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.
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?
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.
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?
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?
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.