April 9, 2025: “THIS IS A GREAT TIME TO BUY!!! DJT”- @Donald J. Trump posts on X.
Less than four hours later, President Donald Trump pauses the harshest of his tariffs on most countries. Stocks skyrocket in relief, with the Dow closing up almost 3,000 points. Investors who listened made bank.
Interesting turn of events, no? It’s almost as if Trump purposely manipulated the market — and now, people in power want answers.
Senator Schiff is calling for a congressional investigation into whether Trump or his associates profited from insider knowledge of the tariff pause. Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is urging members of Congress to disclose recent stock transactions, raising flags about possible conflicts of interest. House Democrats on the Financial Services Committee have also asked the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to investigate potential insider trading tied to Trump’s policy shift.
This uproar is about determining whether this was just sketchy or actually illegal. If Trump knowingly influenced the market for personal or political gain, it could fall under insider trading, market manipulation or even abuse of office.
And while it might look strategic — coming at a time when stock prices were tanking, and investor anxiety was rising — it’s hard to ignore the timing. Trump’s policies had been fueling financial panic. Business leaders were sounding the alarm. Then suddenly, he tweets encouragement and rolls back tariffs — and the market soars.
So how did Trump go from causing economic damage to closing the Dow by 3,000 points — the biggest single-day gain since the Great Depression? Or to pose an even more revealing question: what did Trump’s move reveal about the market?
The stock market, while complicated, has the attention of Americans. Because of this, politicians have turned it into a stage for political theater — not to use as a reflection of real economic health, but a way to control the people, just as Trump did on April 9. His tweet wasn’t the cause of our problems. It was a symptom of our economy — one where Wall Street is worshipped, inequality is ignored and leaders are judged by market surges, not human outcomes.
It’s also important to look at who benefits from market surges. Many households earning between $22,000 and $90,000 are invested in the stock market, with participation rates around 40% for lower-income and 60% for middle-income earners. But these investments are usually small, passive and tied up in retirement accounts like 401(k)s — not the kind of holdings that offer control or quick profits.
But ownership doesn’t mean influence. The real gains go to the wealthy. The top 10% own 93% of all U.S. stocks, and the top 1% alone hold more than half of all directly owned shares. These households aren’t just participating in the market — they’re shaping it. They can afford to buy more, hold longer and take risks that others simply can’t. And in downturns, they have the financial cushion to wait things out, while lower- and middle- income investors often lose ground.
The divide isn’t just by income. It’s racial too. A 2024 Pew Research study found that 66% of white households hold some form of stock (including retirement accounts), compared to just 39% of Black households and 28% of Hispanic households.
But participation is only part of the story. Data from the U.S. Census Bureau reveals that only 30.9% of white households own stocks or mutual funds directly, with a median value of $44,500. For Black households, that number drops to 16.6% with a median value of just $7,000. Beyond stocks, white families have higher ownership in nearly every wealth category— from homes to retirement accounts.
These gaps are not just about income. They are persistent, structural and foundational in America.
The result? Young people, hourly workers and communities of color are largely shut out from this form of wealth-building — yet they’re expected to feel inspired by surging headlines and Dow rallies that don’t actually improve their lives.
The problem is stock ownership doesn’t equal economic impact. A few thousand dollars in a retirement account won’t pay rent, cover healthcare or eliminate debt. The wealthy are the only ones who are truly able to make gains, and the market amplifies this privilege.
These gaps are not just about income. They are persistent, structural and foundational in America.
Why do people care then? The thing is when stock prices rise people feel wealthier, so they spend more resulting in a boost in the economy. It’s the wealth effect. However, in reality, $1 in stock gains is equivalent to a 3-4 cent increase in consumer spending. The effect is small, short-lived and unequally distributed.
And again, the wealthy are the only ones who truly benefit. Rich households with large portfolios may splurge. But most Americans? The difference is barely noticeable. When the S&P rises, do you really think a worker with $5,000 in retirement stock won’t start spending more? The truth is, while the average American might feel like the stock market can make them wealthier, the reality is that the “wealth effect” is a rich person’s phenomenon. Yet, it’s used to justify market- first economic policy and ignore human needs.
So, why manipulate the market? Because of the politically powerful illusion of economic recovery. His tweet and sudden tariff pause followed a series of weeks where investor anxiety and criticism over the economics of his trade policies were on the rise. The Dow’s 3,000-point surge wasn’t a correction — it was a reset of the narrative. A flashy headline to distract from the damage his trade war was doing.
This gave the American people a sense of peace and a restored trust in his ability to lead, which was especially necessary for the U.S.- Japan trade agreement he was pushing at the time. Appearing in control of the economy gave him leverage abroad and approval at home all because of the wealth effect. That’s why stock market optics are weaponized, not to reflect prosperity, but to secure political power and cover up policy failures.
And in an economy where the stock market not only highlights inequality but is also weaponized to make politicians look good, it’s clear that a market-first approach doesn’t work for most Americans. We can’t keep enabling a system that amplifies the wealth gap and leaves marginalized communities struggling economically. Because this isn’t what true economic success looks like.
Real prosperity means ensuring people have living wages, universal healthcare, affordable housing, debt-free education and stable jobs with paid leave. It means building a society where basic human needs are met — not just for some, but for all. We need to shift the question from “how’s the market doing?” to “how are the people doing?”
We don’t need another market rally. We need a new system.
So, what might that new system look like? One gaining momentum, especially among Gen Z, is democratic socialism. It’s not about free handouts; it’s about reclaiming power from Wall Street and giving it back to the people. It rejects the idea that markets should define success or determine who gets to live with dignity. And many parts of democratic socialism already exist in American life like public schools, Medicare and Social Security.
What’s changing is the urgency. Young people are watching stocks hit record highs while their futures feel increasingly out of reach. They’re questioning why basic needs like healthcare and housing are tied to the market at all — and they’re demanding something better.
Democratic socialism offers a people-first alternative. It prioritizes public goods funded independently of Wall Street, calls for progressive tax reform — especially on capital gains and the ultra-wealthy — and redefines success based on healthcare access, housing stability, income equity and closing the racial wealth gap.
Trump’s tweet was a performance. The market soared, the rich profited and inequality persisted. But a better system wouldn’t need a stock surge to justify justice. It would deliver justice by default.