In the days leading up to President Trump’s April 9th tariff pause, numerous members of Congress engaged in stock transactions totaling millions of dollars, raising ethical concerns. These transactions, many occurring amidst market volatility spurred by Trump’s trade policy announcements, involved both Democrats and Republicans. While lawmakers claim trades were managed by third-party advisors, the timing has fueled suspicion of insider trading. Experts and some on Capitol Hill argue that the lack of transparency and enforcement around congressional stock trading undermines public trust.
Read More
Sens. Kelly and Ossoff reintroduced the Ban Congressional Stock Trading Act, mandating that members of Congress, their spouses, and dependents either place their stock portfolios in blind trusts or divest holdings. This bipartisan effort enjoys overwhelming public support, with 86% of Americans favoring a ban. The bill aims to prevent the use of insider information for personal financial gain and restore public trust in Congress. Several senators cosponsored the bill, highlighting the widespread concern over the ethical implications of Congressional stock trading.
Read More
ProPublica’s investigation reveals that over a dozen Trump administration officials, including Attorney General Pam Bondi, strategically divested themselves of substantial stock holdings shortly before President Trump’s “Liberation Day” tariffs negatively impacted the market. These preemptive sales, totaling millions of dollars, occurred within days of the market downturn, with some officials repurchasing shares at reduced prices afterward. Examples include a State Department official’s $50,000 sale and Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy’s sale of shares in nearly 36 companies. This pattern raises concerns about potential insider trading.
Read More
Analysis of financial disclosures reveals numerous instances of well-timed stock trades by high-ranking executive branch officials and congressional aides coinciding with significant government announcements, particularly those related to President Trump’s tariffs. While no evidence suggests insider trading, these transactions raise ethical concerns, as they erode public trust in both government and market integrity. Ethics experts advocate for stricter regulations governing the financial activities of federal employees to mitigate potential conflicts of interest and the appearance of impropriety. The lack of transparency surrounding these trades further underscores the need for increased oversight.
Read More
Attorney General Pam Bondi sold between $1 million and $5 million in Trump Media & Technology Group shares on April 2nd, the same day President Trump announced sweeping tariffs. This occurred on “Liberation Day,” when tariffs caused market drops, followed by a 90-day pause. While there is no suggestion of wrongdoing, the timing of the sale, falling within Bondi’s 90-day window to divest from Trump Media per her ethics agreement, and subsequent stock price fluctuations warrant attention. Bondi’s actions are subject to scrutiny, alongside other aspects of her career, including her past lobbying work for Qatar.
Read More
Attorney General Pam Bondi sold between $1 million and $5 million in Trump Media shares on April 2nd, the same day President Trump announced new tariffs that caused a market downturn. Bondi’s disclosure forms don’t specify the exact time of sale, but the transactions occurred before or after the market closed following Trump’s press conference. While the legality of the sale is unclear, it raises questions regarding potential insider trading, given Bondi’s prior work with Trump Media. The Justice Department has yet to comment.
Read More
Facing criticism over congressional stock trading, Speaker Mike Johnson argued that stagnant congressional salaries since 2009, now 31% lower inflation-adjusted, necessitate supplemental income for members to meet the demands of public service. He defended stock trading as a means for these individuals to support their families and maintain financial stability. However, this practice has drawn increased scrutiny amid allegations of insider trading following market fluctuations related to recent tariff announcements. The upcoming May 15th deadline for financial disclosures promises to shed further light on these concerns.
Read More
During a House hearing on transgender athletes, Democrats accused Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of insider trading. The accusations centered on stock purchases Greene made in early April, coinciding with a market dip caused by President Trump’s tariff announcement. Greene claims her financial advisor made the trades, buying “the dip,” but Democrats allege she profited from non-public information. The ensuing debate temporarily stalled the hearing, with Republicans objecting to what they considered an unfounded criminal allegation.
Read More
New York Attorney General Letitia James is conducting an inquiry into potential insider trading within President Trump’s inner circle, focusing on market reactions to recent tariff policies. This inquiry, utilizing the powerful Martin Act, is unprecedented in scope, investigating whether individuals profited illegally from non-public information regarding government decisions. While proving insider trading is notoriously difficult, the inquiry involves examining trading data for suspicious patterns and potentially issuing inquiry letters. However, significant legal challenges are anticipated, including potential conflicts with executive privilege and the inherent difficulty of distinguishing legitimate trading activity from illegal insider activity in volatile markets.
Read More
Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, a close Trump ally, purchased stocks in companies like Amazon, Blackstone, and Tesla on April 8th and 9th, the day before President Trump announced a tariff suspension that triggered a significant market rally. These transactions, revealed in a financial disclosure, included the sale of U.S. Treasuries and involved a total investment ranging from $21,021 to $315,000. The timing of the trades has prompted calls for investigations into potential insider trading, given the market’s reaction to Trump’s announcement. However, precise timing of the transactions and their cost basis remain unclear due to limitations in disclosure requirements.
Read More
John Q. Hosedrinker