The call for a probe into potential insider trading at the highest levels of government grew louder yesterday as Senator Elizabeth Warren endorsed a formal investigation into former Trump administration officials. The Massachusetts senator’s comments came during a heated exchange with reporters on Capitol Hill, where she characterized the allegations as “precisely the kind of corruption Americans are sick of seeing.”
“When government officials potentially use their positions to enrich themselves through stock trades, that’s not just an ethics violation – that’s possibly criminal behavior,” Warren said, her voice rising with characteristic intensity. “The American people deserve to know if those entrusted with public service were instead serving their own financial interests.”
The controversy centers around suspicious stock transactions made by several high-ranking Trump appointees during the early days of trade negotiations with China in 2019. Financial disclosure records, first highlighted by the nonprofit watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), show a pattern of investments that eerily anticipated market shifts following policy announcements.
According to documents obtained by my colleagues at Epochedge News, at least three former officials made significant stock purchases in industries directly affected by tariff decisions just days before those decisions were made public. The timing has raised red flags among market analysts and government ethics experts alike.
Jordan Libowitz, CREW’s communications director, told me in a phone interview that the transactions follow a troubling pattern. “We’ve identified multiple instances where officials invested heavily in steel and aluminum manufacturing stocks mere days before tariff announcements that sent those sectors soaring,” Libowitz explained. “The statistical probability of that happening by coincidence stretches credibility beyond the breaking point.“
The Securities and Exchange Commission defines insider trading as trading stocks based on material, non-public information in breach of a duty or trust. Government officials with advance knowledge of policy decisions that could impact markets fall squarely within this definition, according to former SEC enforcement attorney Patricia Wilson.
“The bar for proving insider trading is high, but not insurmountable,” Wilson told me during our conversation last week. “Prosecutors would need to demonstrate both that the officials possessed non-public information and that they traded based on that information.”
Data from the Department of Commerce shows that following the tariff announcements in question, affected industry stock values increased by an average of 22% within three trading days. The officials under scrutiny reportedly netted combined profits exceeding $1.2 million from these well-timed investments, according to financial disclosure forms.
Warren’s support adds significant weight to calls for investigation already coming from the House Oversight Committee. Though she has long been an outspoken critic of the former administration, her expertise in financial regulation gives her voice particular credibility on this issue.
I’ve spent nearly two decades covering the intersection of Wall Street and Washington, and I’ve rarely seen such blatant timing coincidences. Back in 2012, I investigated similar allegations involving congressional trading ahead of the financial crisis. Those inquiries eventually led to the passage of the STOCK Act, which explicitly prohibited government officials from trading on non-public information.
Former President Trump responded to the allegations via his social media platform, calling Warren’s comments “another witch hunt” and claiming the officials made investment decisions based on publicly available information. However, market analysis from Goldman Sachs obtained by our reporting team shows the investments preceded any public signals about the policy shifts.
The officials in question, who I’m not naming pending formal charges, have all denied wrongdoing through their attorneys. One spokesperson told me via email that their client “made investments based on the same market research available to any investor” and characterized the timing as “unfortunate coincidence.”
Public outrage over potential insider trading comes at a time when trust in government institutions remains near historic lows. A recent Pew Research Center survey found that only 24% of Americans believe government officials routinely face consequences for unethical behavior, down from 30% in 2019.
