From time-to-time, we are a party to litigation and subject to claims, suits, regulatory and government investigations, other proceedings and consent decrees in the ordinary course of business, and other unasserted claims. We investigate claims as they arise and accrue estimates for resolution of legal and other contingencies when losses are probable and reasonably estimable. Based on current known facts and circumstances, we currently believe that any liabilities ultimately resulting from ordinary course claims, and proceedings will not individually or in aggregate, have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations, or cash flows. However, the outcomes of claims legal proceedings or investigations are inherently unpredictable and subject to uncertainty, and may have an adverse effect on us because of defense costs, diversion of management resources and other factors that are not known to us or cannot be quantified at this time. We may also receive unfavorable preliminary or interim rulings in the course of litigation, and there can be no assurances that favorable final outcomes will be obtained. The final outcome of any current or future claims or lawsuits could adversely affect our business, financial position, results of operations or cash flows. We periodically evaluate developments in our legal matters that could affect the amount of liability that has previously been accrued or the reasonably possible losses that we have disclosed, and make adjustments as appropriate.

On July 30, 2021, an attorney for the Trump Organization, on behalf of President Trump, declared void ab initio a services agreement that had granted Private TMTG, among other things, extensive intellectual property and digital media rights related to President Trump for purposes of commercializing the various Private TMTG initiatives (the “Services Agreement”). Neither Private TMTG nor Digital World was a party to such agreement. On each of January 18, 2024 and February 9, 2024, Digital World received letters from counsel to UAV, a party to the Services Agreement. The letters contained certain assertions and enclosed a copy of the Services Agreement that had been declared void two and a half years earlier. Specifically, counsel for UAV claims that the Services Agreement grants UAV rights to (1) appoint two directors to TMTG and its successors (i.e., TMTG after the Business Combination), (2) approve or disapprove of the creation of additional TMTG shares or share classes and anti-dilution protection for future issuances, and (3) a $1.0 million expense reimbursement claim. In addition, UAV asserts that the Services Agreement is not void ab initio and claims that certain events following the July 30, 2021 notification support its assertion that such Services Agreement was not void. On February 6, 2024, a representative of UAV sent a text message to a representative of a noteholder of TMTG suggesting that UAV might seek to enjoin the Business Combination. On February 9, 2024, Private TMTG received from counsel to UAV a letter similar to those letters received by Digital World, which also threatened Private TMTG with legal action regarding UAV’s alleged rights in Private TMTG, including, if necessary, an action to enjoin consummation of the Business Combination.

On February 28, 2024, UAV filed a verified complaint against Private TMTG in the Court of Chancery seeking declaratory and injunctive relief relating to the authorization, issuance, and ownership of stock in Private TMTG and filed a motion for expedited proceedings (C.A. No. 2024-0184-LWW). On March 4, 2024, UAV filed an amended complaint, converting their action from a direct action to a purported derivative action, and adding members of the Private TMTG board as defendants. On March 9, 2024, the Court of Chancery held a hearing to decide UAV’s motion to expedite proceedings. During the oral argument, Private TMTG agreed that any additional shares of Private TMTG issued prior to or upon the consummation of the Business Combination would be placed in escrow pending a resolution of the dispute between the parties. The Court of Chancery entered an order consistent with the foregoing on March 15, 2024, and scheduled a status conference for April 1, 2024. On April 2, 2024, UAV filed a motion for leave to file a second amended complaint together with a motion for preliminary injunction and a motion for contempt and anti-suit injunction related to Private TMTG’s filing of a separate litigation against UAV and others in Florida state court. Private TMTG maintains that the contempt claims are meritless. On April 9, 2024, the Court of Chancery granted the motion for leave to file a second amended complaint and re-assigned the case to a new judge. On April 11, 2024, UAV filed its second amended complaint, naming the prior Defendants together with five new defendants—TMTG and the current directors on the TMTG Board who were not on Private TMTG’s board of directors. On April 22, 2024, all of the Defendants moved to vacate the Court of Chancery’s prior order expediting the matter. Additionally, all of the Defendants moved to dismiss the second amended complaint. Following briefing and oral argument on the motion to vacate, on April 30, 2024, the Court of Chancery vacated the prior provisions of the March 15 order expediting the matter. On May 6, 2024, UAV filed its Renewed Motion for Contempt of the March 15, 2024 Order against Private TMTG (“First Contempt Motion”) seeking, among other things, to enjoin Private TMTG and related parties from prosecuting certain claims in Florida state court. On May 8, 2024, the Court of Chancery stayed discovery and granted a protective order with respect to all discovery served on Defendants and all other persons from whom discovery was being sought.

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2025
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES [Abstract]
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	NOTE 16 - COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES From time-to-time, we are a party to litigation and subject to claims, suits, regulatory and government investigations, other proceedings and consent decrees in the ordinary course of business, and other unasserted claims. We investigate claims as they arise and accrue estimates for resolution of legal and other contingencies when losses are probable and reasonably estimable. Based on current known facts and circumstances, we currently believe that any liabilities ultimately resulting from ordinary course claims, and proceedings will not individually or in aggregate, have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations, or cash flows. However, the outcomes of claims legal proceedings or investigations are inherently unpredictable and subject to uncertainty, and may have an adverse effect on us because of defense costs, diversion of management resources and other factors that are not known to us or cannot be quantified at this time. We may also receive unfavorable preliminary or interim rulings in the course of litigation, and there can be no assurances that favorable final outcomes will be obtained. The final outcome of any current or future claims or lawsuits could adversely affect our business, financial position, results of operations or cash flows. We periodically evaluate developments in our legal matters that could affect the amount of liability that has previously been accrued or the reasonably possible losses that we have disclosed, and make adjustments as appropriate. Consistent with the practice of many companies, we have entered into, and continue to enter into indemnity agreements with our executive officers and certain members of our board of directors. These indemnity agreements broadly provide for us to advance expenses (including attorneys’ fees) incurred in connection with any legal proceeding, as well as indemnification for any and all expenses, actually and reasonably incurred, in connection with the investigation, defense, settlement or appeal of such a proceeding, in connection with matters related to their position. These indemnity agreements provide that the indemnitee shall repay all amounts so advanced if it shall ultimately be determined by final judicial decision from where there is no further right of appeal that the indemnitee is not entitled to be indemnified. Except as indicated below, to the knowledge of our Management Team, there is no litigation currently pending or contemplated against us, or against any of our property. Litigation with United Atlantic Ventures (“UAV”) in Delaware On July 30, 2021, an attorney for the Trump Organization, on behalf of President Trump, declared void ab initio a services agreement that had granted Private TMTG, among other things, extensive intellectual property and digital media rights related to President Trump for purposes of commercializing the various Private TMTG initiatives (the “Services Agreement”). Neither Private TMTG nor Digital World was a party to such agreement. On each of January 18, 2024 and February 9, 2024, Digital World received letters from counsel to UAV, a party to the Services Agreement. The letters contained certain assertions and enclosed a copy of the Services Agreement that had been declared void two and a half years earlier. Specifically, counsel for UAV claims that the Services Agreement grants UAV rights to (1) appoint two directors to TMTG and its successors (i.e., TMTG after the Business Combination), (2) approve or disapprove of the creation of additional TMTG shares or share classes and anti-dilution protection for future issuances, and (3) a $1.0 million expense reimbursement claim. In addition, UAV asserts that the Services Agreement is not void ab initio and claims that certain events following the July 30, 2021 notification support its assertion that such Services Agreement was not void. On February 6, 2024, a representative of UAV sent a text message to a representative of a noteholder of TMTG suggesting that UAV might seek to enjoin the Business Combination. On February 9, 2024, Private TMTG received from counsel to UAV a letter similar to those letters received by Digital World, which also threatened Private TMTG with legal action regarding UAV’s alleged rights in Private TMTG, including, if necessary, an action to enjoin consummation of the Business Combination. On February 28, 2024, UAV filed a verified complaint against Private TMTG in the Court of Chancery seeking declaratory and injunctive relief relating to the authorization, issuance, and ownership of stock in Private TMTG and filed a motion for expedited proceedings (C.A. No. 2024-0184-LWW). On March 4, 2024, UAV filed an amended complaint, converting their action from a direct action to a purported derivative action, and adding members of the Private TMTG board as defendants. On March 9, 2024, the Court of Chancery held a hearing to decide UAV’s motion to expedite proceedings. During the oral argument, Private TMTG agreed that any additional shares of Private TMTG issued prior to or upon the consummation of the Business Combination would be placed in escrow pending a resolution of the dispute between the parties. The Court of Chancery entered an order consistent with the foregoing on March 15, 2024, and scheduled a status conference for April 1, 2024. On April 2, 2024, UAV filed a motion for leave to file a second amended complaint together with a motion for preliminary injunction and a motion for contempt and anti-suit injunction related to Private TMTG’s filing of a separate litigation against UAV and others in Florida state court. Private TMTG maintains that the contempt claims are meritless. On April 9, 2024, the Court of Chancery granted the motion for leave to file a second amended complaint and re-assigned the case to a new judge. On April 11, 2024, UAV filed its second amended complaint, naming the prior Defendants together with five new defendants—TMTG and the current directors on the TMTG Board who were not on Private TMTG’s board of directors. On April 22, 2024, all of the Defendants moved to vacate the Court of Chancery’s prior order expediting the matter. Additionally, all of the Defendants moved to dismiss the second amended complaint. Following briefing and oral argument on the motion to vacate, on April 30, 2024, the Court of Chancery vacated the prior provisions of the March 15 order expediting the matter. On May 6, 2024, UAV filed its Renewed Motion for Contempt of the March 15, 2024 Order against Private TMTG (“First Contempt Motion”) seeking, among other things, to enjoin Private TMTG and related parties from prosecuting certain claims in Florida state court. On May 8, 2024, the Court of Chancery stayed discovery and granted a protective order with respect to all discovery served on Defendants and all other persons from whom discovery was being sought. On June 5, 2024, UAV filed for leave to again amend its complaint. The Court of Chancery granted the motion for leave to amend on July 8, 2024, and UAV filed its Third Amended Complaint on July 9, 2024. The Third Amended Complaint dismissed as defendants three current TMTG directors (W. Kyle Green, Linda McMahon, and Robert Lighthizer) and added four former Digital World directors (Frank J. Andrews, Patrick F. Orlando, Edward J. Preble, and Jeffrey A. Smith). On July 17, 2024, UAV filed a second contempt motion against Private TMTG and TMTG (“Second Contempt Motion”) alleging additional violations of the March 15 Order. On August 27, 2024, the Court of Chancery denied both the First Contempt Motion and the Second Contempt Motion. On October 8, 2024, UAV voluntarily dismissed Mr. Orlando with prejudice. On May 15, 2025, the Court held a hearing on the remaining defendants’ motion to dismiss on the Third Amended Complaint and an additional motion to dismiss or stay on the basis of temporary presidential immunity. Litigation with ARC, Patrick Orlando, UAV, Andrew Litinsky, and Wesley Moss in Florida On February 26, 2024, representatives of ARC Global Investments II, LLC (“ARC”) claimed to Digital World that after a “more comprehensive” review, the conversion ratio for Digital World Class B common stock into Digital World Class A common stock upon the completion of the Business Combination was approximately 1.8:1. ARC’s new claim also contradicted the previous assertion by Patrick Orlando, the managing member of ARC, that the conversion ratio was 1.68:1. Digital World’s board of directors viewed these claims as an attempt by Mr. Orlando to secure personal benefits, breaching his fiduciary duty to Digital World and its shareholders. Digital World and Private TMTG initiated a lawsuit against ARC in the Civil Division for the Twelfth Judicial Circuit Court in Sarasota County, Florida, on February 27, 2024 (Docket No. 2024-CA-001061-NC). The complaint sought a declaratory judgment affirming the appropriate conversion ratio as 1.34:1, as previously disclosed, damages for tortious interference with the contractual and business relationship between Private TMTG and Digital World, and damages for conspiracy with unnamed co-conspirators to interfere with the same. The complaint also sought damages for Mr. Orlando’s breach of fiduciary duty, which exposed Digital World to regulatory liability and resulted in an $18 million penalty, and for his continuous obstruction of Digital World’s merger with Private TMTG to extort various concessions that benefited only him and harmed Digital World and its shareholders. Furthermore, the complaint sought damages for the wrongful assertion of dominion over Digital World’s assets inconsistent with Digital World’s possessory rights over those assets. On March 8, 2024, Digital World voluntarily dismissed its declaratory judgment claim against ARC. On March 17, 2024, Digital World and Private TMTG filed an amended complaint, adding a claim for violation of Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act. Digital World further alleged breach of fiduciary duty of loyalty, breach of fiduciary duty of care, and conversion claims against Mr. Orlando. With respect to ARC, Digital World alleged aiding and abetting a breach of fiduciary duty. On April 3, 2024, Defendants ARC and Mr. Orlando filed a joint motion to dismiss the amended complaint or, in the alternative, to stay the proceeding pending the Delaware Action (C.A. No. 2024-0184-LWW). Defendants ARC and Mr. Orlando also filed that same day a motion to stay discovery in the action. On May 29, 2024, Digital World moved to compel discovery from ARC and Mr. Orlando. On July 15, 2024, following a July 10 hearing, the Court entered an order denying the motion to stay discovery and motion to compel. On July 29, 2024, the Court entered an order denying the motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, to stay the proceeding for improper venue. Defendants ARC and Mr. Orlando appealed that order (C.A. No. 2D2024-1780), which the Court dismissed on April 30, 2025. On August 2, 2024, Defendants ARC and Mr. Orlando filed a motion to stay pending appeal in the trial court. On July 31, 2024, Digital World and Private TMTG filed a motion for leave to file a second amended complaint, which proposed to add allegations against ARC and Mr. Orlando related to pre-targeting and other misconduct as set forth in the SEC Complaint against Mr. Orlando, and naming UAV, Andrew Litinsky, and Wesley Moss as additional defendants. On August 15, 2024, Digital World and Private TMTG filed a motion for temporary injunction seeking to enjoin the threatened sale of Digital World stock by Defendant ARC and one of the new defendants proposed to be added through the motion for leave to file a second amended complaint. On August 28, 2024, Digital World and Private TMTG filed a renewed motion to compel, seeking prior productions to the SEC and DOJ and other documents from Defendants ARC and Mr. Orlando. On August 30, 2024, the trial court held a hearing to address several motions. During the hearing, the Court granted Digital World and Private TMTG’s motion for leave to amend and denied their motion for temporary injunction. The trial court also denied the motion to stay pending appeal filed by Defendants ARC and Mr. Orlando. On September 3, 2024, Digital World and Private TMTG filed the Second Amended Complaint. On September 4, 2024, Digital World and Private TMTG filed an expedited motion to compel, seeking production of ARC’s capitalization table, supporting documents, and an order requiring ARC to cooperate with Digital World and Private TMTG in advance of the expiration of the lock-up restriction. On September 5, 2024, Defendants ARC and Mr. Orlando filed a motion to stay pending appeal in the Second District Court of Appeal, which the Second District denied on October 18, 2024 (C.A. No. 2D2024-1780). On September 12, 2024, the Court granted in part and denied in part the expedited motion to compel, ordering production of the capitalization table and supporting documents by September 13, 2024, at 12 p.m. On that same day, Defendants ARC and Mr. Orlando filed a notice of removal in the Middle District of Florida (C.A. No. 8:24-cv-02161). On September 13, 2024, Digital World and Private TMTG filed an emergency motion to remand to state court in the Middle District of Florida, which the Middle District granted on September 17, 2024. On September 18, 2024, Digital World and Private TMTG filed an emergency motion for temporary injunction and contempt against ARC and Mr. Orlando in the state court action. On that same day, the Court held a hearing during which it granted Digital World and Private TMTG’s motion for contempt, imposed a coercive sanction against ARC and Mr. Orlando of $5,000 per day until they complied with the Court’s September 12 discovery order, and denied their motion for temporary injunction. Defendants ARC and Mr. Orlando have filed an appeal of that order, which the Court denied on June 13, 2025 (C.A. No. 2D2024-2364). On September 20, 2024, ARC filed its answer, defenses, and affirmative defenses to the Second Amended Complaint. On September 26, 2024, Defendants ARC and Mr. Orlando filed a motion to compel. On October 1, 2024, Digital World and Private TMTG filed a motion for an order to show cause why ARC and Mr. Orlando should not be held in further contempt and subject to increased sanctions for their failure to comply with the Court’s September 18 contempt order. On October 3, 2024, Mr. Orlando filed an amended motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint or, alternatively, to stay the action. On October 15, 2024, ARC filed an amended answer, defenses, and affirmative defenses to the Second Amended Complaint, counterclaim, and third-party complaint, naming 9 additional defendants: Luis Orleans-Braganza, Lee Jacobson, Bruce J. Garelick, Justin Shaner, Eric Swider, Rodrigo Veloso, Ed Preble, Frank Andrews, and Jeffrey Smith. On October 21, 2024, UAV, Mr. Moss, and Mr. Litinsky jointly filed 3 motions: a motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint for failure to state a cause of action, motion to stay pending resolution of the Delaware Action, and motion to dismiss for improper venue. On November 1, 2024, Digital World and Private TMTG filed a supplemental brief in support of the October motion for order to show cause and a fee petition to recover attorneys’ fees pursuant to the September 18 contempt order. On November 18, 2024, the Court granted in part the October motion for order to show cause, ordering, inter alia, the appointment of a third-party vendor to re-collect all devices and files from ARC and Mr. Orlando and run search terms and a sanction against ARC and Mr. Orlando of $5,000 per day from September 18 to November 8, 2024. Defendants ARC and Mr. Orlando have filed a motion for leave to amend their petition to appeal the September 18 order to include an appeal of the November 18 order, which the Court denied on February 5, 2025 (C.A. No. 2D2024-2364). On January 22, 2025, the Court held a hearing during which it heard the motion to stay pending resolution of the Delaware Action and scheduled an omnibus hearing to hear outstanding motions on March 7, 2025. At the January 22, 2025 hearing, the Court entered a temporary administrative stay of discovery as to Mr. Litinsky, Mr. Moss, and UAV pending its resolution of their motion to stay. On January 23, 2025, Defendants ARC and Mr. Orlando filed a motion to compel production of documents and a motion to strike. On February 10, 2025, Mr. Orlando and ARC filed an appeal of the Court’s November 18 order, which the Second District denied on April 24, 2025 (C.A. No. 2D2025-0314). On February 19, 2025, the Court denied the October 3 motion to stay filed by Mr. Orlando and the October 21 motion to stay filed by UAV, Mr. Moss, and Mr. Litinsky, finding that this action and the Delaware Action do not “involve substantially similar issues.” On March 7, 2025, the Court held an omnibus hearing to address outstanding motions. Following the March 7 hearing, the Court entered several orders. It denied the motions to dismiss for improper venue filed by Mr. Orlando on October 3 and UAV, Mr. Moss, and Mr. Litinsky on October 21. The Court also denied the motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim filed by Mr. Orlando on October 3 and UAV, Mr. Moss, and Mr. Litinsky on October 21. The Court granted the motions to dismiss the third-party complaint filed on behalf of Lee Jacobson, Bruce J. Garelick, Eric Swider, Rodrigo Veloso, Ed Preble, Frank Andrews, and Jeffrey Smith but provided leave to amend. The Court granted in part the January 23 motion to compel filed by Mr. Orlando and ARC. The Court also granted in part the motion to dismiss ARC’s counterclaims, dismissing Count V of the counterclaims. On March 21, 2025, UAV, Mr. Moss, and Mr. Litinsky appealed Court’s February 19, 2025 order denying a stay. On March 24, 2025, UAV, Mr. Moss, and Mr. Litinsky filed an appeal of the Court’s February 19, 2025 order (C.A. No. 2D2025-0735) in Florida’s Second District Court of Appeal. On March 26, 2025, UAV, Mr. Moss, and Mr. Litinsky filed an unopposed motion to amend their March 24 petition, which the Second District granted on April 17, 2025. On July 15, 2025, the Court entered an order granting in part outstanding motions to dismiss Counterclaims and Third-Party Claims brought by UAV, Mr. Litinsky, Mr. Moss, ARC, and Mr. Orlando and dismissing all Third-Party Defendants including President Trump. Specifically, the Court dismissed Counts 1 and 7-8 of UAV, Mr. Litinsky, and Mr. Moss’s Counterclaims with prejudice, dismissed Counts 2-6 and 9 of UAV, Mr. Litinsky, and Mr. Moss’s Counterclaims without prejudice with no leave to replead, dismissed Counts 5-11 of ARC’s Counterclaims without prejudice, and dismissed ARC and Mr. Orlando’s Third-Party Claims with prejudice. The Court conducted half-day hearing on July 30, 2025 to address certain outstanding motions. A three-week jury trial has been scheduled to begin on March 23, 2026. Litigation with ARC in Delaware On February 29, 2024, ARC filed a lawsuit in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (C.A. No. 2024-0186-LWW) against Digital World and its directors, alleging an impending violation of the Digital World Charter. ARC alleged that Digital World failed to commit to issue conversion shares to ARC that ARC claims it is owed upon the consummation of the Business Combination pursuant to the Charter. ARC claimed a conversion ratio of 1.81:1 and sought specific performance and damages for the alleged breach of the Charter, a declaratory judgment that the certain derivative securities of Digital World should be included in the calculation of the conversion ratio, a finding that the directors of Digital World breached their fiduciary duties, and a preliminary injunction to enjoin the Business Combination until Digital World “corrected” the conversion ratio. TMTG defended Digital World’s calculation of the conversion ratio and related rights. In addition to its complaint, ARC also filed a motion with the Court of Chancery requesting that the case schedule be expedited to enable the Court of Chancery to conduct an injunction hearing prior to the March 22, 2024, shareholder vote. On March 5, 2024, the Court of Chancery denied ARC’s motion, stating that it would not conduct a merits or injunction hearing before March 22, 2024. Consequently, the Court of Chancery also denied ARC’s request to postpone the Business Combination vote until after a merits hearing. The Court of Chancery ruled that Digital World’s proposal to deposit disputed shares into an escrow account at the close of the Business Combination was adequate to prevent potential irreparable harm related to ARC’s share conversion. The Court of Chancery also found that Digital World’s public disclosures about ARC’s claims and possible conversion scenarios at the close of the Business Combination further mitigated the risk of irreparable harm due to insufficient disclosure for the March 22, 2024 vote. As a result, on March 21, 2024, Digital World entered into two escrow agreements with Odyssey, as follows: (i) an escrow agreement for the benefit of ARC (the “ARC Escrow Agreement”), pursuant to which DWAC deposited into escrow 3,579,480 shares of TMTG shares of common stock (“Common Stock”), and (ii) an escrow agreement for the benefit of the Non-ARC Class B Shareholders (the “Non-ARC Class B Shareholders Escrow Agreement,” and together with the ARC Escrow Agreement, the “Disputed Shares Escrow Agreements”), pursuant to which TMTG deposited into escrow 1,087,553 shares of TMTG Common Stock, which amounts represent the difference between the actual conversion ratio, determined by Digital World’s board of directors upon closing of the Business Combination (which was determined to be 1.348:1), and a conversion ratio of 2.00:1. On September 16, 2024, the Court of Chancery issued its order in this matter setting the conversion ratio at 1.4911:1. The Court of Chancery ruled against ARC on a substantial majority of its claims, reducing ARC’s proposed calculation of the conversion ratio of 1.81:1 by approximately 70% and holding that the former board members of Digital World did not breach any fiduciary duties in setting the conversion ratio calculation or in their public disclosures of the same. As a result of the Court of Chancery’s order, a portion of the disputed shares of Common Stock held in escrow were released to ARC. The release of Common Stock is subject to the terms and conditions of the ARC Escrow Agreement with the Escrow Agent and TMTG. Accordingly, 785,825 shares of TMTG Common Stock, which represents the Court’s calculation for the difference between a ratio of 1.348:1 and 1.4911:1, were released from escrow (the “Court Ratio”). Both parties still retain the option to file an appeal within 30 days after the Court of Chancery’s final order. In connection with the Court of Chancery’s final order, 238,692 Common Shares deposited in the Non-ARC Class B Shareholders Escrow Agreement, representing the Court Ratio, were released to the applicable holders, subject to the terms and conditions of the Non-ARC Class B Shareholders Escrow Agreement and the Securities Act of 1933, as amended. On October 23, 2024, ARC filed a motion for a $1,000,000 fee award. On July 14, 2025, the Court adjusted the fee award downward, awarding ARC $75,000—less than 10% of the amount initially sought. As of July 24, 2025, a final order and judgment has not yet been entered in this action. Litigation with Orlando in Delaware On March 15, 2024, Plaintiff Patrick Orlando brought a lawsuit against Digital World in the Court of Chancery seeking advancement of legal fees associated with Mr. Orlando’s involvement in civil litigation against Digital World in Florida and certain other matters (the “Advancement Lawsuit”) (C.A. No. 2024-0264-CDW). Mr. Orlando’s allegations relate to certain provisions in the Digital World Charter, Digital World’s bylaws, and an indemnity agreement allegedly entered into between Mr. Orlando and Digital World. Mr. Orlando alleges that those certain provisions require Digital World to pay the legal fees Mr. Orlando incurred and will incur in connection with legal proceedings in which he is involved by reason of the fact that he is or was a director or officer of Digital World. Mr. Orlando seeks a court order that (i) declares that he is entitled to legal fees for certain proceedings described in the complaint, (ii) requires Digital World to pay for legal fees incurred and future legal fees to be incurred for those proceedings, (iii) requires Digital World to pay the fees incurred to bring the Advancement Lawsuit, and (iv) requires Digital World to pay pre- and post-judgment interest on the amounts owed to Mr. Orlando. On April 3, 2024, the Court of Chancery entered a Stipulation and Advancement Order (“Stipulation”) stating that Mr. Orlando is entitled to advancement of attorneys’ fees and costs incurred with legal proceedings described in the Stipulation, subject to Digital World’s right to challenge the reasonableness of those attorneys’ fees and costs. The Stipulation further states that Mr. Orlando is entitled to fees incurred in connection with enforcement of advancement rights and sets forth procedures that will govern future requests for advancement of attorneys’ fees and costs. As of July 24, 2025, TMTG had paid or agreed to pay approximately $8.3 million to Mr. Orlando’s attorneys pursuant to such Stipulation and TMTG’s other advancement obligations to Mr. Orlando. On April 23, 2024, Mr. Orlando filed a motion for leave to supplement the Advancement Lawsuit to add a claim for advancement of legal fees and expenses Mr. Orlando had incurred and would incur in connection with his defense of an action for declaratory judgment brought by members of ARC regarding Mr. Orlando’s removal as the managing member of ARC (the “ARC Removal Action”). Mr. Orlando also sought reimbursement for the legal fees and expenses incurred in connection with his supplement to the Advancement Lawsuit, and he sought pre-judgment and post-judgment interest on the amounts he claimed were owed to him. On August 1, 2024, plaintiffs in the ARC Removal Action dismissed their complaint without prejudice. On August 8, 2024, Mr. Orlando dismissed his supplemental claims in the Advancement Lawsuit without prejudice. On February 10, 2025, Mr. Orlando filed a motion to modify the advancement order, seeking to modify the advancement order to allow him to not submit invoices for experts. On March 12, 2025, the Court denied the motion in part, stating that “TMTG is entitled to have some concrete information allowing it to assess whether Mr. Orlando’s expenses are reasonable and related to DWAC/TMTG before making a payment” and ordering Mr. Orlando to “provide TMTG with invoices with sufficient unredacted information that allows it to make that assessment.” On March 31, 2025, Mr. Orlando filed a motion seeking advancement of certain disputed fees, which has been fully briefed and is scheduled for oral argument on August 4, 2025. On April 8, 2025, Mr. Orlando filed a motion for sanctions, which he subsequently withdrew. On June 23, 2025, Mr. Orlando filed another motion seeking advancement of certain disputed fees. Litigation with Odyssey Transfer & Trust Company in Delaware On June 20, 2024, TMTG’s transfer agent, Odyssey filed an interpleader action in the U.S. District Court of the District of Delaware (C.A. No. 24-cv-00729). The complaint pertains to the ongoing dispute regarding share ownership between Michael Melkersen and ARC and includes TMTG as a nominal defendant. Odyssey is seeking an order from the Court discharging Odyssey of further liability and requiring ARC and TMTG to resolve their competing claims as to 716,140 Class A shares of TMTG and 25,000 TMTG warrants. On July 17, 2024, Odyssey filed a motion to dismiss for discharge and dismissal. On July 18, 2024, ARC filed a motion to dismiss for improper venue. On July 22, 2024, TMTG filed a motion for discharge and dismissal. On August 13, 2024, TMTG filed its answer and crossclaims against Mr. Melkersen and ARC. On August 21, 2024, ARC filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. On September 3, 2024, ARC filed a motion to dismiss TMTG’s crossclaims on the grounds of forum non conveniens. On October 14, 2024, Mr. Melkersen filed his answer to the complaint for interpleader. This matter remains pending. Litigation with RejuveTotal in New York On October 21, 2024, RejuveTotal LLC (“Rejuve”) filed suit against TMTG and its Chief Financial Officer in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County (Index No. 655551/2024). The complaint alleged breach of contract, and sought equitable relief as well as indemnification and reimbursement of costs and expenses, in connection with Rejuve’s role as Purchaser Representative under the Merger Agreement. On February 18, 2025, Rejuve discontinued this action without prejudice. On December 23, 2024, TMTG filed suit against Rejuve in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County (Index No. 659834/2024). In the complaint, TMTG seeks declaratory and injunctive relief against Rejuve arising out of Rejuve’s alleged conduct as Purchaser Representative under an Agreement and Plan of Merger dated as of October 20, 2021. On January 13, 2025, TMTG filed an application, by way of a proposed order to show cause, for a preliminary injunction prohibiting Rejuve from taking any further action in its alleged capacity as Purchaser Representative under the Merger Agreement. On January 23, 2025, the Court approved a stipulation to stay the action pending resolution of the arbitration before the American Arbitration Association seeking to recover its fees and expenses from TMTG that Rejuve allegedly incurred as Purchaser Representative, and to enjoin Rejuve from acting as Purchaser Representative except with respect to its participation in the arbitration. The arbitration occurred on April 29, 2025. On July 22, 2025, the arbitrator issued his Final Award in favor of TMTG, awarding a net sum of $22,868.

On February 26, 2024, representatives of ARC Global Investments II, LLC (“ARC”) claimed to Digital World that after a “more comprehensive” review, the conversion ratio for Digital World Class B common stock into Digital World Class A common stock upon the completion of the Business Combination was approximately 1.8:1. ARC’s new claim also contradicted the previous assertion by Patrick Orlando, the managing member of ARC, that the conversion ratio was 1.68:1. Digital World’s board of directors viewed these claims as an attempt by Mr. Orlando to secure personal benefits, breaching his fiduciary duty to Digital World and its shareholders. Digital World and Private TMTG initiated a lawsuit against ARC in the Civil Division for the Twelfth Judicial Circuit Court in Sarasota County, Florida, on February 27, 2024 (Docket No. 2024-CA-001061-NC). The complaint sought a declaratory judgment affirming the appropriate conversion ratio as 1.34:1, as previously disclosed, damages for tortious interference with the contractual and business relationship between Private TMTG and Digital World, and damages for conspiracy with unnamed co-conspirators to interfere with the same. The complaint also sought damages for Mr. Orlando’s breach of fiduciary duty, which exposed Digital World to regulatory liability and resulted in an $18 million penalty, and for his continuous obstruction of Digital World’s merger with Private TMTG to extort various concessions that benefited only him and harmed Digital World and its shareholders. Furthermore, the complaint sought damages for the wrongful assertion of dominion over Digital World’s assets inconsistent with Digital World’s possessory rights over those assets. On March 8, 2024, Digital World voluntarily dismissed its declaratory judgment claim against ARC. On March 17, 2024, Digital World and Private TMTG filed an amended complaint, adding a claim for violation of Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act. Digital World further alleged breach of fiduciary duty of loyalty, breach of fiduciary duty of care, and conversion claims against Mr. Orlando. With respect to ARC, Digital World alleged aiding and abetting a breach of fiduciary duty. On April 3, 2024, Defendants ARC and Mr. Orlando filed a joint motion to dismiss the amended complaint or, in the alternative, to stay the proceeding pending the Delaware Action (C.A. No. 2024-0184-LWW). Defendants ARC and Mr. Orlando also filed that same day a motion to stay discovery in the action.

On May 29, 2024, Digital World moved to compel discovery from ARC and Mr. Orlando. On July 15, 2024, following a July 10 hearing, the Court entered an order denying the motion to stay discovery and motion to compel. On July 29, 2024, the Court entered an order denying the motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, to stay the proceeding for improper venue. Defendants ARC and Mr. Orlando appealed that order (C.A. No. 2D2024-1780), which the Court dismissed on April 30, 2025. On August 2, 2024, Defendants ARC and Mr. Orlando filed a motion to stay pending appeal in the trial court. On July 31, 2024, Digital World and Private TMTG filed a motion for leave to file a second amended complaint, which proposed to add allegations against ARC and Mr. Orlando related to pre-targeting and other misconduct as set forth in the SEC Complaint against Mr. Orlando, and naming UAV, Andrew Litinsky, and Wesley Moss as additional defendants. On August 15, 2024, Digital World and Private TMTG filed a motion for temporary injunction seeking to enjoin the threatened sale of Digital World stock by Defendant ARC and one of the new defendants proposed to be added through the motion for leave to file a second amended complaint. On August 28, 2024, Digital World and Private TMTG filed a renewed motion to compel, seeking prior productions to the SEC and DOJ and other documents from Defendants ARC and Mr. Orlando. On August 30, 2024, the trial court held a hearing to address several motions. During the hearing, the Court granted Digital World and Private TMTG’s motion for leave to amend and denied their motion for temporary injunction. The trial court also denied the motion to stay pending appeal filed by Defendants ARC and Mr. Orlando. On September 3, 2024, Digital World and Private TMTG filed the Second Amended Complaint. On September 4, 2024, Digital World and Private TMTG filed an expedited motion to compel, seeking production of ARC’s capitalization table, supporting documents, and an order requiring ARC to cooperate with Digital World and Private TMTG in advance of the expiration of the lock-up restriction. On September 5, 2024, Defendants ARC and Mr. Orlando filed a motion to stay pending appeal in the Second District Court of Appeal, which the Second District denied on October 18, 2024 (C.A. No. 2D2024-1780). On September 12, 2024, the Court granted in part and denied in part the expedited motion to compel, ordering production of the capitalization table and supporting documents by September 13, 2024, at 12 p.m. On that same day, Defendants ARC and Mr. Orlando filed a notice of removal in the Middle District of Florida (C.A. No. 8:24-cv-02161). On September 13, 2024, Digital World and Private TMTG filed an emergency motion to remand to state court in the Middle District of Florida, which the Middle District granted on September 17, 2024. On September 18, 2024, Digital World and Private TMTG filed an emergency motion for temporary injunction and contempt against ARC and Mr. Orlando in the state court action. On that same day, the Court held a hearing during which it granted Digital World and Private TMTG’s motion for contempt, imposed a coercive sanction against ARC and Mr. Orlando of $5,000 per day until they complied with the Court’s September 12 discovery order, and denied their motion for temporary injunction. Defendants ARC and Mr. Orlando have filed an appeal of that order, which the Court denied on June 13, 2025 (C.A. No. 2D2024-2364).

On September 20, 2024, ARC filed its answer, defenses, and affirmative defenses to the Second Amended Complaint. On September 26, 2024, Defendants ARC and Mr. Orlando filed a motion to compel. On October 1, 2024, Digital World and Private TMTG filed a motion for an order to show cause why ARC and Mr. Orlando should not be held in further contempt and subject to increased sanctions for their failure to comply with the Court’s September 18 contempt order. On October 3, 2024, Mr. Orlando filed an amended motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint or, alternatively, to stay the action. On October 15, 2024, ARC filed an amended answer, defenses, and affirmative defenses to the Second Amended Complaint, counterclaim, and third-party complaint, naming 9 additional defendants: Luis Orleans-Braganza, Lee Jacobson, Bruce J. Garelick, Justin Shaner, Eric Swider, Rodrigo Veloso, Ed Preble, Frank Andrews, and Jeffrey Smith. On October 21, 2024, UAV, Mr. Moss, and Mr. Litinsky jointly filed 3 motions: a motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint for failure to state a cause of action, motion to stay pending resolution of the Delaware Action, and motion to dismiss for improper venue. On November 1, 2024, Digital World and Private TMTG filed a supplemental brief in support of the October motion for order to show cause and a fee petition to recover attorneys’ fees pursuant to the September 18 contempt order.

On November 18, 2024, the Court granted in part the October motion for order to show cause, ordering, inter alia, the appointment of a third-party vendor to re-collect all devices and files from ARC and Mr. Orlando and run search terms and a sanction against ARC and Mr. Orlando of $5,000 per day from September 18 to November 8, 2024. Defendants ARC and Mr. Orlando have filed a motion for leave to amend their petition to appeal the September 18 order to include an appeal of the November 18 order, which the Court denied on February 5, 2025 (C.A. No. 2D2024-2364).

On January 22, 2025, the Court held a hearing during which it heard the motion to stay pending resolution of the Delaware Action and scheduled an omnibus hearing to hear outstanding motions on March 7, 2025. At the January 22, 2025 hearing, the Court entered a temporary administrative stay of discovery as to Mr. Litinsky, Mr. Moss, and UAV pending its resolution of their motion to stay. On January 23, 2025, Defendants ARC and Mr. Orlando filed a motion to compel production of documents and a motion to strike. On February 10, 2025, Mr. Orlando and ARC filed an appeal of the Court’s November 18 order, which the Second District denied on April 24, 2025 (C.A. No. 2D2025-0314).

On February 19, 2025, the Court denied the October 3 motion to stay filed by Mr. Orlando and the October 21 motion to stay filed by UAV, Mr. Moss, and Mr. Litinsky, finding that this action and the Delaware Action do not “involve substantially similar issues.”

On March 7, 2025, the Court held an omnibus hearing to address outstanding motions. Following the March 7 hearing, the Court entered several orders. It denied the motions to dismiss for improper venue filed by Mr. Orlando on October 3 and UAV, Mr. Moss, and Mr. Litinsky on October 21. The Court also denied the motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim filed by Mr. Orlando on October 3 and UAV, Mr. Moss, and Mr. Litinsky on October 21. The Court granted the motions to dismiss the third-party complaint filed on behalf of Lee Jacobson, Bruce J. Garelick, Eric Swider, Rodrigo Veloso, Ed Preble, Frank Andrews, and Jeffrey Smith but provided leave to amend. The Court granted in part the January 23 motion to compel filed by Mr. Orlando and ARC. The Court also granted in part the motion to dismiss ARC’s counterclaims, dismissing Count V of the counterclaims. On March 21, 2025, UAV, Mr. Moss, and Mr. Litinsky appealed Court’s February 19, 2025 order denying a stay.

On February 29, 2024, ARC filed a lawsuit in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (C.A. No. 2024-0186-LWW) against Digital World and its directors, alleging an impending violation of the Digital World Charter. ARC alleged that Digital World failed to commit to issue conversion shares to ARC that ARC claims it is owed upon the consummation of the Business Combination pursuant to the Charter. ARC claimed a conversion ratio of 1.81:1 and sought specific performance and damages for the alleged breach of the Charter, a declaratory judgment that the certain derivative securities of Digital World should be included in the calculation of the conversion ratio, a finding that the directors of Digital World breached their fiduciary duties, and a preliminary injunction to enjoin the Business Combination until Digital World “corrected” the conversion ratio. TMTG defended Digital World’s calculation of the conversion ratio and related rights. In addition to its complaint, ARC also filed a motion with the Court of Chancery requesting that the case schedule be expedited to enable the Court of Chancery to conduct an injunction hearing prior to the March 22, 2024, shareholder vote. On March 5, 2024, the Court of Chancery denied ARC’s motion, stating that it would not conduct a merits or injunction hearing before March 22, 2024. Consequently, the Court of Chancery also denied ARC’s request to postpone the Business Combination vote until after a merits hearing. The Court of Chancery ruled that Digital World’s proposal to deposit disputed shares into an escrow account at the close of the Business Combination was adequate to prevent potential irreparable harm related to ARC’s share conversion. The Court of Chancery also found that Digital World’s public disclosures about ARC’s claims and possible conversion scenarios at the close of the Business Combination further mitigated the risk of irreparable harm due to insufficient disclosure for the March 22, 2024 vote. As a result, on March 21, 2024, Digital World entered into two escrow agreements with Odyssey, as follows: (i) an escrow agreement for the benefit of ARC (the “ARC Escrow Agreement”), pursuant to which DWAC deposited into escrow 3,579,480 shares of TMTG shares of common stock (“Common Stock”), and (ii) an escrow agreement for the benefit of the Non-ARC Class B Shareholders (the “Non-ARC Class B Shareholders Escrow Agreement,” and together with the ARC Escrow Agreement, the “Disputed Shares Escrow Agreements”), pursuant to which TMTG deposited into escrow 1,087,553 shares of TMTG Common Stock, which amounts represent the difference between the actual conversion ratio, determined by Digital World’s board of directors upon closing of the Business Combination (which was determined to be 1.348:1), and a conversion ratio of 2.00:1. On September 16, 2024, the Court of Chancery issued its order in this matter setting the conversion ratio at 1.4911:1. The Court of Chancery ruled against ARC on a substantial majority of its claims, reducing ARC’s proposed calculation of the conversion ratio of 1.81:1 by approximately 70% and holding that the former board members of Digital World did not breach any fiduciary duties in setting the conversion ratio calculation or in their public disclosures of the same. As a result of the Court of Chancery’s order, a portion of the disputed shares of Common Stock held in escrow were released to ARC. The release of Common Stock is subject to the terms and conditions of the ARC Escrow Agreement with the Escrow Agent and TMTG. Accordingly, 785,825 shares of TMTG Common Stock, which represents the Court’s calculation for the difference between a ratio of 1.348:1 and 1.4911:1, were released from escrow (the “Court Ratio”). Both parties still retain the option to file an appeal within 30 days after the Court of Chancery’s final order. In connection with the Court of Chancery’s final order, 238,692 Common Shares deposited in the Non-ARC Class B Shareholders Escrow Agreement, representing the Court Ratio, were released to the applicable holders, subject to the terms and conditions of the Non-ARC Class B Shareholders Escrow Agreement and the Securities Act of 1933, as amended. On October 23, 2024, ARC filed a motion for a $1,000,000 fee award. On July 14, 2025, the Court adjusted the fee award downward, awarding ARC $75,000—less than 10% of the amount initially sought. As of July 24, 2025, a final order and judgment has not yet been entered in this action.

On March 15, 2024, Plaintiff Patrick Orlando brought a lawsuit against Digital World in the Court of Chancery seeking advancement of legal fees associated with Mr. Orlando’s involvement in civil litigation against Digital World in Florida and certain other matters (the “Advancement Lawsuit”) (C.A. No. 2024-0264-CDW). Mr. Orlando’s allegations relate to certain provisions in the Digital World Charter, Digital World’s bylaws, and an indemnity agreement allegedly entered into between Mr. Orlando and Digital World. Mr. Orlando alleges that those certain provisions require Digital World to pay the legal fees Mr. Orlando incurred and will incur in connection with legal proceedings in which he is involved by reason of the fact that he is or was a director or officer of Digital World. Mr. Orlando seeks a court order that (i) declares that he is entitled to legal fees for certain proceedings described in the complaint, (ii) requires Digital World to pay for legal fees incurred and future legal fees to be incurred for those proceedings, (iii) requires Digital World to pay the fees incurred to bring the Advancement Lawsuit, and (iv) requires Digital World to pay pre- and post-judgment interest on the amounts owed to Mr. Orlando. On April 3, 2024, the Court of Chancery entered a Stipulation and Advancement Order (“Stipulation”) stating that Mr. Orlando is entitled to advancement of attorneys’ fees and costs incurred with legal proceedings described in the Stipulation, subject to Digital World’s right to challenge the reasonableness of those attorneys’ fees and costs. The Stipulation further states that Mr. Orlando is entitled to fees incurred in connection with enforcement of advancement rights and sets forth procedures that will govern future requests for advancement of attorneys’ fees and costs. As of July 24, 2025, TMTG had paid or agreed to pay approximately $8.3 million to Mr. Orlando’s attorneys pursuant to such Stipulation and TMTG’s other advancement obligations to Mr. Orlando. On April 23, 2024, Mr. Orlando filed a motion for leave to supplement the Advancement Lawsuit to add a claim for advancement of legal fees and expenses Mr. Orlando had incurred and would incur in connection with his defense of an action for declaratory judgment brought by members of ARC regarding Mr. Orlando’s removal as the managing member of ARC (the “ARC Removal Action”). Mr. Orlando also sought reimbursement for the legal fees and expenses incurred in connection with his supplement to the Advancement Lawsuit, and he sought pre-judgment and post-judgment interest on the amounts he claimed were owed to him. On August 1, 2024, plaintiffs in the ARC Removal Action dismissed their complaint without prejudice. On August 8, 2024, Mr. Orlando dismissed his supplemental claims in the Advancement Lawsuit without prejudice.

On June 20, 2024, TMTG’s transfer agent, Odyssey filed an interpleader action in the U.S. District Court of the District of Delaware (C.A. No. 24-cv-00729). The complaint pertains to the ongoing dispute regarding share ownership between Michael Melkersen and ARC and includes TMTG as a nominal defendant. Odyssey is seeking an order from the Court discharging Odyssey of further liability and requiring ARC and TMTG to resolve their competing claims as to 716,140 Class A shares of TMTG and 25,000 TMTG warrants. On July 17, 2024, Odyssey filed a motion to dismiss for discharge and dismissal. On July 18, 2024, ARC filed a motion to dismiss for improper venue. On July 22, 2024, TMTG filed a motion for discharge and dismissal. On August 13, 2024, TMTG filed its answer and crossclaims against Mr. Melkersen and ARC. On August 21, 2024, ARC filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. On September 3, 2024, ARC filed a motion to dismiss TMTG’s crossclaims on the grounds of forum non conveniens. On October 14, 2024, Mr. Melkersen filed his answer to the complaint for interpleader. This matter remains pending.

On December 23, 2024, TMTG filed suit against Rejuve in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County (Index No. 659834/2024). In the complaint, TMTG seeks declaratory and injunctive relief against Rejuve arising out of Rejuve’s alleged conduct as Purchaser Representative under an Agreement and Plan of Merger dated as of October 20, 2021. On January 13, 2025, TMTG filed an application, by way of a proposed order to show cause, for a preliminary injunction prohibiting Rejuve from taking any further action in its alleged capacity as Purchaser Representative under the Merger Agreement. On January 23, 2025, the Court approved a stipulation to stay the action pending resolution of the arbitration before the American Arbitration Association seeking to recover its fees and expenses from TMTG that Rejuve allegedly incurred as Purchaser Representative, and to enjoin Rejuve from acting as Purchaser Representative except with respect to its participation in the arbitration. The arbitration occurred on April 29, 2025. On July 22, 2025, the arbitrator issued his Final Award in favor of TMTG, awarding a net sum of $22,868.