, as Iran fired missiles at a U.S. base in Qatar.) Nor can these strikes be shoehorned into the existing congressional authorizations for the use of force — one in 2001 against those responsible for the Sept. 11 attacks and another in 2002 against Iraq under Saddam Hussein. The president has thus claimed for himself power that the Constitution expressly gives to Congress. Just as the president is legally bound to seek authorization from Congress before launching a war, so too is he required to seek authorization from the United Nations Security Council. In the wake of World War II, the United States designed and championed a global system where the use of coercive authority by any state against another was subject to collective checks. The United Nations Charter provides that signatory states must 'refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.' This prohibition on the unilateral resort to force is the foundational principle of the postwar legal order. Only if the Security Council votes to authorize a war — or where a state is the subject of an 'armed attack' — may a state that has ratified the U.N. Charter resort to force against another state. Yes, the requirement of gaining support from the Security Council is an obstacle, but it is an obstacle to Russia and China as much as it is to the United States. The requirement to seek and obtain Security Council authorization before using force, moreover, gives the United States extraordinary power: The United States holds one of five permanent seats on the Security Council and, with it, has a veto over any decision to authorize the use of force. While no legal system is perfect — and this one is no exception, as today's global conflicts show — the U.N. Charter has nevertheless helped produce the most peaceful and prosperous era the world has ever seen. Donald Trump has now fully embraced the so-called Bush Doctrine, a foreign policy stance that holds that the United States can use force pre-emptively against a perceived threat — to itself or others. This was the key legal basis for the disastrous 2003 war in Iraq, held up as necessary to prevent the use of weapons of mass destruction — weapons that, it turned out, did not exist. Even then, President George W. Bush at least engaged with the Security Council and sought and won authorization from Congress before he launched that war. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
