Thursday, September 17, 2026

How Are We Doing With the Midterms Seven Weeks Out?


Look, I can’t tell you that everything is going to be OK for us patriots in the midterms. I think it will, but I’m not sure. Nobody knows for sure. What I do know is what the correlation of forces, to my mind, indicates. It indicates another 2022, a year when we Republicans were going to clean up against an unpopular, semi-conscious president. And we did OK. Not great. OK. And it looks to me, from where I sit, from who I’ve talked to, from what I’ve seen, and yeah, from my gut, that that’s the high-water mark for the Democrats. They might do OK. They might get the House by a few seats, and they might cut our lead in the Senate. That’s just my perspective, though. I’ve talked to well-placed optimists and doomers (one who, you know, says we lose the House and 50-50 in the Senate if we are lucky). But I don’t know. You don’t know. Nobody knows.

Let’s look at the big themes, then get down to specific cases. What do the Democrats have going for them? History, for one. History doesn’t necessarily repeat itself, but it often rhymes. The party in power, especially in a second term, tends to struggle in the midterms. People get tired of the status quo. The problems add up, the friction and the fog of war slow the progress, and people get bored. That gives Democrats another advantage: excitement and intensity. And boy, are they ever excited and intense about taking us out. They can’t wait to crawl out of their old folks’ homes, cat-overrun condos, moms’ basements, Hollywood mansions, university dorms, and perverted communes to vote out those wicked patriotic Americans of the Republican Party. They would crawl over broken glass to vote against us or at least hire illegal aliens to do the crawling over broken glass that American Democrats won’t do. Every single one of them is going to vote, probably several times.

That intensity leads to their third advantage: the polls. Negative polling can demoralize Republican voters. But to the extent the polls are not actively bent to support the Democrats (which some of them manifestly are), Democrat intensity skews the polls because Democrats actually answer them. Anecdotes are evidence of nothing but anecdotes, but I like to informally poll fellow Republicans about whether they ever respond to political polling. I never do. And they tell me they never do. I don’t know who the Republicans answering these polls are, but I haven't met one.

The polling is terrible for us if you take it at face value. It has us losing in places we have no business losing. But I just can’t make myself believe it. The polls don’t fit the fundamentals, and they’re too darn convenient for the opposition. Is that wishful thinking? It may be, but it’s wishful thinking based on polling’s track record of failure. Remember the famous 2024 Ann Selzer Iowa poll that had Kamala three points up on Trump? Trump ended up beating her by something like 13 points. And just a couple of weeks ago, Hasan Piker’s Hamas-diddling puppet Abdul in Michigan was supposed to win by double digits over his moderate (sic) Democrat opponent, but he ended up barely squeaking to victory by a point or so. The polls are wrong a lot, and always in one direction. When’s the last time you found a polling error that favored a Republican? That’s about as likely as finding leftovers in JB Pritzker’s fridge.

Of course, the polls could be right. I don’t think they are. Given the dire unanimity of the current polls, disbelieving them means betting on both the malice and the incompetence of the pollsters. I’ll take that bet, especially when so many are polls from outfits you’ve never heard of, like the “University of College/Pepsi Challenge Public Opinion Survey” or the “Geebo Strategies Online Solutions.”

What do we have in our favor? Well, we have a ton of money. That’s good. Plus, the folks in the know whom I’ve talked to like the strategy of waiting until after Labor Day to really start spending. Democrats have been spending for a while, but traditionally you spend early to create a positive image for your candidate and tear down the other guy. That used to work, but will it work now? This is a very partisan environment. If you’re a Democrat, we already know what we think of you, and all the ads with you and Mee-maw sitting on the porch talking about values you don’t actually believe in aren’t going to change your image as an avatar of a political party that supports crime, communism, castration, and open borders.

We also have Donald Trump, who’s good for turning out our voters. His ability to enrage the other side is already baked in, but he’s going to be out and about everywhere rallying our troops. That’s good. And while the convention was slammed for low ratings, it did what needed to be done. It set a positive tone and motivated our base.

This election is all about turning out our base. We now have a decade of experience getting the kind of voters in our coalition to come out and vote when Donald Trump himself is not on the ballot. We better turn them out. That we can’t is everyone’s big fear. But the base staying home because it’s mad seemed much more plausible when the Democrats were just annoying rather than a threat to our way of life. It’s easy to say, “Who cares?” when, at their core, both parties are composed of people who generally like America and want what’s best for it. But that’s not true with today’s Democrats. They want to flood us with Third World barbarians, mutilate our kids, take our guns, tax us into poverty, and outlaw normal people. Yeah, there’s an affordability problem, and there’s a crime problem, and there are lots of other problems, but the Democrats caused all those problems, and everyone knows that it’s not like they’re going to fix them. America has become vastly more partisan, and vastly more binary, and I’m thinking that very few Republicans are going to be able to swallow the idiotic notion that we need to show the dumb Republicans among us (and there are a lot of dumb Republicans among us) what-for by allowing the election of a bunch of communist pervert-enablers.

I just don’t think Republicans are going to stay home in droves, much less actually vote for Democrats. I do expect the polls to tighten as we get closer to Election Day, largely because that’s when pollsters have to start thinking about their reputations and will take at least a couple of their fingers off the scale. It always happens.

So, let’s look at the races. There’s just too much going on in the House to go through individually, but our maps will do a lot to limit any damage. The House is going to be tough because we only have a handful of seats in our majority, but some of the folks I’ve talked to were confident about it in private. These people have nothing to lose by telling me what they really think. You can take it or leave it. But while Team Black Pill will get all the regime media coverage, know that there are a lot of GOP guys out there who think we can do OK in the House.

The Senate remains our firewall. We have a 53-seat majority. Democrats need to net four seats to overcome JD Vance’s tiebreaker vote. Let’s ignore the wildcard scenarios, like whether Lisa Murkowski or John Fetterman might switch parties to ensure a majority. Let’s find those four seats, if we can. We’ll start with the seats Republicans are defending. Keep in mind, the polls are negative for Republicans in pretty much all of them.

I’ve talked about Texas and that blasphemous imp Talarico already this week, and for the reasons I set forth, I think we hold it.

With the guy with the Nazi tattoo having been replaced by the guy who has kids with his second cousin, Susan Collins has a very good chance of keeping her seat in Maine. It would be pretty wild for the Maple Syrup State to swap out the chair of the Appropriations Committee for a guy who makes family Thanksgiving dinners awkward with sexual tension. She’s likely to win.

North Carolina is probably the Republicans’ toughest fight, with Michael Whatley struggling against that state’s less masculine version of Abigail Spanberger. Roy Cooper is a straight-up leftist pretending to be a moderate, and North Carolina is a purple state. I think we lose that one, but we shouldn’t give up.

Dan Sullivan in Alaska has to contend with Dem dirty tricks like ranked-choice voting and a doppelgΓ€nger on the ballot. It will be tough. I think he holds – a lot of Alaskans depend on oil, and the Democrats want to end the industry. But it will take money and effort.

Jon Husted is allegedly struggling in Ohio against leftist retread Sherrod Brown. The same is true in Iowa, with Ashley Hinson against Josh Turek. Both of these are red states. It’s hard to toss out an incumbent like Husted, and Hinson is a strong candidate. It’s going to take money and work, but I think we pull it off and keep both seats. There is also some crazy talk about Democrats expanding the map to Kansas and Florida. That’s just not going to happen, and if it does, it’s such an apocalypse that nothing else is going to matter anyway.

Now, the best defense is a good offense. What states are we going to take from the Democrats? Jon Ossoff is getting the full-court press from the regime media in Georgia; he’s an even more beta Beto, but they do like young, glib, good-looking guys. He’s up against Mike Collins, who’s a good old boy, and who I’ve gotten to know a little from interviews. The dude is smart. He ran a trucking company. When you talk to him, he doesn’t talk to you in hack clichΓ©s. He talks about money, organization, getting out the vote, and what matters. Do not underestimate him the way a lot of people seem to. Governor Brian Kemp, who backed somebody else in the primary, just decided he wanted to remain a viable GOP candidate in 2028 or later and has endorsed Collins. Let’s see if he turns his formidable Republican machine out to snatch that Senate seat; if he does, that makes him viable in the future. If Kemp can’t help recapture the seat, what good is he? In any case, we have a decent chance in Georgia, but let’s be conservative and assume we don’t; though if we do, that destroys all the Democrats’ dreams once and for all.

In New Hampshire, John Sununu seems to have a decent shot at beating Chris Pappas, who’s another Spanberger Democrat who talks moderate but would vote left. New Hampshire is a purple state, and they do elect Republicans. The name Sununu still means something there. Again, my conservative nature tells me that it’s more likely than not that we lose, but if we win, oh boy.

In Minnesota, Michele Tafoya is running against a lunatic, pervert-loving communist woman in a state that elects lunatic, pervert-loving communist women of all genders. But enough about Tim Walz. We’re probably not going to win this one, but there’s that outside chance.

And then we come to Michigan, where Mike Rogers, a straight-up veteran patriot, is going up against Abdul El-Sayed, a straight-up Islamist communist who makes AOC look like William F. Buckley. Here we’ve got a real opportunity, and I think it’s more likely than not that the good people of Michigan are going to want to be represented by a resolutely normal guy rather than a guy who dreams of imposing socialist sharia on a country he despises. I think we win this one.

So let’s tally it up. I think we lose one we had, and I think we gain one we didn’t. I think we have a couple of other pickup opportunities in purple states, but it’s hard for me to see them picking up any in our red states. It could happen, but I don’t think it will.

So I put the Senate at 52 to 54 GOP.

This is just a snapshot just under seven weeks from the midterm election. That’s an eternity. Anything can happen. And anything probably will happen.


Podcast thread for Sept 17

 


too quiet.

The $100 Oil Panic: Compared To What?


Oil has crossed the $100 line again, and right on cue, the warnings are back. Inflation will surge. Consumers will buckle. The economy will stall. Markets will crack. Depending on which headline you read, a three-digit oil price can sound almost like a countdown clock to economic disaster.

There is only one problem with that story: history.

Start with the number itself. Over the last 16 years, West Texas Intermediate crude traded at or above a nominal $100 a barrel on roughly 482 trading sessions. That is about 12% of all trading days, roughly one out of every eight. So yes, $100 oil is significant, and it’s not something we see every week.

But it is hardly unheard of. Historical data from the Energy Information Administration (EIA) confirm prolonged periods of very high crude prices, including annual average West Texas Intermediate (WTI) prices above $93 from 2011 through 2014.

But wait. There’s more.

There is a much bigger problem with the way the historical comparison is normally presented. We are comparing $100 oil in 2010 or 2012 with $100 oil in 2026 as though the dollar has held the same purchasing power. Yet, we all know it hasn’t.

Once those historical prices are adjusted for inflation, the picture changes dramatically. Using historical daily WTI prices and adjusting them for the change in consumer prices, oil traded at the equivalent of $100 today on roughly 1,300 trading days over the last 16 years. That is approximately 32% of all trading sessions, nearly one out of every three.

That is not a minor difference. It changes the historical context completely.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) reports that the CPI-U stood at 333.918 in July 2026. Because the general price level was considerably lower a decade and a half ago, an oil price well below $100 in nominal terms could impose purchasing-power pressure comparable to $100 today.

None of this means high oil prices do not matter. They absolutely do. Energy is woven through almost everything we buy. Higher crude prices can affect gasoline and diesel costs, freight expenses, airline costs and manufacturing expenses. If higher energy prices remain in place long enough, they could contribute to inflation and pressure household budgets.

The key words remain in place long enough.

A spike is not the same thing as a sustained energy shock. And even sustained expensive oil does not automatically equal economic collapse.

Consider the longest continuous stretch in this 16-year comparison. On an inflation-adjusted basis, oil remained around or above the equivalent of $100 today for more than four years, from roughly September 2010 through late November 2014.

If $100 oil were an automatic economic death sentence, that should have been a miserable period for the American economy and the stock market.

It wasn't.

The economy continued expanding. Unemployment, which was around 9.5% in September 2010, eventually fell to 5.6% by December 2014. Millions of jobs were added. The Bureau of Economic Analysis reported that real GDP grew 2.4% in 2014 alone, with growth spread broadly across industries.

And the stock market? During that four-plus-year period, the S&P 500 rose dramatically, roughly 87% before dividends, depending upon the exact starting and ending dates used. Near the end of 2014, the S&P 500 was setting all-time highs. On November 5 alone, both the Dow and S&P 500 closed at record levels.

Apparently, nobody told the stock market it was supposed to collapse.

That historical record does not guarantee the same outcome today. Every period is different. The current oil market is dealing with genuine geopolitical risks and significant disruption to Middle Eastern energy flows. As of September 10, Brent crude was above $100 while U.S. benchmark WTI was around $97.50. Those conditions deserve attention.

But attention and panic are two very different things.

And yes, this is an election year. Economic conditions, gasoline prices, inflation, and household finances will naturally become part of the political argument. That makes it even more important for Americans to separate economic data from political messaging.

The economy should be judged by employment, wages, consumer spending, business investment, credit conditions, inflation trends, and the ability of producers and markets to respond to supply disruptions. It should not be declared dead because one commodity crossed a psychologically dramatic round number.

Investors especially need that discipline.

Fear is expensive. Headlines are designed to capture attention, not manage your portfolio. If investors react to every frightening headline as though it is a crisis and has never happened before, they can make permanent financial decisions based on temporary emotion.

So when someone tells you that $100 oil proves inflation is about to spiral out of control, the economy is about to collapse, and markets are headed for disaster, ask one simple question: Compared to what?

Nominally, $100 oil has been relatively uncommon.

Adjusted for inflation, we have lived with its equivalent far more often than most Americans probably realize. We even lived with it for more than four consecutive years while the economy expanded, unemployment plunged, millions of jobs were added, and the stock market nearly doubled.

That’s a pretty strange definition of economic collapse.

Proverbs 14:15 NKJV says: “The simple believes every word, But the prudent considers well his steps.”

Sometimes prudence begins with refusing to be frightened by a headline and simply taking the time to ask: “Compared to what?”


🎭 π–πŸ‘π π““π“π“˜π“›π“¨ 𝓗𝓾𝓢𝓸𝓻, π“œπ“Ύπ“Όπ“²π“¬, 𝓐𝓻𝓽, π“žπ“Ÿπ“”π“ 𝓣𝓗𝓑𝓔𝓐𝓓

 

Welcome to 

The π–πŸ‘π π““π“π“˜π“›π“¨ 𝓗𝓾𝓢𝓸𝓻, π“œπ“Ύπ“Όπ“²π“¬, 𝓐𝓻𝓽, π“žπ“Ÿπ“”π“ 𝓣𝓗𝓑𝓔𝓐𝓓 

Here’s a place to share cartoons, jokes, music, art, nature, 
man-made wonders, and whatever else you can think of. 

No politics or divisive posts on this thread. 

This feature will appear every day at 1pm mountain time. 


A Tale of Two Viruses


It’s a tale of two viruses. One created in 2020 (Wuhan Labs), the other created in 2026 (Frontier Labs).

One was molecular (SARS-CoV-2), the other digital (Anthropic, AI).

Both man-made. Both promoted by media. Both escape a lab. Both create fear/panic. Both require experts to inform the public. Both introduce mitigation measures. Both end with govt control rules. And not coincidentally… both timed to coincide w/ critical elections.

With one you get a COVID Passport and vaccine.  With the other you get a Digital ID, and online govt safety and security certificate.

With the first one we heard “trust the medical scientists.”  Now you hear, “trust the computer scientists.”

There’s a pattern here folks. Stop me when you can see it.

We are witnessing a “Digital Covid” effort.

Wuhan Labs or Frontier Labs
NIH or Anthropic

SARS-CoV-2 or AI malware virus
Vaccination or Regulation

COVID panic = Election/Control
AI panic = Election/Control

The only thing we are waiting now, is patient zero.

However, you already have the antidote to the digital virus; it’s called, common sense.

Patient Zero (the pending AI false flag) could be anything from super serious to seriously annoying. What I am confident about is the Alinsky angle to it, where it will need to be personal to a large audience.

Again, all pure speculation… likely just gaming out possibilities that are not grounded. However, I don’t think banking or finance delivers the right outcome.

Something more passe’, yet alarming to a higher percentage of people. Something akin to AI frontier malware targeting in a communication network, Starlink or similar – even cell phone targeting.  It would also be helpful if it was global.

Something stealthy; yet personal – like an attack on Apple iPhones that overrides the built-in software charge limit protocol/parameter and creates a plugged-in overcharge that detonates the phone battery. Something like that, targeting a popular private sector device.

The result: Don’t plug in your phones, wait for a software update, stand in line at the store, something like that with an Alinsky ‘make it personal’ and annoying outcome that touches a wide audience.

It’s from that moment, when the cries for regulation, safety and security will begin.

It’s a tale of two viruses.

Warmest personal regards,

~ Sundance

Complicated business folks. Complicated business.


Build First, Talk Later: Decoding Trump's Portfolio Logic

 AI Summary !

Financial disclosures reveal a significant 2026 portfolio shift for Donald Trump, moving from fixed income to concentrated, high-frequency equity positions. The portfolio heavily targets AI infrastructure, enterprise software, and defense firms. Strategic entries often precede key policy announcements, Pentagon contracts, or geopolitical escalations, notably in tech firms like Dell, Nvidia, and Palantir. While not legally classified as insider trading, the alignment between administration policy and personal asset growth raises significant questions regarding public oversight and conflict of interest. The portfolio reflects institutional-grade market timing, consistently outperforming broader indices through exposure to government-linked growth catalysts.

February 10, 2026. Trump's investment account purchased between $1 million and $5 million worth of Dell Technologies stock at approximately $126 per share. Nobody knew. He quietly added three more positions in March. The public wouldn't find out until May.

Source: Quiver Quantitative Donald Trump Stock Trade Tracker

Fast-forward to May 8th. The White House hosted an event attended by Dell founder Michael Dell in person. Near the end, Trump went off-script: "Go out and buy a Dell! They're great."

DELL surged as much as 14.6% intraday, closing up approximately 12%, setting a new all-time high that day. Three weeks later, Dell reported earnings that stunned Wall Street: Q1 revenue of $43.8 billion, crushing estimates, with its full-year AI server revenue target raised from $50 billion to $60 billion. The next day, the Pentagon announced a $9.7 billion procurement contract with Dell.

From the entry price of $126, DELL has gained more than 200%, hitting an all-time high of $469. It currently trades near $410.

Build position. Talk it up. Earnings beat and government contract follow. That sequence doesn't look like coincidence.

On May 14, 2026, the U.S. Office of Government Ethics (OGE) published two disclosure documents totaling 113 pages. The primary filing covers Trump's Q1 2026 equity trades: 3,642 transactions spanning 1,026 companies and funds — 2,346 buys and 1,296 sells — with a total value ranging from $220 million to as much as $750 million, averaging roughly 60 transactions per trading day. A separate document lists 69 additional transactions, primarily bonds. Trump personally signed the primary filing on May 8th — the same day he publicly talked up Dell at the White House.

On June 15, CBS News launched a publicly accessible interactive tracking database dedicated to this dataset. This is no longer just a finance story. It's a subject of public oversight.

Dell is just the opening act. What's inside this portfolio is far more complex than a single stock.

 The Big Picture: A Rare Asset Allocation Overhaul

To understand Trump's Q1 2026 holdings, you need the backstory: his account barely touched stocks in 2025.

According to Investopedia's in-depth analysis, Trump's trust spent most of 2025 trading municipal bonds — Alabama gas prepayment bonds, Indiana school district bonds, investment-grade corporate bonds from Boeing and Netflix. About five trades per day on average, mostly fixed income.

In the first week of January 2026, everything changed. The trust executed nearly 500 trades in a single week — almost entirely individual equities. Q1 2026 trading volume accounted for 75% of all transactions during Trump's entire second term, with more than half concentrated in March alone.

This wasn't a gradual style shift. It was a full stop, full reversal asset reallocation.

The direction was equally clear. While trimming large-cap tech positions — Meta, Amazon, and Microsoft all saw $5–25 million in large-scale sales — the account concentrated new capital into three categories:

Category 1: AI Hardware & Chip Infrastructure Nvidia, Broadcom, Intel, AMD, Texas Instruments, Synopsys, Cadence, Dell, Jabil.

Category 2: Enterprise Software & Cloud Platforms Oracle, ServiceNow, Adobe, Workday, PTC.

Category 3: Policy-Driven Beneficiaries Palantir, Axon Enterprise, Intuitive Machines, Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics, Northrop Grumman.

Plus broad index exposure: VOO (S&P 500 ETF), IWB (Russell 1000 ETF), RSP (equal-weight S&P 500 ETF).

The portfolio style is institutional, not retail. Active management, concentrated bets, market timing, sector rotation — every characteristic points to a professionally resourced, actively managed account. That assessment sits in notable tension with the Trump family's claim that all trades are "fully managed by third-party automated systems" — but we'll come back to that.

 The Two Biggest Winners

The highest returns came from two names: Penguin Solutions (PENG) and SanDisk (SNDK).

Penguin Solutions is a name that draws a blank for most people. The company rebranded from SMART Global Holdings in 2024 and operates AI factory platforms — helping enterprises and emerging cloud providers deploy large-scale AI compute infrastructure. Its core technology is CXL (Computer Express Link) memory expansion. In March 2026, it released the MemoryAI KV Cache Server: a CXL-based enterprise memory appliance delivering up to 11TB of single-node memory capacity, purpose-built for large model inference. Trump's account bought exactly once, at the low. The stock has since approximately tripled.

SanDisk (SNDK) delivered a different kind of explosion. In early 2026, it reported Q2 adjusted EPS of $6.20 against a Wall Street consensus of $3.50 — nearly double the estimate. Data center revenue surged 64% quarter-over-quarter. It then announced a $42 billion multi-year AI storage contract, shifting its business from cyclical NAND spot sales to locked-in long-term agreements with major AI customers. Morgan Stanley raised its price target to $690. Raymond James said "there's still room even after a 16x move." Trump's account bought six times; from the initial position, the stock has more than doubled. Since the start of 2026, SNDK's total gain exceeds 5x.

The thesis behind both stocks has nothing to do with political endorsements — they represent real supply-demand mismatches being resolved along the AI compute expansion chain. The next set of positions is a different story.

 Where Every Buy Overlaps With a Policy Timeline

Intel (INTC): One of the world's oldest semiconductor companies, struggling through a painful transition after falling behind TSMC in advanced nodes. Trump's account began buying aggressively in March 2026 — six purchases, several flagged as "broker acting as agent." The backdrop: in August 2025, the U.S. government announced a 9.9% equity stake in Intel at $20.47 per share, a total commitment of $8.9 billion — the government entered first; the president's personal account began building its position roughly six months later. Since the government's announcement, Intel's stock has risen 5x. Intel has now become the second-largest holding among Republican members of Congress.

Nvidia (NVDA): The undisputed AI chip leader, with over 80% share of the data center GPU market. Q1 saw 15 total transactions, including million-dollar-plus buys on both January 6 and February 10. Key context: in August 2025, the Trump administration struck a deal with Nvidia and AMD to permit AI chip sales to China; in January 2026, the administration further approved H200 exports to China with a 25% surcharge; in March 2026, China formally approved H200 imports. Trump's account's major purchases were concentrated in the window during which H200 was receiving regulatory clearance on both sides.

AMD (AMD): Nvidia's most direct competitor in high-end GPUs, and an equally direct beneficiary of the U.S.-China chip agreement. Bought 12 times throughout Q1. As the China market reopened, AMD's data center business gained important new incremental demand.

Dell (DELL): The world's largest AI server integrator. The timeline was covered at the top. One additional fundamental note: Dell's ISG division is the core AI server supplier, with the CFO explicitly stating on the earnings call that AI server backlog had exceeded its all-time high. Michael and Susan Dell donated $6.25 billion to Trump's "American Savings Accounts" initiative. The Pentagon's $9.7 billion contract didn't emerge from nowhere.

 The Supply Chain and Tooling Layer: Every Link Covered

Texas Instruments (TXN): The world's largest analog chip company. In June 2025, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick announced TI would invest $60 billion in the U.S. to build seven chip factories. Six months later, Trump's account began buying aggressively — 13 purchases total, second only to Oracle and Nvidia in frequency.

Marvell Technology (MRVL): Designs custom AI chips (ASICs/XPUs) for Google, Amazon, and Microsoft — the preferred supplier for cloud providers seeking to reduce Nvidia dependency. In May 2025, Marvell and Nvidia announced a partnership via NVLink Fusion technology, enabling Marvell chips to interface directly with Nvidia's interconnect architecture. Marvell thus became simultaneously a beneficiary of the Nvidia ecosystem and an independent growth story. Trump's account bought twice in February.

Cadence (CDNS) and Synopsys (SNPS): EDA software companies — virtually every new chip in the world passes through their tools from design to tape-out. The most invisible, most structurally durable infrastructure in the entire stack.

Oracle (ORCL): Enterprise database software's long-dominant player, rapidly transitioning to cloud and AI infrastructure. The single most frequently traded stock in the entire portfolio — 17 purchases. Oracle has also captured a large volume of federal government cloud contracts.

Datadog (DDOG): The observability platform for cloud infrastructure. The bigger the AI infrastructure build-out, the higher the probability of failure, and the stronger the demand for monitoring tools. First purchased in March.

Jabil (JBL): One of the world's largest EMS companies; Apple and Nvidia both rely heavily on Jabil for hardware production. Headquartered in Florida. Bought February 10, with three additional purchases in March.

Fortinet (FTNT): Leading network security vendor. AI infrastructure expansion simultaneously creates a larger attack surface. The account first sold a batch, then bought back more in March.

 Government Contracts and the Most Contested Positions

Palantir (PLTR) represents the most direct conflict of interest in this portfolio. In February 2026, DHS awarded Palantir a blanket purchase agreement with a ceiling value of $1 billion. Trump's account began building a position in January, made a large sale on February 10 (up to $5 million), then bought multiple times in March with some partial sales, resulting in a Q1 net purchase of approximately $247,000 to $630,000. The entity signing the contract was the administration Trump leads. The account holding the stock belongs to Trump himself. In April, Trump posted on Truth Social praising Palantir for its "great war fighting capabilities and equipment."

Axon Enterprise (AXON): Same logic. Axon makes Tasers and law enforcement AI platforms. The Trump administration's large-scale immigration enforcement operations directly expanded procurement demand across law enforcement agencies. The account purchased $1–5 million on February 10.

Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics, Northrop Grumman all appear in the OGE source documents. In early January, when Trump posted on Truth Social attacking defense contractors and the sector sold off sharply, the account had already quietly begun building positions. After the U.S.-Israel military strike on Iran on February 28, defense stocks rallied broadly — Trump entered at the sector's low and captured the entire move higher.

 The Three Questions That Matter

Is this insider trading? Under the current legal framework, the trades in this filing do not constitute insider trading in the criminal law sense. The STOCK Act (signed 2012) prohibits officials from trading on material nonpublic information, but "material nonpublic information" is extraordinarily difficult to define and prove. The Trump family's defense — third-party independent management — provides a legal layer of protection.

Is the presidential account a blind trust? No. A blind trust requires assets to be managed by a trustee completely independent from the beneficiary, with the beneficiary having no knowledge of holdings. Trump personally signed the OGE disclosure and certified its accuracy — meaning he was aware of his holdings at the time of filing. A NOTUS investigation directly concludes this is not, in substance, a "blind" trust.

Were these trades automated? Unverifiable. "Broker Acted As Agent" and "Discretion Exercised" notations indicate only that execution was handled by the broker — they say nothing about whether the strategic direction was set by a human. The Trump Organization's statement that the president is "neither informed nor consulted" cannot be independently verified.

The real central question isn't about legality. It's this: when a single person is simultaneously the most powerful source of policy information in the market and an active participant in that market, is the game starting on a level playing field?

 The March Bottom: Precise Entry at Maximum Fear

Euronews noted that Trump's account made substantial purchases during March's market selloff — when the S&P 500 was down nearly 9%, as the Iran war broke out and fear spiked. That bottom call proved strikingly accurate: the S&P 500 bottomed at the end of March, then rallied approximately 17% to new all-time highs.

Buying the dip is not illegal. But a BBC investigation in April provided broader context — across the entirety of Trump's second term, researchers identified a recurring pattern of "abnormal volume spikes in specific assets hours before major announcements." That's no longer an isolated coincidence. It's a consistently observable phenomenon.

A person in possession of war intelligence, policy intelligence, and negotiation intelligence chose to buy aggressively at a moment of extreme market uncertainty. The information sources behind that decision remain a black box.

 What This Portfolio Actually Tells Us

Trump's holdings are not an ordinary investment portfolio. They read more like a concrete visualization of America's core strategic priorities for 2026 — with four legible themes.

The AI Arms Race. Nvidia, Broadcom, AMD, Intel, Texas Instruments — the hardware foundation of America's AI chip strategy, directly tied to export control policy, CHIPS Act disbursement, and data center construction pace.

Storage and Inference Infrastructure. SanDisk, Marvell, Penguin Solutions — the underreported layer of the AI stack. Large model inference demands enormous memory and high-speed storage. This chain's breakout is a physical inevitability of AI compute expansion. SanDisk's 5x gain since January 2026 is underwritten by $42 billion in locked AI storage contracts.

The Government Contract Ecosystem. Palantir, Axon — growth through federal procurement, not market competition. The Trump administration's immigration enforcement, homeland security, and intelligent policing agenda are the direct growth drivers. The president holds equity in these companies while his administration signs contracts with them.

Geopolitical Beneficiaries. Lockheed, Northrop, General Dynamics — directly linked to war. In January, Trump's account built positions at the sector low; after the February 28 Iran strike, defense stocks rallied, THAAD production expanded, and Ukraine reconstruction contracts materialized — Trump entered at the bottom and captured the full move.

This portfolio has also triggered an unexpected cascade: Republican members of Congress are replicating these holdings at scale, and Intel has become the second-largest position among GOP lawmakers. According to Autopilot's tracking, Trump's "White House Asset Management" portfolio has substantially outperformed Nancy Pelosi's year-to-date.

 A Final Note

No publicly available evidence proves that Trump himself or his family directly participated in any specific trading decision. But one thing is certain: in this portfolio, the highest-returning positions consistently correspond to the most consequential policy decisions made by the Trump administration — the Intel equity stake, the Nvidia China access deal, the Palantir DHS contract, the Dell Pentagon award.

This may not be insider trading. But the existence of this portfolio is itself a profound metaphor for the relationship between power and capital:

In this market, the most valuable research report is never on any broker's subscription list.

 Disclaimer: U.S. Office of Government Ethics (OGE) public financial disclosure filings, CBS News interactive database, Forbes, Reuters, and other public reporting. Does not represent realized returns. Not investment advice.

https://www.tradingkey.com/analysis/stocks/us-stocks/261971884-trump-stock-trades-2026-tradingkey