Government Officials’ Stock Sales
More than a dozen high-ranking executive branch officials and congressional aides have made well-timed trades since Trump took office in January, most of them selling stock before the market plunged amid fears that Trump’s tariffs would set off a global trade war. The timing of these trades has raised significant concerns among ethics experts.
Major Market Impact Events
The most significant market event was Trump’s “Liberation Day” tariff announcement on April 2, 2025, which caused the Dow to lose almost 1,700 points and the S&P to drop nearly 5%. This represented one of the worst trading days since 2020.
Specific Cases Under Scrutiny
Attorney General Pam Bondi: Sold between $1 million and $5 million worth of shares of Trump Media on April 2, the same day Trump unveiled his “Liberation Day” tariffs.
Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy: Sold shares in almost three dozen companies on Feb. 11, two days before Trump announced plans to institute wide-ranging “reciprocal” tariffs.
Trade Representative Official Marshall Stallings: Sold between $2,000 and $30,000 of stock in Target and Freeport-McMoRan just days before Trump unveiled his most dramatic tariffs, with Target falling 17% and Freeport-McMoRan falling 25%.
Trump’s Own Trading Activity
On the morning of April 9, President Trump posted on Truth Social “THIS IS A GREAT TIME TO BUY!!! DJT.” Around four hours later, he announced a pause on some new tariffs, causing a stock market spike. This sequence has led to calls for investigation into possible insider trading.
Congressional Activity
Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene bought between $21,000 and $315,000 of stock the day before and the day of the announcement of Trump’s tariff rollback that caused markets to surge.
Legal and Ethical Concerns
Even if the officials had no insider information, ethics experts say such trading undermines faith in government and the markets. While these trades could potentially violate the STOCK Act if based on non-public information, no cases have ever been brought under this law, and legal experts question whether it would hold up in court given recent narrowing of insider trading definitions.
The officials involved have generally denied having access to non-public information, with many claiming their trades were made by financial advisers or for personal financial reasons unrelated to government policy.