It was a charged Thursday morning on The View, where co-host Sunny Hostin took center stage with a bold assertion: that former President Donald Trump may have engaged in what she called a form of “insider trading” via his activity on Truth Social.
At issue was Trump’s post encouraging investors to “buy” when the market dropped following his proposed “Liberation Day” tariffs—an announcement that roiled investor confidence and sent the stock market into a brief tailspin.
Hostin alleged that the subsequent pause Trump placed on the tariffs—coupled with his earlier post—amounted to more than coincidental timing. In her view, it was a calculated signal to those in his financial orbit, particularly wealthy allies who could act quickly on such cues. “These kinds of actions,” she said, “where Trump tweeted out before this little pause… that’s really a whistle to those billionaires.”
Sunny Hostin claims Trump posts on social media classify as “insider trading” and whines that he’s not going to get prosecuted:
“The corruption is just completely out in the open at this point…[Trump’s post] that’s really a whistle to those billionaires…that’s generally… pic.twitter.com/yM3tSPN0Q7— Nicholas Fondacaro (@NickFondacaro) April 10, 2025
The legal line Hostin referenced revolves around the concept of “material nonpublic information”—which, when used for trading advantage, constitutes insider trading under federal securities law. While the line between public commentary and illegal conduct is both subtle and heavily litigated, Hostin’s claim leaned into the idea that Trump’s dual role as both a market mover and a private citizen with political influence could blur it dangerously.
However, her argument rides on a speculative presumption: that Trump had premeditated knowledge of the upcoming policy reversal and that his post was intentionally coded to benefit an exclusive audience. In other words, that it wasn’t merely market optimism—it was a nudge to those in the know.
That assertion drew a sharp, albeit more emotionally charged, response from Ana Navarro. She sidestepped the legal nuance, instead calling the idea of such strategic manipulation a form of sadism. “What kind of government leader puts his people through this kind of distress… just for giggles?” she asked, referencing the anxiety and uncertainty that rippled through financial sectors and working-class households alike during the tariff drama.
But whether Trump’s post qualifies as criminal behavior or just crass showmanship is far from certain. The SEC, as Hostin noted, is unlikely to launch any investigation without a hard trail of evidence—and public posts, even if ill-timed or suggestive, rarely rise to the evidentiary standard required for insider trading charges.
Still, the conversation underscores a larger theme that’s been quietly brewing in the post-presidency Trump era: What happens when someone with enormous political capital, market-moving influence, and direct communication to tens of millions via social media operates outside the traditional guardrails of governance?
