NEW YORK (Archyde) — On a seemingly ordinary Wednesday morning, Donald Trump, known for his frequent market commentary, injected unexpected volatility into the stock market. As stocks teetered,his pronouncement via Truth Social sent shockwaves through Wall Street and triggered immediate scrutiny.

At 9:37 a.m., Trump posted a concise yet impactful message: “THIS IS A GREAT TIME TO BUY!!! DJT,” on his social media platform Truth Social. this single post served as a catalyst for a series of rapid market movements.

Within four hours, the former president announced a 90-day pause on nearly all tariffs. The market responded emphatically. Stocks surged, culminating in a 9.5% gain by the close of trading. According to market analysis, the S&P 500 recouped approximately $4 trillion, or 70%, of its losses from the preceding four days.

While some lauded Trump’s market acumen, others viewed the events with suspicion. The timing of his post and subsequent policy announcement raised eyebrows and sparked debate about potential conflicts of interest.

Richard Painter, a Trump critic and former White House ethics lawyer, voiced concerns about potential impropriety, stating, “He’s loving this, this control over markets, but he better be careful.” Painter pointed to securities laws prohibiting trading on insider information, emphasizing, “The people who bought when they saw that post made a lot of money.” This statement highlights the ethical tightrope walked when political figures comment on market conditions, especially when their own actions can influence those very markets.

Legislators Call for Inquiry

Following the market’s reaction, several Democratic senators called for a thorough investigation into the circumstances surrounding Trump’s post and the subsequent market activity.

Sen. Adam Schiff posted on BlueSky,questioning,“Did anyone buy or sell stocks,and profit at the public’s expense?” Similarly,Sen.Chris Murphy of Connecticut took to X, asserting, “An insider trading scandal is brewing.” These statements underscore the seriousness with which lawmakers are treating the situation, emphasizing the need to determine whether any illegal or unethical activity occurred.

The central question revolves around the timing of Trump’s decision regarding the tariff pause. Did he possess this knowlege when he urged his followers to buy stocks? His own statements added to the ambiguity. When asked about when he arrived at his decision, Trump stated, “Over the last few days, I’ve been thinking about it,” but then added, “Fairly early this morning.”

When pressed for clarification, a White House spokesperson defended Trump’s post as part of his presidential duties. “it is indeed the responsibility of the President of the United States to reassure the markets and americans about their economic security in the face of nonstop media fearmongering,” wrote White House spokesman Kush Desai. However, this defense does not address the core concern of potential insider trading or market manipulation.

The concept of “reassuring the markets” is a common practice among political leaders, especially during times of economic uncertainty. Such as, during the 2008 financial crisis, President George W. Bush made numerous public statements aimed at calming investors and preventing further panic. However, these statements typically focus on broader economic trends and policy initiatives, rather than specific stock recommendations.

the Curious Case of DJT

Adding another layer of complexity is Trump’s use of his initials, “DJT,” in his Truth Social post. DJT also serves as the stock symbol for Trump Media and Technology Group, the parent company of Truth Social. The ambiguity of the post left investors and analysts wondering whether trump was advocating for the purchase of stocks in general or specifically promoting his own company.

While the White House did not address this question directly, the lack of clarity did not deter investors from pouring money into Trump Media.The company’s stock closed up 22.67%, a remarkable surge compared to the broader market. This performance is particularly noteworthy given that trump Media had reported losses of $400 million the previous year. Some analysts attribute this disconnect to the “meme stock” phenomenon, where social media hype and retail investor enthusiasm drive stock prices, often irrespective of a company’s underlying financial performance.

Trump’s 53% ownership stake in Trump Media, held in a trust controlled by his son, Donald Trump Jr., increased by $415 million on that single day. This financial gain, directly linked to his public statement, further fueled concerns about potential self-enrichment and the ethical implications of his market commentary.

Interestingly,Trump Media’s performance was only marginally surpassed by another stock favored during the Trump governance: Elon Musk’s Tesla. Previously, Trump held an extraordinary news conference outside the White House, praising the company and its electric vehicles.Afterward, his commerce secretary appeared on Fox TV, urging viewers to invest in Tesla. This pattern of public endorsements raises questions about the appropriateness of government officials promoting individual companies.

Tesla’s stock surge on Wednesday added $20 billion to Musk’s wealth. This significant increase underscores the power of presidential endorsements and their potential to influence market valuations.

Ethical Boundaries and Potential Ramifications

Kathleen Clark, a government ethics law expert at washington University School of Law, suggests that under previous administrations, Trump’s actions would have triggered an investigation. She concludes, “He’s sending the message that he can effectively and with impunity manipulate the market,” adding, “As in: Watch this space for future stock tips.” This raises concerns about the potential for future market manipulation and the erosion of trust in government officials.

The situation highlights the need for clearer guidelines and stricter enforcement of ethics regulations for public officials. While it remains to be seen whether any formal investigation will be launched,the controversy serves as a stark reminder of the potential conflicts of interest that can arise when political power intersects with financial markets.

The following table summarizes the key events and potential implications:

Recent Developments (Hypothetical – Since Article is from Future)

As of today,April 10,2025,a formal investigation into the events of that Wednesday is still underway. The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has reportedly subpoenaed records from Trump Media and individuals associated with the company. While no charges have been filed, the investigation continues to cast a shadow over Trump’s business dealings and raises questions about the integrity of the financial markets.