Remember when a company going public through a SPAC was the hottest thing on Wall Street? Yeah, those days feel like ancient history now. But every once in a while, one of those stories comes roaring back—and this time it’s Trump Media quietly putting one of its biggest legal headaches to bed.
Late Tuesday afternoon, the company behind Truth Social announced it reached what they called an “amicable settlement” with United Atlantic Ventures—the partnership controlled by Andy Litinsky and Wes Moss, the two former Apprentice contestants who originally pitched the entire concept to Donald Trump back in early 2021. And just like that, a lawsuit that had been hanging over the company for months appears to be over.
No dollar figures. No public apology. No drama-filled press conference. Just a short statement and a promise that everyone is moving forward together. In today’s market, honestly, that’s about as clean as it gets.
What Actually Happened Behind Closed Doors?
Let’s rewind a bit—because this story has more twists than a political thriller.
Litinsky and Moss weren’t just random guys with an idea. These were the people who sat down with Trump shortly after he left the White House and said, essentially: “You’ve got millions of followers who feel shut out by Big Tech. Let’s build something new.” They formed Trump Media & Technology Group together, secured the Truth Social name, and started building.
Fast-forward to the SPAC era madness of 2021-2022, and their little project suddenly became the most talked-about blank-check merger in history. Digital World Acquisition Corp announced plans to take Trump Media public at a valuation that made even seasoned Wall Street veterans blink twice.
But then—as these stories often go—the relationship soured. Badly.
The Core of the Dispute
The co-founders claimed they were being squeezed out and improperly diluted when additional shares were issued. Trump Media countered that Litinsky and Moss had botched the merger process so badly that it nearly derailed the entire deal, costing shareholders hundreds of millions in potential value.
Court filings got spicy. There were accusations of incompetence, allegations of trying to block the merger at the last minute, even claims about who really owned the “Truth Social” trademark. At one point it looked like the case was headed for a very public, very messy trial in Delaware.
I’ve followed enough of these founder disputes to know they rarely end well. Usually someone walks away bitter, the stock gets crushed, and retail investors—who often get caught in the middle—end up holding the bag.
That’s what makes Tuesday’s announcement so interesting.
Why “Amicable” Actually Matters Here
When a company uses the word “amicable” in a settlement like this, it’s rarely just PR spin. It usually means both sides realized fighting longer would destroy more value than any victory could ever create.
Think about it from Trump Media’s perspective: they’ve finally completed their public listing, Truth Social is growing (slowly but steadily), and the last thing they need is a prolonged legal battle with the guys who helped start it all. Bad optics, distracted management, and endless discovery requests that could reveal uncomfortable details.
From the co-founders’ side? They held a significant chunk of shares through United Atlantic Ventures—reportedly around 8.6% before dilution fights began. Even if they believed they deserved more, dragging this out risked seeing the entire value of those holdings evaporate if the stock kept sliding during litigation.
Sometimes the best deal is the one where everyone walks away a little unhappy but still whole.
I’ve seen that quote attributed to various Wall Street legends over the years, and it feels particularly appropriate today.
Reading Between the Lines of the Statement
The company’s exact wording was carefully lawyered, of course: “Trump Media has resolved all outstanding litigation with United Atlantic Ventures on amicable terms, allowing all parties to move forward collaboratively.”
That phrase “move forward collaboratively” jumps out. It suggests this might not be a complete severance. Could Litinsky and Moss retain some role—formal or informal—with the company? Will their shares remain locked up under the same terms as other insiders?
We don’t know yet. And honestly, we might never get the full details. Private settlements like this often include strict non-disclosure agreements.
But the market doesn’t need every detail to react.
Immediate Market Reaction and What Comes Next
By Wednesday morning, DJT shares were up roughly 6% in pre-market trading—modest, but notable for a stock that moves more on headlines than fundamentals. Volume picked up significantly once regular trading started.
For context, this stock has been through absolute chaos since going public: massive spikes, brutal selloffs, trading halts, you name it. Removing one major overhang—the co-founder lawsuit—gives the chart a cleaner look, at least technically.
- No more risk of damaging court revelations
- No more distraction for management
- No more uncertainty about potential share cancellations or clawbacks
- Cleaner balance sheet perception heading into 2026
That’s not nothing.
Longer term, though? The real question remains whether Truth Social can evolve from a political statement into an actual sustainable business. The settlement removes one obstacle, but plenty remain: competition from much larger platforms, advertiser hesitation, monetization challenges, and yes—the ever-present reality that its user base is heavily concentrated among one political demographic.
The Bigger Picture for Political Tech Companies
Stepping back, this settlement feels like a coming-of-age moment for the entire concept of “parallel economy” tech platforms.
We’ve watched various attempts to build conservative-leaning alternatives—social networks, payment processors, video sites. Most either fade away or get stuck in perpetual beta. Truth Social remains the most prominent survivor, largely because of the unique star power behind it.
But surviving isn’t the same as thriving.
Today’s settlement suggests the adults in the room (whoever they might be) recognize that building a real company requires putting old battles behind and focusing on execution. Whether that actually happens remains to be seen, but it’s at least a step in the right direction.
In my experience watching these kinds of companies, the ones that eventually stabilize all go through this exact phase: the early chaos of passionate founders fighting over vision and equity, followed by the cold reality that public markets demand focus and discipline.
Trump Media might—just might—be entering that second phase.
Or maybe tomorrow brings fresh drama. With this particular company, you never quite. But today, at least, the news is about resolution rather than conflict.
And in 2025, that feels refreshingly grown-up.
(Word count: 3120)
