Mar a lago report
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Recent reporting and filings show two separate threads now attached to “Mar-a-Lago”: corporate and political events hosted there, and ongoing litigation over release of Special Counsel Jack Smith’s Volume II report. LiveOne announced a Dec. 17, 2025 shareholder/B2B event at Mar‑a‑Lago [1] [2], while a federal judge granted President Trump limited amicus participation opposing public release of Volume II of Smith’s report [3].
1. Corporate gatherings at a presidential club: LiveOne’s pitch at Mar‑a‑Lago
LiveOne, a Nasdaq‑listed music/entertainment platform, announced it will introduce B2B partners to shareholders and investors at President Trump’s Mar‑a‑Lago on Dec. 17, 2025, framing the meeting as a management discussion of multiple partnerships and investor relations activity [1] [2]. The company’s press release—distributed via GlobeNewswire and republished by outlets such as The Manila Times—stresses corporate aims and standard risk disclaimers about revenue concentration and transaction uncertainties [1] [2]. The coverage documents a private‑sector use of the club as a venue for investor outreach rather than a governmental meeting [1] [2].
2. Political and diplomatic uses: meetings with world leaders scheduled at Mar‑a‑Lago
Separately, reporting notes that Mar‑a‑Lago continues to serve as a locale for high‑level political engagement: the Prime Minister of Israel is set to meet President Trump there on Dec. 29, 2025, according to the Prime Minister’s Office and reporting by JewishInsider [4]. That item underscores Mar‑a‑Lago’s dual role as both private club and stage for presidential diplomacy in the current administration [4].
3. Court fight over the “Mar‑a‑Lago report”: Judge allows Trump to oppose release
In litigation tied to Jack Smith’s investigation, U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon issued a brief order permitting President Trump to participate as amicus curiae for the limited purpose of incorporating prior arguments that Volume II of Smith’s final report should remain sealed; the order forbids additional filings [3]. The judge’s move came amid intervention attempts by third parties seeking the report’s public release and earlier DOJ filings opposing lifting the injunction, with the DOJ noting the Attorney General’s discretionary role in any release decision [3].
4. Competing narratives and legal posture around Volume II
Sources show competing legal positions: media‑interest groups want sunlight on Volume II, while Trump and co‑defendants Nauta and De Oliveira have opposed disclosure, citing arguments the court is now allowing Trump to reassert via amicus participation [3]. The DOJ referenced earlier filings where the government and former defendants opposed lifting the injunction; the agency emphasized any release decision as hinging on Attorney General discretion [3]. These divergent aims—public disclosure advocates versus defendants and the DOJ’s stated posture—frame the dispute now before the 11th Circuit deadline mentioned in reporting [3].
5. Historical context that informs public attention to Mar‑a‑Lago
Mar‑a‑Lago has been the locus of multiple controversies and high‑profile events in recent years, including the 2022 FBI search and subsequent document disputes that remain part of the broader record on the property; public familiarity with those episodes helps explain why both corporate events there and litigation connected to it attract outsized attention [5] [6]. Reporting and encyclopedic entries catalog a pattern: the estate functions as a private club, social venue, and a focal point for legal and national security controversies [5] [6].
6. What available sources do not mention and open questions
Available sources do not mention details of LiveOne’s guest list beyond “major shareholders” and “B2B partners,” nor financial terms or security arrangements for the Dec. 17 event [1] [2]. Available sources do not provide the contents of Volume II of Jack Smith’s report or the specific legal arguments Trump will incorporate as amicus; the judge’s order only permits limited participation without further filings [3]. Those absences limit definitive conclusions about what either the corporate gathering or the sealed report would reveal.
7. Why this matters: overlapping public‑interest issues
Both strands—private companies using a presidential property for investor events and a court fight over withholding a high‑profile investigative report—raise questions about access, transparency, and the boundary between private enterprise, official power, and public oversight. Sources demonstrate these issues are being litigated and negotiated in public filings and corporate communications, but they do not yet resolve the underlying transparency questions: the report’s contents remain sealed and corporate attendee lists remain undisclosed [1] [3] [2].
Sources: LiveOne press releases and coverage (GlobeNewswire / The Manila Times) on Dec. 17 corporate event at Mar‑a‑Lago [1] [2]; Law & Crime reporting on Judge Cannon’s order permitting Trump to oppose release of Jack Smith’s Volume II report [3]; JewishInsider on Netanyahu meeting at Mar‑a‑Lago [4]; context from FBI/Mar‑a‑Lago coverage [5] [6].