New York: On a seemingly ordinary Wednesday morning, the financial landscape shifted dramatically when Donald Trump, the former President of the United States, decided to offer his followers a piece of financial wisdom. At precisely 9:37 am, Trump took to his social media platform, Truth Social, to proclaim, "THIS IS A GREAT TIME TO BUY!!! DJT." His post came at a moment when stocks were fluctuating between slight gains and losses, but little did anyone know that his words would soon send the market into a frenzy.

Just a few hours later, in a surprising announcement, Trump declared a 90-day pause on nearly all tariffs. This unexpected news sent stocks soaring, with the market, as measured by the S&P 500, recovering approximately $4 trillionor about 70%of the value it had lost over the previous four trading days. The timing of Trump's social media post and subsequent tariff announcement raised eyebrows among analysts and critics alike, leading some to question whether the former president had an ulterior motive.

Richard Painter, a former White House ethics lawyer and vocal critic of Trump, commented on the situation, stating, "He's loving this, this control over markets, but he better be careful." Painter highlighted the potential legal implications, noting that securities law prohibits trading on insider information or facilitating such actions for others. His concerns echoed those of several Democratic senators, who promptly called for an investigation into the matter. "Did anyone buy or sell stocks, and profit at the public's expense?" asked Senator Adam Schiff in a post on the platform BlueSky, while Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut warned that "an insider trading scandal is brewing."

A critical question that emerged in the aftermath of these events was whether Trump had already been contemplating the tariff suspension when he made his post. When pressed for clarity about the timing, Trump stated, "Over the last few days, I've been thinking about it," but quickly added, "Fairly early this morning," which only muddied the waters further.

The White House was approached for clarification regarding Trump's statement and the timing of the tariff announcement. However, the spokesperson did not directly address the inquiry, instead defending Trump's post as part of his responsibilities as President. "It is 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, emphasizing the role of the presidency in maintaining market stability.

Adding another layer of intrigue to the situation was Trump's use of his initials, "DJT," in the post. Interestingly, DJT is also the stock symbol for Trump Media and Technology Group, the parent company of his social media platform, Truth Social. The ambiguity surrounding Trump's message left many wondering whether he was encouraging investment in stocks in general or specifically in Trump Media.

Despite the uncertainty, investors poured money into Trump Medias stock following the post, resulting in a staggering increase of 22.67%. This performance outpaced the broader market by a significant margin, particularly considering the company's struggles, having reported losses of $400 million in the previous year. Trump's ownership stake in the media company, now held in a trust controlled by his eldest son, Donald Trump Jr., saw a remarkable increase of $415 million in value on that day alone.

Interestingly, Trump Media's surge in stock price was closely rivaled by another one of Trump's controversial stock endorsementsTesla, led by billionaire Elon Musk. Last month, Trump had publicly praised Tesla during a news conference outside the White House, which was followed by a Fox News appearance from his commerce secretary urging viewers to invest in the company. Tesla's stock also saw a dramatic rise, contributing an additional $20 billion to Musk's wealth.

Kathleen Clark, a government ethics law expert at Washington University School of Law, remarked on the situation, stating that in past administrations, such a post would likely have triggered a thorough investigation. However, she expressed skepticism that this incident would elicit any significant political response, other than potentially increased viewership for Truth Social.