US President Donald Trump is facing fresh scrutiny after financial disclosures revealed that he or his advisers carried out more than 3,700 stock trades in just the first three months of 2026, a level of trading activity that has stunned Wall Street veterans and reignited conflict-of-interest concerns in Washington.
The disclosures, first reported by Bloomberg, showed trading activity involving tens of millions of dollars across some of America’s biggest technology, finance, aerospace and media companies.
In simple terms, Trump averaged more than 40 trades a day between January and March this year.
That marked a dramatic jump from the previous quarter, when about 380 trades were disclosed during the final three months of 2025.
For several market veterans, the scale alone was enough to raise eyebrows.
“This is an insane amount of trades,” Matthew Tuttle, chief executive officer of Tuttle Capital Management, told Bloomberg.
“It’s almost like a hedge fund with massive algo trades,” he said.
Several other Wall Street professionals quoted in the report also described the trading activity as highly unusual for a sitting president.
“I’m baffled,” Eric Diton, president and managing director at The Wealth Alliance, told Bloomberg.
“In the 40-plus years of my time on Wall Street, this is an unusual amount of trading by any standards,” he said.
Adam Sarhan, founder of 50 Park Investments, also questioned the broader strategy behind such intense trading activity and whether the portfolio even generated meaningful profits after so many transactions.
The disclosures showed that Trump bought at least USD 1 million worth of shares each in companies including Nvidia, Oracle, Microsoft, Boeing and Costco during the quarter.
The filings also included trades involving companies such as Amazon, Meta, Uber, eBay, Abbott Laboratories, AT&T and Dollar Tree.
One of the biggest disclosed transactions came on February 10, when Trump sold holdings in Microsoft, Meta and Amazon worth between USD 5 million and USD 25 million.
The filings also revealed investments linked to companies involved in major media and entertainment deals, including Netflix, Warner Bros. Discovery and Paramount Global.
That is where the controversy begins to deepen.
Several of these companies operate in sectors directly influenced by US government policies, regulations and geopolitical decisions.
Nvidia, for example, requires approvals from Washington to export advanced AI chips to China. Boeing depends heavily on defence and aerospace contracts tied to the US government. Big Tech companies like Microsoft, Amazon and Meta are constantly affected by antitrust investigations, AI regulation debates and federal policy decisions.
Critics say that even if no laws were broken, such aggressive trading activity by a sitting president creates serious concerns around potential conflicts of interest.
The disclosures have also revived longstanding criticism over Trump’s business arrangements while in office.
Unlike several previous American presidents, Trump did not fully divest his business interests or move them into a traditional blind trust independently managed without family involvement.
Bloomberg reported that Trump’s businesses continue operating across industries affected by government policy decisions, while his sons oversee large parts of the Trump Organisation.
The latest disclosures come just months after unusual trading activity in oil and stock futures markets sparked speculation over possible insider knowledge tied to Trump’s public comments on Iran.
Earlier this year, traders reportedly placed massive bets on falling oil prices and rising US equity markets shortly before .
Soon after those remarks, oil prices dropped while stock markets rallied sharply, triggering intense online speculation and renewed debate over market-sensitive political information.
The timing drew attention because the trades appeared unusually well-positioned ahead of a major geopolitical development.
While no evidence has publicly emerged linking Trump directly to those trades, the episode added to broader concerns about how sensitive political developments can potentially intersect with financial markets.
The controversy has also brought renewed attention to Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law and current Middle East envoy, whose financial ties to Gulf investors have faced repeated scrutiny in Washington.
Bloomberg reported that Kushner continues maintaining Gulf-linked investment interests while simultaneously playing a key diplomatic role in the region for the Trump administration.
His investment firm, Affinity Partners, reportedly oversees billions of dollars backed by Gulf sovereign wealth funds, including money linked to Saudi Arabia and other Middle Eastern investors.
Critics argue that the overlap between diplomatic influence and private investment relationships creates another potential area of concern around conflicts of interest inside Trump’s broader political circle.
While there is no evidence of wrongdoing against Kushner, ethics watchdogs and several political critics in the US have argued that such financial relationships deserve closer public scrutiny given his continued proximity to sensitive diplomatic negotiations and foreign policy discussions.
The White House has rejected suggestions of wrongdoing.
A White House spokesperson told Bloomberg that Trump “only acts in the best interests of the American public” and insisted there were “no conflicts of interest.”
A spokesperson for the Trump Organisation also said Trump’s investments are handled independently by outside financial institutions and that neither Trump nor his family directly manage individual trades.
The disclosures also showed that several filings missed federal reporting deadlines, although the penalties attached to delayed submissions were relatively small at USD 200 per filing.
Several experts quoted in the Bloomberg report noted that former US presidents, including George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton, relied on blind trusts during their time in office to avoid even the appearance of conflicts.
Trump’s disclosures are now reviving a politically explosive debate in Washington: should a sitting US president be actively buying and selling stocks in companies directly affected by government policy decisions?
For critics, the answer is becoming increasingly uncomfortable.