SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
insider trading
The Supreme Court Has Enabled Trump to Become Profiteer-in-Chief
Before Trump v. United States, presidents knew they could be criminally prosecuted if they looted the government, but Chief Justice John Roberts’s ruling all but stops any bribery prosecution before it starts.
May 20, 2026
On Monday, Donald Trump dropped his sham lawsuit against the federal government. In exchange, the Justice Department under his control will establish a $1.8 billion fund for “victims of lawfare,” as Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche put it. This will be a slush fund for Trump’s allies—presumably January 6 insurrectionists and others already rewarded with a pardon.
There is a zone of lawlessness around the Oval Office, erected by the Supreme Court when it granted current and former presidents effective immunity from prosecution if their crimes involved “official acts.” Loot the taxpayers, misuse government power for graft, and you’re off the hook.
Last week, the president filed a report with the Office of Government Ethics detailing the stock trades he made this year. It is a novelistic tale of profiteering, recognizable as insider trading in every way except, perhaps, under the law.
Former US Pardon Attorney Liz Oyer offers a useful guide.
It’s epic corruption in plain sight. History shows that after scandal comes reform—often, but not always.
In recent months, as Paramount and Netflix vied to buy Warner Brothers, Trump bought stock in all three companies. Now the Justice Department is considering whether to approve Paramount’s purchase of Warner Brothers.
As CNBC reported, Trump “scooped up shares” in the data firm Palantir. Soon after, he abruptly praised the firm. “Palantir Technologies (PLTR) has proven to have great war fighting capabilities and equipment,” Trump posted, even highlighting its ticker name. “Just ask our enemies!!!” All this while Palantir was winning big federal contracts.
He invested in Oracle while brokering its deal to buy TikTok.
Just this week, he paraded off Air Force One in China, flanked by the CEOs of Nvidia and Boeing. Trump bought millions of dollars of Boeing stock before the trip, which led to the sale of 200 Boeing airplanes to the Chinese government. Among his biggest purchases has been Nvidia stock, which has seen steep increases after the US government cleared 10 Chinese companies to purchase its advanced chips, in a big reversal from earlier national security concerns.
Altogether, Oyer writes, “You’ll find it hard to avoid the conclusion that, to Donald Trump, governing is synonymous with profiteering.”
This president is constrained by the weakest legal rules in history.
Start with that immunity ruling, Trump v. United States. Before that, presidents knew they could be criminally prosecuted if they looted the government. Chief Justice John Roberts’s ruling all but stops any bribery prosecution before it starts, by preventing any inquiry into the president’s motivations, even when the act looks and smells like a bribe. Justice Amy Coney Barrett noted that the ruling would “hamstring the prosecution” in a case such as bribery. (Having critiqued the misguided majority, Barrett then mystifyingly voted with it.)
Insider trading laws are weak, in any case. The Securities Exchange Act of 1934 prohibits using nonpublic information to guide stock trading, but its application to elected officials remains murky. In 2012, Congress passed the Stock Act to prevent insider trading among members of Congress, but the president and vice president remain exempt.
It’s epic corruption in plain sight. History shows that after scandal comes reform—often, but not always.
In January, the Brennan Center published Nine Solutions for Political Corruption. In it, we call for a law to require the president to divest from all stocks and other assets that could generate a conflict of interest. That was the norm, and now it must be a law. Ethics rules should cover presidents and vice presidents too.
And we call for a constitutional amendment to end the unilateral power of a president to issue corrupt pardons.
What about that Trump v. United States ruling? In the past, after the Supreme Court has erred so gravely, we’ve changed the Constitution. The 14th Amendment, for example, undid the Dred Scott decision. Another amendment is needed to clean up the immunity mess.
The sturdiest protection against corruption would be fierce anger from fleeced taxpayers. A few months ago, when asked about his conflicts of interest, Trump said, “I found out that nobody cared, and I’m allowed to.”
It turns out that Americans do care. In January, a YouGov poll found that “large shares of both Democrats and Republicans think their party focuses too little on corruption.”
Let’s make this a major issue for the campaign trail and press politicians from both parties to provide solutions, not just soundbites. Or else, as Oyer wrote, we risk having future presidents who “loot and pillage our country without a shadow of shame.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
‘Epic Insider Trading’: Nearly $1 Billion in Crude Oil Shorts Taken Just Before Report of US-Iran Peace Deal
"Only a select few in the top tax bracket are benefiting from this, and the majority of you ain’t in it," said former Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene.
May 06, 2026
Observers are once again raising concerns about insider trading on Wednesday after a trader took a colossal crude oil short position just over an hour before a US-Iran peace deal was reported to be on the horizon, causing prices to fall.
The Kobeissi Letter, a financial newsletter, reported on X that at 3:40 am on Wednesday, "nearly 10,000 contracts worth of crude oil shorts were taken without any major news."
This was equivalent to $920 million in notional value, which the letter described as "an unusually large trade" so early in the morning. But it would soon pay off.
At 4:50 am, just 70 minutes later, Axios published an exclusive scoop by Middle East reporter Barak Ravid that the White House believed the US and Iran were on the verge of agreeing to a one-page "memorandum of understanding" to end the war, which included more nuclear negotiations, one of the key sticking points for US President Donald Trump.
By 7:00 am, just over two hours after Axios dropped its report, oil prices had fallen by 12%, allowing the savvy investor to make $125 million in a matter of hours, which led to accusations that it was yet another example of "epic insider trading" by those in the know about Trump's plans.
Prices have since rebounded by about 8% after Iran announced the creation of the new "Persian Gulf Strait Authority," to mediate the passage of ships through the Strait of Hormuz on its terms.
The Trump administration has already been deluged with accusations that its members are using insider information to take advantage of financial markets and prediction market apps.
Last month, an active-duty US special forces soldier was indicted by the Department of Justice after he made about $400,000 betting on Polymarket that Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro would be removed from power, a bet he allegedly placed using classified information about an operation he himself was involved with.
More bettors collected around $1 million in profits from bets on the specific timing of Trump's war with Iran in late February. The Financial Times also reported a surge of more than $580 million in oil futures trading right before Trump announced a pause in strikes on Iran's energy facilities in March.
Of course, Wednesday's bet theoretically could have been made without the aid of insider information.
The new peace framework is the latest in what has seemed to be an endless pattern over the past several weeks in which US officials tell media outlets that a peace agreement is on the horizon, causing oil prices to dip, only for it to collapse later in the week, often with Trump issuing hostile threats or making new demands.
It has become such a familiar story that some have speculated that the announcement of productive ceasefire talks is deliberately choreographed to calm oil markets and bring down prices, which have become a growing problem for Trump among voters.
But as The Economic Times explained, the bet placed Wednesday morning likely "is not a routine hedge" or "a portfolio rebalancing move."
"At that hour, in that size," it said, "a crude oil short of that magnitude is a deliberate, high-conviction directional bet."
Former Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), a one-time Trump cheerleader who's become one of his leading critics, suggested Trump's erratic approach to negotiating an end to the war was just a tool used by him and his allies to profit.
"When is everyone going to start realizing that the on-again, off-again war/peace rhetoric is really just insider trading? And sprinkle in some murder," Greene wrote on social media. "Only a select few in the top tax bracket are benefiting from this, and the majority of you ain’t in it."
Democrats in Congress have urged the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to investigate what Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) suggested could be "mind-blowing corruption" by the White House, not only related to Trump's wars, but also to his tariff regime, which has caused similar market chaos that bettors have been able to capitalize on with fortuitously timed wagers.
But critics have described profiting from the machinations of a war that has killed more than 1,700 civilians as particularly grotesque.
"This has to stop," said Fox News commentator Jessica Tarlov. "Lives on the line so they can insider trade!"
Keep ReadingShow Less
Hegseth Broker Reportedly Tried to Make 'Big Investment' in Weapons Stocks Just Before Iran War
"In a functional democracy, he would offer his resignation tonight."
Mar 31, 2026
A broker for Pentagon Secretary Pete Hegseth reportedly tried to make a "big investment" in a bundle of weapons stocks just weeks before the US and Israel launched their war on Iran, an unpopular assault that Hegseth has aggressively championed.
Citing three unnamed people familiar with the matter, The Financial Times reported on Monday that Hegseth's "broker at Morgan Stanley contacted BlackRock in February about making a multimillion-dollar investment in the asset manager’s Defense Industrials Active ETF... shortly before the US launched military action against Tehran." The bombing began on February 28.
A spokesperson for the Pentagon denied the story, calling it "entirely false and fabricated" and insisting that neither Hegseth nor any of his representatives approached BlackRock about such an investment. But the FT reported that the broker's "inquiry on behalf of the high-profile potential client was flagged internally at BlackRock."
The investment was not ultimately made because the fund—which includes behemoths such as RTX, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and Northrop Grumman—was not available for Morgan Stanley clients to buy at the time.
The purchase would not have been immediately lucrative: Over the past month, the Defense Industrials Active ETF is down over 12%. But the reported allegation that Hegseth's broker sought to make the largest investment in the weapons industry set off alarm bells, particularly amid growing concerns that Trump administration officials are using inside knowledge and manipulating markets to cash in on the war.
"You know, back when the [US government] gave a damn about anti-corruption, this is something we would've seen as a 'no no,'" said Richard Nephew, a former anti-corruption coordinator at the US State Department.
Economist Justin Wolfers wrote of Hegseth that, "in a functional democracy, he would offer his resignation tonight."
Instead, Pentagon spokesperson Sean Parnell demanded that the FT issue an "immediate retraction," dismissing the newspaper's story as "yet another baseless, dishonest smear designed to mislead the public."
Hegseth has emerged as the most prominent and belligerent cheerleader of the Iran war in the US, and—according to President Donald Trump—the Pentagon chief was the first of the president's advisers to "speak up" in favor of the assault during the internal decision-making process.
Trump has also suggested Hegseth does not want the war to end, saying last week that the Pentagon chief was "quite disappointed" when the president claimed the conflict would be over shortly.
"I don’t want to say this, but I have to," Trump told reporters at the White House. "I said, Pete and General Razin’ Caine, this thing is going to be settled very soon, and they go, ‘Oh, that’s too bad.'"
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular