Markets Don’t Like Surprises, But Politicians Seem To
When Donald Trump posted “THIS IS A GREAT TIME TO BUY!!! DJT” on Truth Social last week, the internet lit up. Hours later, the US administration paused a set of heavy import tariffs, sending the market soaring. Trump Media’s share price jumped more than 20%. S&P 500 surged. The post looked like a wink to traders before a policy U-turn.
If this sounds dodgy, that’s because it probably is. In the EU or UK, this would raise instant questions under Market Abuse Regulation (MAR). The US? Not so much.
The EU/UK View: If It Walks Like a MAR Breach and Sounds Like a MAR Breach...
In the UK and EU, MAR applies to anyone with inside information, politicians included. The rules are clear: if you’ve got privileged info that would move the market, you can’t trade on it or tip others off. This includes hinting, nudging, or blasting it out on social media.
Trump’s post was made in his capacity as a public figure with insider access to a major policy shift. He knew what was coming. He told people to buy. He mentioned the ticker. Then the good news dropped.
Under EU MAR, that ticks two big boxes:
- Unlawful disclosure of inside information
- Manipulation of the market through misleading signals
In Brussels or London, this would be enough to trigger a probe, possibly even enforcement action.
The US View: We’re Still Arguing What Counts as Insider Info
Things work differently across the pond. US insider trading law is mostly case law and focuses heavily on fiduciary duty. It asks: did someone owe a duty to keep info secret, and did they exploit it?
Here’s the kicker, because Trump made the post publicly, he may not have broken US insider trading law. There’s no clear federal equivalent to EU MAR. And proving intent to manipulate the market? That’s tough without a smoking gun.
Even so, US lawmakers are calling for an SEC investigation. Some are arguing that this crosses the line into market manipulation, especially given the gains to Trump’s personal wealth. But don’t hold your breath. The legal framework is narrow, and the track record for holding politicians accountable in the US is mixed at best.
Why This Matters for the UK and Europe
Why should compliance officers and regulators in the UK or EU care? Simple: we’re seeing what happens when high-profile figures operate outside strict MAR rules. Markets are global. Retail investors follow US figures. What’s tolerated in Washington today could influence sentiment in Frankfurt, Paris, or London tomorrow.
If politicians can nudge markets via meme-like posts and escape scrutiny, it weakens public trust. Europe’s stricter regime isn’t perfect, but it creates boundaries. Without them, volatility and confusion win.
The Takeaway
This isn’t just a Trump story, it’s a test of how well market abuse frameworks hold up in an era of social media, populism, and meme stocks. EU and UK regulators should watch closely. If this happened here, MAR would already be in motion.
So ask yourself: would your firm catch this? Would your alert system flag it? Would your PDMR logs explain it?
If not, it’s time to review your controls.
Follow InsiderList for more on how EU and UK firms can stay ahead of MAR risks in a shifting global landscape.
