As many of you may or may not have noticed, at the end of 2025, the Trump Media & Technology Group ($DJT) launched five ETFs under the Truth.Fi label.
They are positioned as “America First” investment products with a focus on security, energy, innovation, iconic companies, and real estate in Republican-leaning states.
At first glance, these seem like clear themes. Upon closer inspection, however, structural weaknesses, small fund sizes, and a very strong political narrative become apparent. Below is a sober, deliberately skeptical analysis of all five ETFs.
1) Truth Social American Security & Defense ETF
($TSSD)
🛡️
Focus: Defense, Security, Cybersecurity
Expense ratio: approx. 0.65%
Fund assets: approx. $246,000
Number of holdings: around 58
Largest holdings:
RTX Corp ($RTX) (+0 %)
Palantir Technologies ($PLTR) (-1,52 %)
Palo Alto Networks ($PANW) (-3,55 %)
Assessment:
The fund’s thematic structure is clear and combines traditional defense stocks with modern software and cybersecurity companies. The major issue, however, is the extremely low fund assets. With only about a quarter of a million USD, liquidity is very limited. High spreads and a potential risk of closure are realistic scenarios. Comparable defense ETFs are significantly larger, more affordable, and more stable.
2) Truth Social American Energy Security ETF ($TSES) ⚡
Focus: U.S. energy, oil, gas, and energy infrastructure
Expense ratio: approx. 0.65%
Fund assets: not transparently disclosed, presumably very low
Number of holdings: around 68
Largest holdings:
Exxon Mobil ($XOM)
Chevron ($CVX) (+0,3 %)
Eaton Corporation ($ETN) (+1,14 %)
Assessment:
The ETF focuses on classic U.S. energy leaders. This is not an innovative approach, but rather a very traditional sector bet. The political term “energy security” does not change the fact that, at its core, investors are buying an expensive energy ETF with an unclear fund size. Without sufficient inflows, its tradability remains questionable.
3) Truth Social American Next Frontiers ETF ($TSNF) 🚀
Focus: Future technologies, innovation, space exploration, industry
Expense ratio: approx. 0.65%
Assets under management: not clearly disclosed, presumably very low
Largest holdings:
Planet Labs ($PL) (-5,02 %)
Marvell Technology ($MRVL) (-2,54 %)
Intuitive Machines ($LUNR) (-4,96 %)
Assessment:
The name sounds visionary, but the structure remains vague. “Next Frontiers” is not a clearly defined investment factor, but rather an umbrella term. Many smaller, partly speculative stocks, little transparency regarding weightings, and a lack of track record make the fund difficult to assess. The ETF comes across more like a hodgepodge of themes than a coherent innovation strategy.
4) Truth Social American Icons ETF ($TSIC) ⭐
Focus: well-known U.S. brands and large corporations
Expense ratio: approx. 0.65%
Fund assets: approx. 248,000 USD
Number of holdings: around 54
Largest holdings:
Procter & Gamble ($PG (+0,7 %))
Lowe’s ($LOW) (+0,35 %)
Altria Group ($MO) (-0,26 %)
Classification:
The fund invests in established U.S. corporations that are familiar to many investors. The term “Icons” evokes a positive gut feeling but is not a measurable investment factor. In terms of its composition, the ETF resembles a classic large-cap approach—albeit with significantly higher costs, a very small fund size, and no clear added value compared to existing standard ETFs.
5) Truth Social American Red State REITs ETF ($TSRS) 🏘️
Focus: Real estate companies with a focus on Republican-leaning states
Expense ratio: approx. 0.65%
Fund assets: not transparently disclosed, presumably low
Number of holdings: around 28
Largest holdings:
VICI Properties ($VICI) (-0,44 %)
Broadstone Net Lease ($BNL) (+1,06 %)
NNN REIT ($NNN) (+0 %)
Assessment:
Filtering real estate based on political geography is unusual. Economically relevant factors such as rental structure, location quality, or financing terms take a back seat here. The fund is highly concentrated, interest-rate sensitive, and offers no clear advantage over broad REIT ETFs.
General Criticisms ⚠️
Very low assets under management
Several ETFs are in the low six-figure range or below. This is critical for ETFs and increases the risk of wide spreads, low liquidity, and potential fund liquidation.
High costs
All five ETFs charge fees of around 0.65%. This is high, especially since there is no demonstrable outperformance, no track record, and no unique strategy.
Political Narratives Instead of Investment Logic
The funds are heavily politically branded. While this may attract attention, it is no substitute for a sound investment strategy. Political conviction is neither a risk factor nor a driver of returns.
Conclusion
The Truth Social ETFs are less traditional investment products and more of a financial statement. They are clearly aimed at investors who want to reflect their political convictions in their portfolios.
From a rational investment perspective, they currently appear:
- very small
- expensive
- illiquid
- conceptually interchangeable
Or to put it a bit more bluntly:
“America First” is in the ETF’s name, but it’s not really a priority when it comes to the risk-return ratio.
For a seriously structured, long-term portfolio, there are significantly more robust alternatives. As a topic of discussion within the community, however, the funds are certainly entertaining.
What do you think of the ETFs?
Best regards,
Don
