On August 18, 2025, a decision from Argentina’s federal judiciary sent ripples through the nation’s political and legal landscape, as La Plata Federal Judge Alberto Recondo ruled that President Javier Milei’s posts on social media are not to be considered official acts of communication. The ruling, which directly addressed a controversial post targeting 12-year-old autistic activist Ian Moche, has set a precedent that could influence ongoing investigations and future court battles, especially those involving the president’s online conduct and the promotion of the '$LIBRA' cryptocurrency.
The case originated when President Milei, through his personal account @JMilei on the platform X (formerly Twitter), amplified criticism of journalist Paulino Rodrigues, who had interviewed Ian Moche on the LN+ news channel. The president’s post, which included an image of Moche, read: "Pautino (sic) is always on the side of evil, on the side of Kirchnerites." According to reporting by Perfil, this message became part of a larger campaign by ruling party supporters targeting Moche, ultimately prompting the child and his family to seek judicial intervention to have the post removed.
Judge Recondo, however, dismissed the accusation that Milei’s post constituted harassment against Moche. In his ruling, he stated, “Did the President harass the minor? I do not find the case to reasonably qualify as an attack on the minor’s honour and reputation.” The judge further clarified that the president’s remarks were a criticism of the journalist, not the child: “Criticism against a journalist who interviewed a child does not imply the child interviewed by a journalist has been criticised.”
Going deeper, Recondo emphasized that Milei’s action was a “repost” (formerly known as a retweet), not an expression of total agreement with the original content. “As for the President’s reposting, that action does not automatically entail total adherence to the content or equate it with co-authorship – that standard would lead any user to be fully responsible for other people’s expressions,” he wrote. Most crucially, the judge asserted that the message was sent from Milei’s private personal account and should not be interpreted as a state act: “An official may choose not to speak while exercising his official responsibilities, but to speak with their own voice. Freedom of speech protects public officials when speaking as citizens, even on matters of public interest.”
This rationale closely echoed Milei’s own defense. The president had argued to the court that his @JMilei account was personal and that his posts constituted “critical opinion” protected by freedom of speech under Argentina’s constitution and international treaties. “It is not a state act, it is a publication protected by the constitutional right to freedom of speech guaranteed under the Constitution and international treaties recognised under the Constitution,” Milei stated in his response to the court, as reported by Perfil.
The legal wrangling is far from over. Constitutional lawyer Andrés Gil Domínguez, representing Ian Moche, announced plans to appeal Recondo’s decision before the La Plata Federal Court of Appeals. Gil Domínguez argued, “The judge accepted that Milei was acting as a President, otherwise the case should have been brought before civil courts. The judge should have never declared himself as competent. The ruling is null and void because the judge is ruling on something over which he has no jurisdiction.” The case, he insists, is not just about a social media post, but about clarifying the boundaries of presidential conduct and the responsibilities tied to verified official accounts.
The question of whether Milei’s social media presence constitutes an official channel is more than academic. On July 15, 2025, the same court determined it had jurisdiction over the Moche case, with prosecutor Julio Gutiérrez Eguía noting that @JMilei was a verified account with a grey tick on X, a designation used by the platform to identify “government individuals nationwide: heads of State, presidents, monarchs and prime ministers, among others.” This official status is pivotal, as it directly affects the president’s legal exposure in other matters—most notably, the ongoing investigation into alleged fraud related to the '$LIBRA' cryptocurrency.
The '$LIBRA' case is another storm brewing for Milei. On February 14, 2025, Milei promoted the cryptocurrency via the same @JMilei account, causing its value to spike dramatically. When the president later deleted the post, '$LIBRA' plummeted, resulting in losses estimated in the hundreds of millions of dollars. The incident is currently under investigation by Argentine courts, while a parallel civil suit unfolds in the United States. The outcome of the Moche case could set a crucial precedent for how Milei’s online actions are judged in this and future probes.
Amid these legal battles, the judiciary delivered another blow to the president’s agenda. On the same day as Recondo’s ruling, federal judge Adrián González Charvay declared invalid Milei’s veto of the National Disability Emergency Law, siding with parents of two 11-year-old boys who argued that the veto threatened their children’s access to treatment and education. This move, described by Perfil as an “overt defiance” of the president, has fueled opposition calls for special legislative sessions to address not only the disability law but also other contentious presidential actions, including pension increases and the '$LIBRA' investigation.
The tension between the executive and legislative branches reached a fever pitch on August 20, 2025, when the Argentine Chamber of Deputies voted 160-83 to reject Milei’s veto of a pension spending bill. The vote, however, fell just short of the two-thirds majority required to override the veto. Had it succeeded, an override would also have required approval in the Senate. According to Bloomberg, the bill would have increased pension payments—an action that, while popular among retirees, risked undermining the government’s budget surplus, a key metric closely watched by investors. The veto’s survival allowed Milei to narrowly avoid a major defeat in Congress, but the close vote underscored the fragility of his political support.
The coming days promise more drama. The opposition has called for special sessions in the Chamber of Deputies on August 20 and 21, 2025, to tackle a packed agenda: the National Disability Emergency Law, pension increases, the temporary moratorium, and bills to regulate federal revenue-sharing and authorize a congressional commission to investigate the '$LIBRA' case. Each of these items pits the president against a determined opposition and a judiciary willing to assert its independence.
For Marlene Spesso, Ian Moche’s mother, the immediate consequence is a personal one—she will have to bear the costs of the court proceedings, and Milei’s tweet remains online. Yet for Argentina as a whole, the stakes are far larger. The unresolved question of how to balance presidential speech, digital platforms, and the rights of citizens—especially vulnerable ones—now sits at the heart of a national debate. With appeals looming and the specter of the Supreme Court on the horizon, the saga of Milei, Moche, and the scales of justice is far from over.
