Trump's deal: $200 million in 30 minutes sets new record

Author: Sleepy.txt

In the early morning hours of October 11, 2025, an account on the cryptocurrency trading platform Hyperliquid caught the attention of traders.

That day, this account did only one thing. Thirty minutes before Trump announced 100% tariffs on China, it established a massive short position on Hyperliquid.

It shorted both Bitcoin and Ethereum.

Thirty minutes later, Trump's announcement sent the cryptocurrency market crashing. Bitcoin plummeted from $122,500 to $105,000, a drop of nearly 15%. The account owner closed their positions, pocketing a profit of $192 million. That day, tens of billions of dollars in leveraged positions were liquidated across the entire network, and countless retail investors watched their accounts go to zero. Transaction records of the account shorting Bitcoin and Ethereum; Image source: @mlmabc On-chain analyst @mlmabc tweeted, "This is just a public trade on Hyperliquid. Imagine what he did on a centralized exchange or elsewhere. I'm absolutely certain he's a key figure in today's events." The tweet quickly garnered over a million views. In a thirty-minute window, $192 million in profits. When these facts are juxtaposed, the word "coincidence" seems so weak. But this is just the tip of the iceberg. Someone knew it before the market did. Five months ago, the nonprofit investigative organization ProPublica released a tens-thousand-word investigative report. The title was direct and sharp: "More than a dozen US officials sold stocks before Trump's tariffs caused the market to plummet." The content of the report is even more shocking than the title. Since Trump returned to the White House in January 2025, at least a dozen senior administration officials and congressional aides have engaged in remarkably well-timed stock trades, completing their sales well in advance of the market's plunge in response to tariffs. Tobias Dorsey, acting general counsel for the White House Executive Office, provides legal advice to White House officials, including the Office of the United States Trade Representative. On February 25 and 26, 2025, he sold between $12,000 and $180,000 worth of index funds and stocks in nine companies. The morning after the trades, Trump announced on social media that the major tariffs on Mexico, Canada, and China would proceed as planned. The S&P 500 fell nearly two percentage points that day, and six weeks later, the cumulative loss was nearly eighteen percentage points. In response to media inquiries, Dorsey claimed that the stock sale was a decision his wife made to pay for her tuition and that he had no personal knowledge of any non-public information. Even more striking was the actions of Marshall Stallings, the director of intergovernmental affairs and public engagement in Trump's Office of the Trade Representative, a position most sensitive to policy developments. On March 25 and 27, 2025, Stallings sold between $2,000 and $30,000 in Target and Freeport-McMoRan stock. Strangely, he had purchased these shares just a week prior. Days later, Trump announced the toughest round of tariffs. Target's stock price plummeted 17%, and Freeport-McMoRan's fell 25%. Stallings remained silent when questioned by reporters. Stephanie Syptak-Ramnath is a senior State Department official who, until April of this year, served as ambassador to Peru. Her trading records show that between March 24 and 25, 2025, she sold between $255,000 and $650,000 worth of stocks, while buying an equal amount in bonds and Treasury funds. On March 31, two days before Trump announced the "Liberation Day" tariffs, she sold another $15,000 to $50,000 worth of total market stock funds. After the market plunge, Syptak-Ramnath bought back the same amount in another fund. She explained to the media that these transactions were due to "family obligations" and "a response to economic changes," and denied having any insider information. There are many similar cases. Current ambassador to Slovakia, Gautam Rana, sold between $830,000 and $1.7 million worth of total market index funds on March 19th, a week before Trump announced the auto tariffs and two weeks before Liberation Day. Rana declined to comment. The most notable case was that of Attorney General Pam Bondi. On April 2, 2025, she sold between $1 million and $5 million worth of Trump Media stock. After the market closed that day, Trump announced "Liberation Day" tariffs, sending the market plummeting. Bondi's ethics rules required her to sell her holdings by early May, but she hasn't explained why she chose that date. The Justice Department also remained silent. ProPublica reporters Robert Faturechi, Pratheek Rebala, and Brandon Roberts reported that the trades may have violated the 2012 STOCK Act, a law that prohibits public officials from trading in securities based on nonpublic government information. Yet, in thirteen years, it has never been used to prosecute a single individual.

The market obeys tweets

If the previous transactions could barely be explained by "coincidence", then Trump's actions on April 9, 2025 made this explanation extremely pale. That morning, shortly after the U.S. stock market opened, Trump posted an all-caps post on Truth Social: "THIS IS A GREAT TIME TO BUY!!!" Four hours later, he announced a suspension of the harshest tariffs on most countries. The Dow Jones Industrial Average surged nearly 3,000 points. Any investor who followed his advice that morning would have reaped rich rewards by the evening. The question is, when Trump sent that tweet, did he know he would be announcing a policy shift four hours later? The answer is self-evident. This isn't the first time Trump has used tweets to sway the market. As early as his first term in the White House in 2017, he made a habit of releasing policy messages via social media, often triggering wild market fluctuations. In his second term, this behavior became more frequent and more blatant. Trump's pattern of operation has formed a clear cycle. He first threatens high tariffs, which triggers a market decline and retail investors panic selling. Then, he tweets, "Now is a good time to buy," and retail investors re-enter the market. Soon after, he announced a suspension or reduction in tariffs, and the market quickly rebounded. At every point in this cycle, the inner circle was able to operate with precision, buying low and selling high, advancing and exiting in an orderly manner; while retail investors, guided by tweets, were left to repeatedly take the brunt of the losses. In a letter to the White House, California Senator Adam Schiff and Arizona Senator Ruben Gallego called for an "urgent investigation into whether President Trump, his family, and members of his administration are involved in insider trading or other illegal financial activities." Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren, speaking on the Capitol Hill, questioned, "Is this blatant corruption?" White House spokesman Kush Desai responded by calling the accusations "partisan games" and stating that the president had a responsibility to "reassure the markets and the American people about their economic security." Richard Painter, a law professor at the University of Minnesota and former chief ethics lawyer for President George W. Bush, publicly refuted the claim. He said, "We cannot allow senior public officials, including the president, to discuss stock prices and buy and sell them while simultaneously making decisions that directly affect those prices. If anyone in the Bush administration had made similar remarks, that person would have been fired long ago." But Trump won't be fired because he's the boss. Beyond power, there are no constraints. In theory, the United States has three lines of defense to prevent government officials from engaging in insider trading: laws, regulators, and congressional oversight. However, in the Trump era, these three lines of defense have almost simultaneously collapsed. The first line of defense is the STOCK Act. In 2012, under public pressure, Congress passed this law, explicitly prohibiting members of Congress and executive officials from using official information to buy or sell securities. It was a significant victory, representing the public's expectation for transparency. But more than a decade later, the law has barely been used. In thirteen years, the STOCK Act has not been successfully used to prosecute a single case. Legal experts widely doubt whether it can withstand court scrutiny. In recent years, the US judicial system has continuously tightened the definition of "illegal insider trading," making the scope of this law increasingly ambiguous. Tyler Gellasch, a former congressional aide who helped draft the STOCK Act, said that executive branch decisions influence market trends almost daily. Logically, they shouldn't personally hold or trade stocks; if they do invest, they should be managed independently by others to avoid a conflation of power and interests. But this is just a "should." In reality, no one is held accountable. The second line of defense is the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). The SEC is supposed to be the gatekeeper of market order, responsible for investigating suspicious transactions, punishing violations, and maintaining market credibility. However, during the Trump administration, the SEC's role underwent a subtle shift. Upon taking office, Trump appointed Paul Atkins, a longtime advocate of deregulation, as chairman. Since Atkins took over, the SEC has suspended or terminated twelve cases involving cryptocurrency fraud. In February 2025, Trump signed an executive order granting greater power to the independent regulatory agency under the White House. This order significantly weakened the SEC's independence. Current SEC Chairman Paul Atkins; Image source: Fox Business According to NPR, during Trump's first term, insider trading enforcement cases filed by the SEC fell to a decade-low of just 32. This number continued to decline during his second term. The disappearance of regulatory action has also dissipated the market's fear of violations. Regulators no longer regulate; instead, they give the regulated a green light. The third line of defense is congressional oversight. By design, Congress is supposed to provide a check and balance on the executive branch, preventing abuse of power. However, in the reality of partisan polarization, when the same party controls both the executive and legislative branches, oversight can gradually devolve into protection. Today, Republicans control both the House and Senate. Democratic lawmakers have repeatedly called for investigations into the transactions of Trump and his administration officials, but have received no response. Faced with increasingly blatant conflicts of interest, Republican lawmakers have chosen to turn a blind eye, with silence becoming the default response. Former Republican Congressman Charlie Dent, who served as chairman of the House Ethics Committee, said, "No one should be allowed to use their public office to enrich themselves while in office. Members of Congress would never be allowed to engage in the kind of Memecoin transactions the president is conducting." But Dent is no longer in Congress.

Colleagues who remained in Washington understood that challenging Trump would mean the end of their political careers. So, they learned to keep their heads down.

From Skepticism of Cryptocurrency to Issuing His Own Coin

In 2019, Trump publicly criticized cryptocurrencies on Twitter, saying that "unregulated crypto assets could facilitate illegal activity, including drug trafficking," and asserting that the value of such assets is "highly volatile and built on thin air."

Two years later, in an interview with Fox News, he again stated that Bitcoin "looks like a scam." However, by 2025, everything had reversed. Trump declared his intention to make the United States the "cryptocurrency capital of the planet" and to end the boycott of the crypto industry. What changed his mind wasn't technological sophistication or an understanding of financial innovation, but something more direct: profit. Just days before his inauguration, Trump launched his own meme coin, $TRUMP. This token had no practical use and relied entirely on his personal brand and political aura to attract buyers. Upon its launch, the token quickly raised approximately $148 million, with the majority of the funds coming from anonymous accounts and overseas buyers. A few months later, on May 22, 2025, Trump hosted a private dinner at his Virginia golf club. The guests were the top 25 $TRUMP holders. The next day, they were given a special tour of the White House. Dinner scene; Image source: BlockBeats. This dinner sparked intense controversy. Connecticut Democratic Senator Richard Blumenthal commented: "Through this paid dinner, Trump put the president's contacts and influence on the auction block. The scope and scale of the corruption are shocking." Protesters outside the dinner; Source: X In addition to issuing their own coins, the Trump family also founded a cryptocurrency company called World Liberty Financial. This company was jointly launched by Trump and his two sons in the fall of 2024, with the family holding a 60% stake. In just a few months, World Liberty Financial raised over $500 million. According to disclosed data, the Trump family received approximately 75% of the proceeds from the cryptocurrency token sales. Key figures in the company include Trump's Middle East envoy, real estate billionaire Steve Witkoff, who serves as both an investor and co-founder. Trump's two sons actively promoted the company's projects and tokens in the Middle East and beyond. Upon returning to the White House, Trump quickly eased regulations on cryptocurrencies. The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) suspended or terminated twelve cases involving cryptocurrency fraud, and the Department of Justice discontinued investigations into several companies. At the same time, several officials who had long supported the crypto industry were appointed to key regulatory positions. This policy shift has benefited far more than just the Trump family. His campaign list includes many cryptocurrency entrepreneurs and investors as significant political donors. Elon Musk is the most prominent among them. He spent nearly $300 million to help elect Trump, and he holds significant Bitcoin investments through Tesla and other businesses. Following the deregulation, market sentiment rebounded, and crypto asset prices soared. Musk's paper wealth also soared. Steven Levitsky, a professor of government at Harvard University and author of "How Democracy Dies," said he has never witnessed such open and direct corruption in any modern government. Former federal prosecutor Paul Rosenzweig expressed similar concerns. He pointed out that self-enrichment was the very form of abuse of power that the Founding Fathers feared most. That's why they included two clauses in the Constitution specifically guarding against conflicts of interest. Trump's profiting from presidential memecoins is the very scenario they sought to avoid. Julian Zelizer, professor of political history at Princeton University, was more direct. He said, "To me, Trump's cryptocurrency dealings seem quite clear. Policy decisions regarding the financial sector aren't for the national interest, but for his own wealth accumulation. It's hard to imagine such decisions bringing any benefits to the country." Corruption Under the Sun When these fragmented events are pieced together, a complete system of power monetization emerges. Trump controls the direction of tariffs and regulatory policies, and these decisions have a significant impact on the market. Before policy announcements, core circles often receive advance notice and quickly make market moves, whether to short, sell, or buy, all depending on the policy direction. To circumvent regulation, they choose to use harder-to-trace channels like cryptocurrency. The moment the policy is announced, the market wobbles violently. Core investors liquidate their positions, reaping huge profits; retail investors become the scapegoats or are even liquidated. The SEC turns a blind eye, Congress refuses to investigate, and the law becomes a dead end. Then, the next tariff, the next policy, the next harvest. The system operates almost flawlessly. From information transmission to market reaction, from strategy to cashing out, every link is seamlessly integrated. There's no need for secret meetings or underhanded dealings; everything takes place openly, yet no one can stop it. Nixon fell from office for bugging Democratic Party headquarters, but he didn't profit from it. Clinton was impeached after sex scandals and perjury, but he didn't manipulate the market. In the Trump era, corruption has become institutionalized, industrialized, and even legalized, yet no one is held accountable. There are multiple reasons for this. The architects of the U.S. Constitution erected layers of defenses around power, but they never envisioned a president so blatantly abusing public power for personal gain. Partisan polarization has ineffectively enforced checks and balances, leaving Republican lawmakers unwilling to scrutinize a Republican president, even when corruption is exposed. The triumph of money politics has created a symbiotic relationship between major donors and the president; they invest in power itself. The paradox of populism is that voters chose Trump because he was "anti-establishment," but the establishment he established is precisely an even more corrupt one. Those thirty minutes in the early morning of October 11, 2025, epitomized an entire corrupt system. From the White House Counsel to the Trade Representative, from the Attorney General to the Secretary of Transportation, from cryptocurrency whales to the Trump family's memecoin, all clues pointed to a single, meticulously honed, and astonishingly efficient power-monetization machine. Laws had become ineffective, regulators complicit, and Congress abandoned oversight. All three lines of defense had collapsed, leaving only an unchecked center of power. Trump, in his own way, proved that in the 21st century, power can be monetized openly, systematically, and legally, without paying any price. When the president becomes the biggest insider trader, when the government operates like a hedge fund, and when tweets are used as signals to exploit retail investors, this is no longer a corruption scandal. It is an open auction where power itself is the object of competition. And those ordinary investors who lost their entire savings in 30 minutes are merely the most insignificant chips in this auction.