Trump suddenly buys $82 million in bonds! Meta and Intel are suspected to benefit from insider trading.

According to the financial disclosure documents released by the U.S. Office of Government Ethics (OGE) on November 15, it shows that Trump purchased corporate bonds and municipal bonds worth at least $82 million during the period from late August to early October this year, including new investments in industries that benefited from his policy push. The corporate bonds purchased include Meta and Intel, and the Democrats are calling for the SEC to investigate whether Trump was involved in insider trading or market manipulation.

175 transactions exposed involving industries benefiting from policies

(Source: Reuters)

According to a report from Reuters, this information is based on the transparency law of the Government Ethics Act of 1978 and does not list the specific amounts for each transaction, only providing a rough range. The documents show that the total value of these bond purchases exceeds $337 million. All federally elected officials and senior appointed officials engaged in securities transactions are required to submit such reports. The reports themselves do not provide the exact amounts or prices for each transaction, as the relevant regulations only require the disclosure of a rough range for stock, bond, commodity futures, and other securities transactions.

The majority of the assets listed in the documents revealed that day consist of bonds issued by municipal authorities, states, counties, school districts, and other entities related to public institutions. The bonds recently purchased by Trump involve multiple industries, including those that have benefited or are currently benefiting from changes in government policies, such as the easing of financial regulations.

The corporate bonds acquired by Trump include chip manufacturers such as Broadcom and Qualcomm, technology companies like Meta Platforms, retailers like Home Depot and CVS Health, as well as bonds from Wall Street banks such as Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley. These companies have all benefited from changes in Trump's policies. Chip manufacturers benefited from the Trump administration's support policies for the domestic semiconductor industry, technology companies benefited from the relaxation of antitrust enforcement, and Wall Street banks directly profited from the loosening of financial regulations.

Trump's Main Industries and Companies Involved in Bond Purchases

Chip manufacturers: Broadcom, Qualcomm, Intel (benefiting from domestic semiconductor policies)

Tech Company: Meta Platforms (benefiting from antitrust loosening)

Retail Companies: Home Depot, CVS Health (benefiting from tax and regulatory policies)

Wall Street Banks: Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, JPMorgan Chase (benefiting from financial deregulation)

This investment model has raised serious concerns about conflicts of interest. When a person both formulates policies that affect an industry and invests in companies within that industry, it is difficult for the public to believe that their policy decisions are based on national interest rather than personal gain. Even if Trump himself did not actively manipulate policies to benefit his investments, the mere existence of such a portfolio is sufficient to undermine public trust in the government's fairness.

Morgan Stanley bond purchase timing raises questions

In late August, Trump also bought bonds from investment banks such as JPMorgan. On November 14 local time, Trump requested the U.S. Department of Justice to investigate JPMorgan's relationship with the late billionaire Jeffrey Epstein. JPMorgan responded by stating that it “regrets” its past relationship with Epstein and did not help him carry out “horrific crimes.”

This timeline is highly suspicious. Trump bought JPMorgan bonds in August and then asked the Justice Department to investigate the bank in November. This raises two possible interpretations. The first is that Trump was unaware that he would take action against the bank a few months later when he bought the bonds, in which case the investment decision is unrelated to policy actions. The second is that Trump knew the investigation would not cause substantial harm to the bank and could even boost market confidence after the investigation was concluded, in which case the bond purchase might be based on insider information.

Under Trump's instruction, the U.S. government acquired shares of Intel, and after that, Trump also purchased Intel bonds. This case is more direct. The government's decision to acquire shares of Intel will boost the company's market confidence and financial condition, thereby enhancing the value of its bonds. Trump's purchase of Intel bonds after the government acquisition raises suspicions that this is an investment made using insider information.

It is worth noting that Trump was previously exposed for making a huge profit from “token issuance.” The Trump family earned over 1 billion dollars within a year by issuing meme coins, stablecoins, and operating cryptocurrency platforms. This model of directly monetizing through policy influence has sparked widespread criticism of conflicts of interest. The bond purchase case further confirms Trump's willingness to use his political position for investment profits.

Democratic lawmakers call for SEC investigation

According to Time magazine, Adam Schiff called on the U.S. Congress on Wednesday to investigate whether Trump's sudden suspension of a series of tariffs was involved in insider trading or market manipulation, which caused stock prices to soar. Schiff said, “Family meme coins and everything else are not limited to insider trading or self-dealing. I hope to find answers as soon as possible.”

This criticism touches on the core issues of Trump's economic policy. Trump has repeatedly announced significant policy changes through social media, and these announcements often trigger extreme market fluctuations. If Trump had already established corresponding investment positions before making the announcements, he could profit from these market fluctuations. Such behavior would be clearly defined as insider trading or market manipulation in traditional stock markets.

According to Observer Network, Richard Painter, the ethics lawyer for former U.S. President George W. Bush, believes that Trump's actions are “very bad.” The current situation could lead to charges of market manipulation and may trigger an investigation. “I hope he can focus on doing his job—trying to stabilize the market, formulating predictable trade policies, and letting the market do its own thing instead of issuing what seems like investment advice from the White House,” Painter said.

Jim Angel, a finance professor at Georgetown University, told the Washington Post that typically, potential market manipulation cases are first investigated by the New York Stock Exchange, Nasdaq, and others. If investigators find evidence of unusual trading, they report it to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), which decides whether there is enough evidence to bring a case against someone for improper disclosure or trading. However, in this case, since no one knows who might benefit from Trump's post, it remains unclear who the SEC will sue.

Angel believes that as the main decision-maker of the U.S. tariff policy, Trump indeed held information that regulatory agencies consider “crucial” to stock value when he posted “Now is a good time to buy.” However, he also pointed out that Trump's statements are too vague, making it difficult for anyone to prove that he violated information disclosure regulations. Currently, the SEC refuses to answer questions regarding Trump's posts. A spokesperson for the U.S. Department of Justice also declined to comment.

Reject blind trust that triggers systemic controversy

Unlike his predecessor, Trump did not sell off assets or transfer his assets into a “blind trust” managed by independent trustees. His vast business empire is currently managed by his two sons, with operations spanning a wide range of sectors that intersect with the areas addressed by presidential policies. The U.S. government had previously stated that Trump has been reporting his investment situation as required, but he and his family do not participate in the specific management of the investment portfolio, which is handled by a third-party financial institution.

However, this arrangement does not meet the standards of a “blind trust.” A true blind trust requires that assets be managed by completely independent trustees, and the trustees do not report any investment decisions to the original owner. In Trump's arrangement, although it is claimed that a third party manages it, he is still the sole beneficiary of the trust and can access it immediately after leaving office. This structure gives Trump the motivation to pay attention to the performance of his investment portfolio and may lead him to consider the impact on his personal wealth when making policy decisions.

Additionally, a U.S. media investigation found that between 2019 and 2021, at least 97 members of Congress were suspected of using insider information obtained from their work in Congress when selling stocks, bonds, or other financial assets belonging to themselves or their immediate family members. This includes then-House Speaker, Democrat Nancy Pelosi. Although Pelosi herself claims she does not trade stocks, her husband Paul Pelosi was accused of timing the purchase of related stocks to maximize profits when legislation affecting major tech stocks was drafted or finalized in Congress, achieving investment returns that far exceeded those of “stock god” Warren Buffett.

This shows that Trump's behavior is not an isolated case, but rather part of the widespread conflict of interest issues among American political elites. However, as President, Trump's influence far exceeds that of congressional members, and his policy decisions have a more direct and widespread impact on the market; therefore, the ethical standards for his investment behavior should also be higher.