This AI just exposed the BIGGEST legal insider trading operation in America.
A platform called GovGreed built a seven-layer machine learning system that cross-references every stock trade disclosed by every sitting politician against the bills their committees control, the receive, and the companies their votes directly impact.
It scored all 540 politicians currently in Congress. And the numbers are crazy:
56% of every stock purchase made by Congress in the last 16 months was on a stock directly affected by a bill the buyer later voted on. That is 6,170 out of 11,016 total purchases.
More than HALF of all congressional stock buys are on companies whose fate that same politician is about to decide.
343 of 540 Congress members actively trade stocks while holding access to nonpublic legislative information.
That is 63.8% of the entire legislature making market bets with an informational edge that would put any hedge fund manager in prison.
The AI identified 752 active "Triple Signals" in the current Congress. A Triple Signal fires when three conditions line up at once:
The politician sits on the committee controlling a bill, they traded stock in a company affected by that bill, AND they received campaign contributions from that same industry.
Bills carrying these insider indicators pass at 5.4 TIMES the normal rate.
Now look at the individual leaderboard:
Nancy Pelosi's estimated portfolio sits at $194 million with a Greediness score of 98.1 out of 100
Ro Khanna made 13,231 trades across 800+ different tickers
Michael McCaul made 32,302 trades and filed 6,670 of them late
Thomas Suozzi filed 86.4% of his trades late with an average delay of 396 days, meaning his disclosures landed over a YEAR after he made the trade
And then there is Lisa McClain, the fourth-ranking Republican in the House. She has made 1,443 trades in three years, more than 98% of all politicians tracked.
She violated the STOCK Act twice in a single year, disclosing up to $900,000 in trades months after the legal deadline. Her husband bought up to $250,000 in Elon Musk's xAI, which quietly converted into SpaceX equity before last Friday's $2 trillion IPO.
The penalty for all of this? A $200 fine.
The number of Congress members ever prosecuted under the STOCK Act since it passed in 2012? Zero.
And the cruelest part is this:
A bill to ban congressional stock trading was introduced in January 2026. It has bipartisan support. Over 80% of American voters want it passed.
But Congress is sitting on it, because the people who would have to vote yes are the same people making millions from the system staying exactly the way it is.
They write the insider trading laws, they exempt themselves from enforcement, they trade on the information those laws generate, and when they get caught, they pay a fine that is basically nothing.
The AI didn't discover anything Congress was hiding. It just organized what was already public into a pattern so obvious that nobody can pretend it isn't there anymore.
Between raising money , grifting stock money and fucking whatever they can get to stand still long enough , NO WONDER they don't have time to read the Corporate Lobbyists bills.
Not sure I want them effing up real estate further as an alternative.
They should just be allowed to only invest in special congressional index funds tied to things like median citizen income, etc, and which they pay into should be published and only modifiable in the September before the election. Would be worth Uncle Sam paying out a tiny bit more by running the index.
If we’re being honest and actually using the same GovGreed/AI data for a real leaderboard, President Trump would smoke everyone on it and take the top spot by a HUGE margin.
Pelosi’s $194 million portfolio with that 98.1 greediness score? Trump’s Q1 2026 trades alone were worth between $220 million and $750 million in transaction volume. That's more money moved in three months than a lot of these multiyear congressional portfolios.
Ro Khanna’s 13,231 trades across hundreds of tickers? Trump did around 3,600 to 3,711 individual trades in that same first quarter (like 40-60 trades every single market day).
McCaul with his 32k trades and thousands filed late, or Suozzi with the crazy delay percentages? Trump’s pace in just 90 days beats most of their highlights, and he had the usual late filing fines too (that classic $200 penalty).
And Lisa McClain’s 1,443 trades over three years putting her in the top 98%? Trump’s Q1 alone was 2.5 times her ENTIRE three year total.
This all comes straight from the public STOCK Act disclosures. Office of Government Ethics filings, Quiver Quantitative’s Trump tracker, etc...
But that's a different metric than the one being discussed.
The original claim wasn't about percentage wealth growth. It was about trading activity, potential conflicts of interest, and access to information.
If we're switching from "possible insider advantages" to "percentage increase in net worth," then we're talking about something different entirely.
You're moving the goalposts here.
The original post wasn't comparing percentages, it was implying guilt based on the sheer amount of trades. If we were comparing apples to apples, then Trump would definitely be implicated as guilty as everyone else in the OP was.
I did not make the original post or goalposts, so I moved nothing. My statement stood alone. Someone's wealth increasing several fold after being in congress for a few years is not the same as Trump going from 4.5 to 6.5 billion(~3% a year) from 2015 to today, when the VOO SP 500 index went from 184 to 681 (~12% a year)over the same time period, he underperformed the market by a heck of a lot.
I do not give a singular shit about OP. Pay attention. Not one singular crap about OP. My comment in reply to him was that his video was only tangentially related to his assertion, and did not contemplate it further on those grounds as I assumed him a grifting tweeter and do not defend him in any way.
I was a making standalone prediction that Trump would drop off the list if you based it on percentage, I did not make an assertion that he would, but a prediction, as I think my original verbage well implies. I made this in response to a piece(the quoted piece) of your comment and your comment alone, and not even the whole thing. I made the second claim, with data, as a second refutation that Trump's investing strategy is backed by significant insider trading, as if it was, he would be insanely terrible at it.
You can't just ignore the entire reason I entered the thread and expect everyone to pretend it doesn't exist.
The OP was accusing members of Congress of effectively engaging in insider trading based on trading activity, access to information, and conflicts of interest.
My point was that if we're applying that standard consistently, people should at least consider whether similar questions could be asked elsewhere.
Since then you've changed the discussion from trading activity to percentage wealth growth, and now to whether Trump beat the S&P 500.
Those are different topics.
A person can underperform the market and still have a conflict of interest. A person can make bad trades and still have access to privileged information.
If your point is that Trump wasn't a particularly successful investor, that's fine. But that's not the issue I was discussing, and it's not the issue raised by the OP either. I'm interested jn discussing the topics in the OP, even if you aren't. So if you don't care about it, then you don't need to be involved in tje conversation.
You can't just ignore the entire reason I entered the thread
I can, and did. I made a tangential reply, it was not intended as an argument as you had apparently taken it.
The second reply was a bit of an argument as you seemed to want to argue. The third contained a statement to indicate that I agreed OP was full of crap on different grounds.
Those are different topics.
Indeed. I am not opposing you in court, a reply on a threaded forum is just that, a reply, in this case an admittedly tangential one, but I though the specific piece I quoted made that clear. If it wasn't clear the original claim wasn't an argument, I apologize.
Whether someone is good at making money isn't really the issue being discussed.
The concern raised by the post is whether government officials are trading while possessing information unavailable to ordinary investors.
A person's business success doesn't answer that question one way or the other.
I'll also point out that other people are using the defense that Trump isn't personally making the trades himself. But you seem to be doubling down on him personally using the knowledge he has to make money. That's interesting.
Interesting how every reply avoids the actual question.
The topic was whether the same conflict of interest/insider trading standard should be applied consistently.
Your response is salary donations, losing money, and assassination attempts.
None of those address the argument. They're all reasons why you think Trump is a good guy. (I'm not saying he isn't. Just that being a goog guy isn't an actual argument for why potential conflict of interest suddenly doesn't matter or exist.)
If the standard is sound, it should survive being applied to people we like. If the standard falls apart the moment Trump gets mentioned, then we're not really discussing the standard anymore, are we?
This is one of the major reasons we get saddled with the term "cult". When we hold Trump to an entirely different standard than we do virtually everyone else on the planet like this, we might as well break out the sparkly gift wrap and pretty bows to make a lovely little gift of this as more ammunition for the liberals in calling us a cult.
One standard. Everyone gets judged by it. Why is that such a bizarre concept for people to grasp?
Instead of making a strawman argument that President Trump secretly ran for president because he knew he could make so much money insider trading, maybe you should ask yourself why he would do such a thing as someone who was already a billionaire.
Why would a billionaire risk his life, and put all of his real assets he created over decades of hard work, in jeopardy, simply to make a few more bucks by insider trading from the whitehouse?
You are not one of "Us." And no, we are not a cult.
Keep blathering and bloviating if it nurses your need for meaning in life. I could care less.
I never claimed Trump ran for office to make money from insider trading.
My point was much simpler: if access to privileged information and active trading are evidence of a conflict of interest for Congress, then the same standard should be examined consistently for everyone.
Instead of addressing that, you keep switching to Trump's motives, wealth, personal sacrifices, and character.
Whether Trump is a billionaire, donated his salary, or risked his life has nothing to do with whether the standard itself is being applied consistently.
Fair point; which brings up point is it accurately weighted. In other words what metrics go into determining what insider trading is? Based on what I'm seeing here has more to do with quantitative volume/transactions and less to do with qualitative "insider information" which is obviously more of a gray area metric.
Still, we would all agree much more oversight needed as clearly there are advantages for those privy to info. I will say this have a family member who is "restricted" on purchasing many different securities based on his role (quite frankly very limited as to what he can purchase). The same rules should apply to those in Congress and/or limit them to ETF's and boring mutual funds as opposed to individual stocks where manipulation can potentially occur.
Yes, I agree 100% that more oversight is needed. Anyone that has insider info that benefits them over the rest of the population when it comes to trades and such should definitely face much higher scrutiny and regulations.
That's why the Van Dyke case is interesting.
A Special Forces soldier was arrested for using nonpublic information about the Maduro operation to place bets before the public knew what was coming and made a ton of money.
The government's position was simple, if you use privileged information unavailable to the public to make money, that's insider trading.
The only question is whether we're applying that same principle consistently when the people involved are politicians instead of soldiers.
I firmly believe in having ONE set of standards that are applied consistently to EVERYONE. Politicians or Soldiers, Democrats or Republicans, Congress or the White House, etc. Otherwise it's just picking and choosing when to apply standards, and that's what hypocrites do.
I'm not saying that there isn't a lot of insider trading going on in congress, because obviously there is.
But before anyone starts running off to try to redpill normies or anything using this info, might want to take a peek at what it says about President Trump's trades/investments.
Did Trump actually make any trades or investments at all? I thought all his stuff had been taken out of his personal control while serving as president.
Of course there are no really rich people physically day trading. That's obvious. But they are giving buy and sell orders on the stocks they directly affect with their votes. Trump isn't doing that. His trust is buying and selling on public information.
That's exactly the distinction I was asking about.
Nobody serious thinks members of Congress are sitting there manually day trading on Robinhood between votes.
The concern has always been whether they, their spouses, or their trusts (and yes, plenty of people in Congress listed on that AI site are using trusts just like Trump) are making trades in companies or sectors they directly affect through legislation, committee work, regulation, investigations, appropriations, or access to nonpublic information.
If Trump's trust is trading solely on public information and operating independently of him, then fine. But that's where I notice a different standard being applied.
When it's members of Congress, people immediately assume influence, coordination, hidden knowledge, and indirect control through spouses or trusts.
When it's Trump, people immediately assume complete separation, no influence, no knowledge, and no involvement whatsoever.
Maybe Congress is innocent. Maybe Trump is innocent. Maybe neither is. Who really knows?
My point is that the standard should be the same.
If we're going to be skeptical of congressional trades because officials may have access to information or influence outcomes, then we should apply the same scrutiny to everyone in positions of power. If we're going to presume innocence because assets are held in a trust, then that presumption should apply consistently as well.
The question isn't "rich person owns stocks."
The question is access, influence, timing, control, and whether different rules are being applied depending on whose name is attached to the account.
It really bothers me that so many people seem to be having such a hard time coming to terms with the concept of one standard for everyone. Is it REALLY that bizarre a concept?
People seem to think this govgreed site shows similar activity by the President, so I asked Grok:
"Separate Context on Trump:
Trump's own financial disclosures (via OGE) have drawn scrutiny in 2026 for high-volume trading in his trust accounts — thousands of transactions (e.g., 3,700+ in Q1) involving tech, defense, and policy-sensitive stocks. Critics (including in hearings with Elizabeth Warren) have raised conflict-of-interest questions, especially given timing with policy announcements.
pbs.org
However:The Trump Organization states these are discretionary accounts managed by independent third-party firms with no input from Trump or his family.
pbs.org
Presidents are not covered by the same STOCK Act enforcement mechanisms as Congress (though broader ethics rules apply).
Trump has publicly supported bans on congressional stock trading (e.g., in State of the Union remarks).
finance.yahoo.com
Bottom line: The post is strictly about congressional trading patterns. It does not reference or implicate Trump. Separate debates exist about presidential disclosures, but they're outside this specific GovGreed/congressional analysis."
I looked deeper, and the cleanest answer is that Trump’s accounts absolutely were actively trading in 2026. The filings show thousands of transactions in Q1 alone, worth hundreds of millions in disclosed value ranges.
But that does not automatically mean Trump personally picked the trades.
The Trump Organization’s defense is that the accounts were fully discretionary, managed by independent third party institutions, with no input or advance notice to Trump, his family, or the company.
That matters, because “Trump’s accounts traded” and “Trump personally directed trades” are not the same claim.
That said, the concern does NOT disappear. The assets still benefit Trump, and his trust is not a true blind trust. So the stronger argument is not “Trump was sitting there day-trading.” The stronger argument is “a sitting president retained beneficial ownership of actively traded individual securities while making policy decisions that could affect those securities.”
So if we are comparing him to Congress, we need to keep the mechanism straight:
Congress issue: lawmakers personally or family linked trading while voting on bills and sitting on committees.
Trump issue: presidential beneficial ownership of actively traded assets in a non blind trust, with policy power over markets.
Both can be conflict of jnterest problems, but they are not identical fact patterns.
But be honest, if it was Obama or Biden instead of Trump in this situation, would you still be fine with it?
I'll also point out that members of Congress aren't day trading themselves and have similar third parties that handle their trades amd use the exact same argument that third parties handle their trades. If they're able to influence their trades, such as implied by the OP, then obviously President Trump has the same opportunity since his concerns are not held in a blind trust, as is the norm when Presidents enter office.
Either the possibility of influence matters, or it doesn't. The same principle should be applied consistently. Congress or the President. Same standards should apply for everyone.
White house is immune from prosecution by the executive, crazy old lady. The people kicking president out is the first way to go after a president, and the people made their choice. Impeachment followed by conviction is the second way, and it isn't happening.
What does the video have to do with the tweet though?
u/#chiefwarren
Copy Pasta Alfredo:
This AI just exposed the BIGGEST legal insider trading operation in America.
A platform called GovGreed built a seven-layer machine learning system that cross-references every stock trade disclosed by every sitting politician against the bills their committees control, the receive, and the companies their votes directly impact.
It scored all 540 politicians currently in Congress. And the numbers are crazy:
56% of every stock purchase made by Congress in the last 16 months was on a stock directly affected by a bill the buyer later voted on. That is 6,170 out of 11,016 total purchases.
More than HALF of all congressional stock buys are on companies whose fate that same politician is about to decide.
343 of 540 Congress members actively trade stocks while holding access to nonpublic legislative information.
That is 63.8% of the entire legislature making market bets with an informational edge that would put any hedge fund manager in prison.
The AI identified 752 active "Triple Signals" in the current Congress. A Triple Signal fires when three conditions line up at once:
The politician sits on the committee controlling a bill, they traded stock in a company affected by that bill, AND they received campaign contributions from that same industry.
Bills carrying these insider indicators pass at 5.4 TIMES the normal rate.
Now look at the individual leaderboard:
And then there is Lisa McClain, the fourth-ranking Republican in the House. She has made 1,443 trades in three years, more than 98% of all politicians tracked.
She violated the STOCK Act twice in a single year, disclosing up to $900,000 in trades months after the legal deadline. Her husband bought up to $250,000 in Elon Musk's xAI, which quietly converted into SpaceX equity before last Friday's $2 trillion IPO.
The penalty for all of this? A $200 fine.
The number of Congress members ever prosecuted under the STOCK Act since it passed in 2012? Zero.
And the cruelest part is this:
A bill to ban congressional stock trading was introduced in January 2026. It has bipartisan support. Over 80% of American voters want it passed.
But Congress is sitting on it, because the people who would have to vote yes are the same people making millions from the system staying exactly the way it is.
They write the insider trading laws, they exempt themselves from enforcement, they trade on the information those laws generate, and when they get caught, they pay a fine that is basically nothing.
The AI didn't discover anything Congress was hiding. It just organized what was already public into a pattern so obvious that nobody can pretend it isn't there anymore.
Between raising money , grifting stock money and fucking whatever they can get to stand still long enough , NO WONDER they don't have time to read the Corporate Lobbyists bills.
Okay, now do the executive.
Not sure I want them effing up real estate further as an alternative.
They should just be allowed to only invest in special congressional index funds tied to things like median citizen income, etc, and which they pay into should be published and only modifiable in the September before the election. Would be worth Uncle Sam paying out a tiny bit more by running the index.
They're already laundering money through real estate... just look at Schiffty
This kicks some butt. I'll ask the mods for a sticky.
If we’re being honest and actually using the same GovGreed/AI data for a real leaderboard, President Trump would smoke everyone on it and take the top spot by a HUGE margin.
Pelosi’s $194 million portfolio with that 98.1 greediness score? Trump’s Q1 2026 trades alone were worth between $220 million and $750 million in transaction volume. That's more money moved in three months than a lot of these multiyear congressional portfolios.
Ro Khanna’s 13,231 trades across hundreds of tickers? Trump did around 3,600 to 3,711 individual trades in that same first quarter (like 40-60 trades every single market day).
McCaul with his 32k trades and thousands filed late, or Suozzi with the crazy delay percentages? Trump’s pace in just 90 days beats most of their highlights, and he had the usual late filing fines too (that classic $200 penalty).
And Lisa McClain’s 1,443 trades over three years putting her in the top 98%? Trump’s Q1 alone was 2.5 times her ENTIRE three year total.
This all comes straight from the public STOCK Act disclosures. Office of Government Ethics filings, Quiver Quantitative’s Trump tracker, etc...
Do it as a percentage of wealth when he entered office, and I bet he drops off.
But that's a different metric than the one being discussed.
The original claim wasn't about percentage wealth growth. It was about trading activity, potential conflicts of interest, and access to information.
If we're switching from "possible insider advantages" to "percentage increase in net worth," then we're talking about something different entirely.
You're moving the goalposts here.
The original post wasn't comparing percentages, it was implying guilt based on the sheer amount of trades. If we were comparing apples to apples, then Trump would definitely be implicated as guilty as everyone else in the OP was.
I did not make the original post or goalposts, so I moved nothing. My statement stood alone. Someone's wealth increasing several fold after being in congress for a few years is not the same as Trump going from 4.5 to 6.5 billion(~3% a year) from 2015 to today, when the VOO SP 500 index went from 184 to 681 (~12% a year)over the same time period, he underperformed the market by a heck of a lot.
That's twice now the subject has changed.
First it became "percentage increase in wealth."
Now it's "did he beat the market?"
The OP wasn't about either of those things.
The OP was claiming that active trading combined with access to inside government information is suspicious.
When I point out that the same question could be asked elsewhere, the conversation immediately becomes about something else.
Why keep changing the metrics instead of discussing the one the OP started with?
I do not give a singular shit about OP. Pay attention. Not one singular crap about OP. My comment in reply to him was that his video was only tangentially related to his assertion, and did not contemplate it further on those grounds as I assumed him a grifting tweeter and do not defend him in any way.
I was a making standalone prediction that Trump would drop off the list if you based it on percentage, I did not make an assertion that he would, but a prediction, as I think my original verbage well implies. I made this in response to a piece(the quoted piece) of your comment and your comment alone, and not even the whole thing. I made the second claim, with data, as a second refutation that Trump's investing strategy is backed by significant insider trading, as if it was, he would be insanely terrible at it.
You can't just ignore the entire reason I entered the thread and expect everyone to pretend it doesn't exist.
The OP was accusing members of Congress of effectively engaging in insider trading based on trading activity, access to information, and conflicts of interest.
My point was that if we're applying that standard consistently, people should at least consider whether similar questions could be asked elsewhere.
Since then you've changed the discussion from trading activity to percentage wealth growth, and now to whether Trump beat the S&P 500.
Those are different topics.
A person can underperform the market and still have a conflict of interest. A person can make bad trades and still have access to privileged information.
If your point is that Trump wasn't a particularly successful investor, that's fine. But that's not the issue I was discussing, and it's not the issue raised by the OP either. I'm interested jn discussing the topics in the OP, even if you aren't. So if you don't care about it, then you don't need to be involved in tje conversation.
I can, and did. I made a tangential reply, it was not intended as an argument as you had apparently taken it.
The second reply was a bit of an argument as you seemed to want to argue. The third contained a statement to indicate that I agreed OP was full of crap on different grounds.
Indeed. I am not opposing you in court, a reply on a threaded forum is just that, a reply, in this case an admittedly tangential one, but I though the specific piece I quoted made that clear. If it wasn't clear the original claim wasn't an argument, I apologize.
Breaking News!
Billionaire knows how to make money!
In other news, same man makes Trillions for his country!
/s
Whether someone is good at making money isn't really the issue being discussed.
The concern raised by the post is whether government officials are trading while possessing information unavailable to ordinary investors.
A person's business success doesn't answer that question one way or the other.
I'll also point out that other people are using the defense that Trump isn't personally making the trades himself. But you seem to be doubling down on him personally using the knowledge he has to make money. That's interesting.
This Just In!
Billionaire donates entire salary for both (all three?) presidential terms!
Billionaire loses billions in first term!
Bullets to the head! Drones in-bound!
More at 10!
Interesting how every reply avoids the actual question.
The topic was whether the same conflict of interest/insider trading standard should be applied consistently.
Your response is salary donations, losing money, and assassination attempts.
None of those address the argument. They're all reasons why you think Trump is a good guy. (I'm not saying he isn't. Just that being a goog guy isn't an actual argument for why potential conflict of interest suddenly doesn't matter or exist.)
If the standard is sound, it should survive being applied to people we like. If the standard falls apart the moment Trump gets mentioned, then we're not really discussing the standard anymore, are we?
This is one of the major reasons we get saddled with the term "cult". When we hold Trump to an entirely different standard than we do virtually everyone else on the planet like this, we might as well break out the sparkly gift wrap and pretty bows to make a lovely little gift of this as more ammunition for the liberals in calling us a cult.
One standard. Everyone gets judged by it. Why is that such a bizarre concept for people to grasp?
Instead of making a strawman argument that President Trump secretly ran for president because he knew he could make so much money insider trading, maybe you should ask yourself why he would do such a thing as someone who was already a billionaire.
Why would a billionaire risk his life, and put all of his real assets he created over decades of hard work, in jeopardy, simply to make a few more bucks by insider trading from the whitehouse?
You are not one of "Us." And no, we are not a cult.
Keep blathering and bloviating if it nurses your need for meaning in life. I could care less.
You're arguing against something I never said.
I never claimed Trump ran for office to make money from insider trading.
My point was much simpler: if access to privileged information and active trading are evidence of a conflict of interest for Congress, then the same standard should be examined consistently for everyone.
Instead of addressing that, you keep switching to Trump's motives, wealth, personal sacrifices, and character.
Whether Trump is a billionaire, donated his salary, or risked his life has nothing to do with whether the standard itself is being applied consistently.
You seem to be claiming Trump is insider trading, no?
We expect sauce around here. Make it spicy.
u/#spicy
Fair point; which brings up point is it accurately weighted. In other words what metrics go into determining what insider trading is? Based on what I'm seeing here has more to do with quantitative volume/transactions and less to do with qualitative "insider information" which is obviously more of a gray area metric.
Still, we would all agree much more oversight needed as clearly there are advantages for those privy to info. I will say this have a family member who is "restricted" on purchasing many different securities based on his role (quite frankly very limited as to what he can purchase). The same rules should apply to those in Congress and/or limit them to ETF's and boring mutual funds as opposed to individual stocks where manipulation can potentially occur.
Yes, I agree 100% that more oversight is needed. Anyone that has insider info that benefits them over the rest of the population when it comes to trades and such should definitely face much higher scrutiny and regulations.
That's why the Van Dyke case is interesting.
A Special Forces soldier was arrested for using nonpublic information about the Maduro operation to place bets before the public knew what was coming and made a ton of money.
The government's position was simple, if you use privileged information unavailable to the public to make money, that's insider trading.
The only question is whether we're applying that same principle consistently when the people involved are politicians instead of soldiers.
I firmly believe in having ONE set of standards that are applied consistently to EVERYONE. Politicians or Soldiers, Democrats or Republicans, Congress or the White House, etc. Otherwise it's just picking and choosing when to apply standards, and that's what hypocrites do.
Congress Trades on Inside Knowledge. We Have the Receipts. https://www.govgreed.com
I'm not saying that there isn't a lot of insider trading going on in congress, because obviously there is.
But before anyone starts running off to try to redpill normies or anything using this info, might want to take a peek at what it says about President Trump's trades/investments.
Did Trump actually make any trades or investments at all? I thought all his stuff had been taken out of his personal control while serving as president.
A true blind trust has never been set up for his business interests. His people claim that a third party is responsible for his trades.
But that's the same for many people in Congress. They're not sitting there day-trading themselves.
If they have the opportunity to speak to/influence the people doing their trading, then obviously so does Trump.
Of course there are no really rich people physically day trading. That's obvious. But they are giving buy and sell orders on the stocks they directly affect with their votes. Trump isn't doing that. His trust is buying and selling on public information.
That's exactly the distinction I was asking about.
Nobody serious thinks members of Congress are sitting there manually day trading on Robinhood between votes.
The concern has always been whether they, their spouses, or their trusts (and yes, plenty of people in Congress listed on that AI site are using trusts just like Trump) are making trades in companies or sectors they directly affect through legislation, committee work, regulation, investigations, appropriations, or access to nonpublic information.
If Trump's trust is trading solely on public information and operating independently of him, then fine. But that's where I notice a different standard being applied.
When it's members of Congress, people immediately assume influence, coordination, hidden knowledge, and indirect control through spouses or trusts.
When it's Trump, people immediately assume complete separation, no influence, no knowledge, and no involvement whatsoever.
Maybe Congress is innocent. Maybe Trump is innocent. Maybe neither is. Who really knows?
My point is that the standard should be the same.
If we're going to be skeptical of congressional trades because officials may have access to information or influence outcomes, then we should apply the same scrutiny to everyone in positions of power. If we're going to presume innocence because assets are held in a trust, then that presumption should apply consistently as well.
The question isn't "rich person owns stocks."
The question is access, influence, timing, control, and whether different rules are being applied depending on whose name is attached to the account.
It really bothers me that so many people seem to be having such a hard time coming to terms with the concept of one standard for everyone. Is it REALLY that bizarre a concept?
Congress is full of criminals. Trump isn't one. Trump is not voting on bills that affect stock prices. Congress is. It actually is that simple.
Again, completly missing the point. I don't think repeating my stance yet again is going to make any difference
I didn't miss the point. You somehow think that Trump should be examined, when only Congress can vote to affect stock prices.
People seem to think this govgreed site shows similar activity by the President, so I asked Grok:
"Separate Context on Trump: Trump's own financial disclosures (via OGE) have drawn scrutiny in 2026 for high-volume trading in his trust accounts — thousands of transactions (e.g., 3,700+ in Q1) involving tech, defense, and policy-sensitive stocks. Critics (including in hearings with Elizabeth Warren) have raised conflict-of-interest questions, especially given timing with policy announcements.
pbs.org
However:The Trump Organization states these are discretionary accounts managed by independent third-party firms with no input from Trump or his family.
pbs.org
Presidents are not covered by the same STOCK Act enforcement mechanisms as Congress (though broader ethics rules apply). Trump has publicly supported bans on congressional stock trading (e.g., in State of the Union remarks).
finance.yahoo.com
Bottom line: The post is strictly about congressional trading patterns. It does not reference or implicate Trump. Separate debates exist about presidential disclosures, but they're outside this specific GovGreed/congressional analysis."
I looked deeper, and the cleanest answer is that Trump’s accounts absolutely were actively trading in 2026. The filings show thousands of transactions in Q1 alone, worth hundreds of millions in disclosed value ranges.
But that does not automatically mean Trump personally picked the trades.
The Trump Organization’s defense is that the accounts were fully discretionary, managed by independent third party institutions, with no input or advance notice to Trump, his family, or the company.
That matters, because “Trump’s accounts traded” and “Trump personally directed trades” are not the same claim.
That said, the concern does NOT disappear. The assets still benefit Trump, and his trust is not a true blind trust. So the stronger argument is not “Trump was sitting there day-trading.” The stronger argument is “a sitting president retained beneficial ownership of actively traded individual securities while making policy decisions that could affect those securities.”
So if we are comparing him to Congress, we need to keep the mechanism straight:
Congress issue: lawmakers personally or family linked trading while voting on bills and sitting on committees.
Trump issue: presidential beneficial ownership of actively traded assets in a non blind trust, with policy power over markets.
Both can be conflict of jnterest problems, but they are not identical fact patterns.
But be honest, if it was Obama or Biden instead of Trump in this situation, would you still be fine with it?
I'll also point out that members of Congress aren't day trading themselves and have similar third parties that handle their trades amd use the exact same argument that third parties handle their trades. If they're able to influence their trades, such as implied by the OP, then obviously President Trump has the same opportunity since his concerns are not held in a blind trust, as is the norm when Presidents enter office.
Either the possibility of influence matters, or it doesn't. The same principle should be applied consistently. Congress or the President. Same standards should apply for everyone.
White house is immune from prosecution by the executive, crazy old lady. The people kicking president out is the first way to go after a president, and the people made their choice. Impeachment followed by conviction is the second way, and it isn't happening.
What does the video have to do with the tweet though?