Insider trading by Trump - Suspicious purchases of thousands of shares ahead of critical decisions

New questions regarding conflict of interest in the US are being raised by an RBC report, according to which the stock market transactions of US President Donald Trump continue to be at the center of public debate, as several of them were allegedly carried out shortly before major political decisions that impacted the markets.

Over 21,000 stock transactions

According to the disclosed financial data, Trump executed more than 21,000 stock transactions throughout 2025. RBC points out that asset purchases frequently took place prior to announcements or decisions of his that had a significant impact on financial markets. The report further highlights that, prior to Trump, no president of the United States in modern history engaged in active stock trading while in office. Traditionally, US presidents placed their personal assets into "blind trusts" or into investments that did not require active decisions, so that the risk of a conflict of interest would be mitigated. Trump, however, has chosen a different approach, maintaining that his transactions are carried out in a lawful manner and that he does not utilize confidential information.

Proving insider information is exceptionally difficult

Despite the timing coincidences, experts point out that proving the illegal use of confidential information constitutes a highly complex process. The head of foreign equity analysis at Sinara Investment Bank, Sergey Vakhrameyev, explains that to build an insider trading case, it must be proven that a specific transaction was based on material non-public information. As he notes, a simple chronological coincidence between a stock market action and a political decision is not sufficient on its own to prove a violation of legislation.

Institutional hurdles in a potential investigation

Freedom Global analyst Yeldar Shakenov points out that both the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Department of Justice formally possess the authority to investigate potential irregularities in the president's transactions. However, he notes that both bodies fall under the executive branch, while Congress's ability to intervene depends heavily on political balances and the majority formed within the two chambers.

US market not threatened, but credibility takes a hit

Analysts estimate that the existence of an "investor-president" does not constitute a systemic risk for US markets. As Shakenov underlines, the United States continues to possess the largest and most liquid capital market globally. For his part, Higher School of Economics analyst Yegor Toropov notes that the US stock market has overcome severe corrections, economic crises, and regulatory framework changes in the past, while he considers that the remaining time of Trump's presidential term is not sufficient to cause permanent systemic damage.

The biggest threat concerns investor confidence

While experts see no immediate danger to market stability, they warn that the greatest problem is the erosion of institutional credibility. As Shakenov emphasizes, it is critical for investors to be assured that all market participants have equal access to information and operate under the same rules. Along the same lines, Vakhrameyev estimates that such cases intensify concerns over the quality of state governance, while for international investors, the fundamental question remains whether US institutions can safeguard transparency, equality under the law, and trust in the financial system. So far, RBC notes, no official investigation has been announced, nor has new legislation been put forward to restrict such practices, while the latest financial disclosures show that Trump continues to execute stock market transactions that keep fueling public debate.

It is not the first time

This is not the first time that Trump's investment moves have triggered political controversy. Already since his first term in the White House, ethics organizations and Democratic lawmakers had expressed concerns over potential conflicts between his business activities and government decisions. Back then, the core issue was not solely the possession of assets, but the fact that the president had the ability to make decisions that could directly impact sectors in which he held financial interests. During his second term, his critics brought the matter back to the forefront, arguing that the frequency of the transactions and their close proximity to political announcements create, at the very least, a need for greater transparency.

www.bankingnews.gr