The Trump campaign filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission on Thursday, alleging that the Washington Post has made illegal in-kind contributions to Vice President Kamala Harris’ campaign through its “fawning” coverage.

According to the six-page complaint, the Washington Post is conducting a “coordinated communications” strategy that benefits the Harris campaign, relying on a Semafor report that showed the paper was paying to boost critical Trump content and “neutral” Harris articles.

“’Democracy Dies in Darkness’ according to The Washington Post, yet on the eve of the 2024 general election, it is the Post that reportedly is conducting a dark money corporate campaign in opposition to President Donald J. Trump pretextually using its own online advertising efforts to promote Kamala Harris’s presidential candidacy,” wrote Trump campaign deputy general counsel Gary Lawkowski in the complaint.

“To wit, one of the promoted articles highlighted how the Harris digital team was pushing content on social media claiming people were leaving President Trump’s rallies early,” the complaint states.

“A month later, The Washington Post published an article, which was reportedly boosted by The Post, on the same topic, with a similar editorial framing.

Coverage of the Harris team’s outreach to young voters through a pack of “feral” social media influencers also boasted that the Democratic nominee’s campaign aides “create the news.”

“A reasonable inference is that the Harris team has communicated its messaging strategy to The Washington Post, and that that messaging strategy is reflected in what The Post chooses to promote,” the complaint concludes.

The Trump campaign said in a statement that the Post’s actions were an egregious example of mainstream media’s “pro-Kamala propaganda.”

“The Democrat machine must be held accountable,” the campaign added.

The DC paper has been roiled by billionaire owner Jeff Bezos’ decision to kill an endorsement of Harris last week, with editorial board members resigning as the outlet hemorrhaged 250,000 digital subscribers.

At the same time, the Post’s business managers were paying for advertisements of articles on Facebook and other social media feeds that covered Harris’ basic digital messaging campaign, policy plans for a presumptive administration and odds of winning on Nov. 5, Semafor scooped.

Disparaging pieces on Trump’s rhetorical missteps — including repeated references to “Silence of the Lambs” cannibal Hannibal Lecter — and the Republican campaign purportedly flailing in the final days of the race were peddled to like-minded readers.

So were some stories on the GOP nominee’s repeated claims of election interference in 2020.

Whether the newspaper functioned as a de facto political donor will depend on its adherence to “legitimate press functions,” which the FEC must determine.

If engaged “in core electioneering activities,” the Washington Post would be stepping outside the rules.

The complaint argues the paid media campaign boosting Harris over Trump fits the definition of the latter.

The coverage can be considered “coordinated” under the Federal Election Campaign Act, the Trump attorney claimed, due to the payments, content and “material involvement of the campaign in the creation, production, or distribution of the communication, including regarding the content of the communication.”

“As part of The Washington Post’s regular social media marketing strategy, promoted posts across social media platforms reflect high-performing content across all verticals and subjects,” a newspaper spokesperson said in a statement. “We believe allegations suggesting this routine media practice is improper are without merit.”

Reps for the Harris campaign did not immediately respond to a request for comment.