Schiff’s Smear: Why Trump’s Market Call Wasn’t Insider Trading

It is tempting, especially in our era of weaponized ethics and drive-by media narratives, to regard every presidential action as a trapdoor to scandal. The latest target is President Trump’s market-moving message: a post on Truth Social stating that it was a great time to buy stocks, punctuated with the letters “DJT”, his initials and also the ticker for his media company, followed shortly by an official pause on a sweeping set of tariffs. That same afternoon, the S&P 500 surged more than nine percent. The result was predictable: headlines, insinuations, and a familiar face calling for an investigation. Senator Adam Schiff, seizing on the spectacle, declared, “I’m going to do my best to find out,” suggesting that Trump’s actions may constitute insider trading or market manipulation.

But the charge collapses under scrutiny.

Insider trading, according to legal authorities such as the US Securities and Exchange Commission, occurs when a person with access to material, nonpublic information uses it to buy or sell securities. The prohibition rests on the fiduciary breach involved: one must trade securities based on an informational edge obtained unethically or illegally. In this case, there was no trade. No security changed hands. No financial instrument was manipulated in private. President Trump issued a public statement. He did not buy or sell stocks. He did not instruct others to do so on his behalf. He did not tip confidential information to a select few.

Still, Schiff persists. His comments drip with suspicion: "Family meme coins and all the rest of it are not beyond insider trading or enriching themselves." The insinuation is thick, the evidence thin. A public statement accessible to millions on Truth Social is not a covert whisper in a marble hallway. It is not privileged access. It is not, by any traditional or legal definition, a violation of fiduciary duty.

But what of the timing? Surely the proximity of the statement to the tariff pause implies foreknowledge. That much is certain. The President knew what he was about to do. But knowledge of one’s own policy does not constitute insider information. In fact, it would be peculiar if a sitting President did not know the content and timing of an impending trade policy decision—though, to be fair, the country recently endured just that. A torrent of tell-all books and behind-the-scenes memoirs has made it unmistakably clear that President Biden was often unaware of key decisions, including major trade actions. That dysfunction, while regrettable, should not become the standard against which presidential awareness is judged.

The more interesting question, then, is whether a President, armed with knowledge of a policy decision and the foreseeable market consequences, can ethically signal to the public that market conditions look favorable. Here, we find ourselves not in the territory of insider trading law, but in the foggier province of political ethics. And here too, the facts are clarifying. Presidents have long made statements that influence markets. Every Federal Reserve chairman, every Treasury secretary, every chief executive who hints at rate cuts or stimulus packages or infrastructure bills alters expectations. Market actors interpret such signals and place bets accordingly. No one suggests that when the Chair of the Federal Reserve gives a dovish speech, he has committed a felony.

The parallel with Congress, after all, is troubling. Members of Congress have repeatedly faced scrutiny for stock trades made after classified briefings. The COVID-19 era brought this to light with unpleasant sharpness. But once again, we must pause and distinguish. Congressional trading involves private action based on nonpublic information. It is not the same as a public official saying aloud what he believes to be true and doing so before a crowd of millions. Moreover, the STOCK Act—designed to curtail congressional self-enrichment—targets the use of confidential information for personal trading gain. It does not prohibit speaking. It prohibits trading. And there is no evidence that President Trump traded, tipped, or otherwise sought private enrichment.

If one desires a true ethical comparison, we ought to contrast this case with those where public officials have hidden their motives or failed to disclose holdings. Consider Speaker Pelosi’s long pattern of trades through her husband’s accounts, often involving companies under active legislation. That behavior, while legal under current interpretations, raises ethical alarms far louder than anything observed in this instance. Yet Senator Schiff, ever alert to the possibility of impropriety when it involves Donald Trump, has shown no such interest in calling for investigations into the Pelosi trades, or into the many other members of Congress who appear to have profited handsomely from nonpublic information. This selective outrage reveals not a principled concern for ethical conduct, but a partisan impulse masquerading as oversight.

Let us restate the central principle. Public speech is not insider trading. Even if a statement is made with full awareness of an impending policy change, the act of publicly expressing an opinion about market conditions, without trading on that opinion, does not violate law or ethics. Indeed, were it otherwise, we would be forced into absurdities: forbidding presidents from expressing economic optimism, or requiring silence in the face of looming announcements. Such constraints would not bolster market integrity; they would suppress transparency and chill discourse.

There is also the matter of market psychology. In our digital age, markets move not merely on facts, but on perception. If a President’s post shifts sentiment, is that manipulation? Only if one accepts the untenable notion that a leader must remain silent precisely when public clarity is most needed. Markets crave signals. Investors seek clues. To deny the President a voice because it might move the market is to demand a kind of disembodied governance, a technocracy stripped of charisma and communication. That is not democratic accountability. It is bureaucratic sterility.

Furthermore, we should consider precedent. Presidents have long touted the economy under their stewardship. Reagan did so with patriotic flourish. Obama did so after the 2008 crash. FDR famously rallied spirits in the darkest days of the Depression. None were accused of insider trading. What distinguishes Trump is not the substance of his speech, but the reaction it provokes. That reaction says more about the political environment than about the act itself.

In the end, this is a test case in political epistemology. Can we tell the difference between speech and trade? Between optimism and manipulation? Between foresight and fraud? If we cannot, then every leader becomes a suspect, and every word a possible crime. That is not the rule of law. That is the rule of suspicion.

President Trump’s post was not a secret. It was not an act of deception. It was not a trade. It was a signal. And in politics, signals are often everything. Whether one likes the signal or not is a matter of partisanship. But whether it was legal, and whether it was insider trading, is a matter of fact. On those questions, the answer is clear. It was not.

If you don't already please follow @amuse on 𝕏.