Why Is the President Outside the Stock-Trading Net?

A Bloomberg analysis has raised an intriguing question about the relationship between political power and financial markets in Washington. President Donald Trump and his financial managers reportedly executed nearly 28,700 securities transactions during the 17 months following his second inauguration through June 2026—more than the roughly 22,200 transactions reported collectively by members of Congress over the same period.

The scale is remarkable. Trump’s transactions reportedly involved accounts worth more than US$858 million and covered individual stocks, bonds and cryptocurrencies. This represents a notable shift from his first term, when his assets were primarily associated with real estate.

The volume of trading, does not by itself establish wrongdoing. Trump’s representatives and the Trump Organization have maintained that the accounts are managed by independent third parties and computer-driven models, and that neither Trump nor his family receives advance notice of or exercises control over individual transactions.

Yet the issue raises a broader question of public policy. The United States already has rules against government officials using non-public information obtained through their positions for financial gain. The 2012 Stock Act clarified that insider-trading prohibitions apply to Members of Congress and other government officials. Congressional records also show that lawmakers have repeatedly proposed going further by restricting or banning securities trading by elected officials.

Here the question becomes particularly relevant, if Members of Congress are considered sufficiently exposed to potential conflicts of interest to justify restrictions on their personal investments, why should comparable safeguards not apply to the President?

Not all proposed legislation treats the President differently. Indeed, the proposed Ethics Act would cover Members of Congress, the President and Vice President, while other measures have focused specifically on lawmakers.

That variation itself deserves scrutiny. The President exercises enormous influence over policies involving taxation, tariffs, regulation, energy, defence, trade and international relations—areas capable of affecting the value of financial assets. Even when investments are managed independently, the question of public confidence remains.

The debate, should not be reduced to whether any particular Trump transaction was lawful or unlawful. The more fundamental issue is whether America's conflict-of-interest framework should apply consistently to all elected officials.

If Congress believes that stock trading can create either an actual conflict or the appearance of one, the same principle merits consideration at the highest level of government.

After all, public trust should not depend on whether an elected official occupies a seat on Capitol Hill—or sits in the Oval Office.

United States the Biggest Arms Seller

Today, I am referring to the second blog US – The biggest Arm Seller I had posted, as a novice, on June 22, 2012. At times I wonder why people are still reading this. Even today it is among the top 20 blogs visited. 

I am one of the millions of people who fail to understand why conflicts are created and allowed to grow that often lead to anarchy, civil war and war among the countries.

If it is not taken as ‘self-praise’, I can see several reasons why a blog written in June 2012 would still attract readers today. Looking at it critically—both its strengths and weaknesses—I think its continued popularity is more about the theme rather than the accuracy of the predictions:

1. It Addresses a Timeless Question

The opening question—why conflicts are created and allowed to grow—remains relevant. Wars, insurgencies, regime changes, and geopolitical rivalries continue to dominate headlines. Readers searching for explanations often gravitate toward articles that challenge official narratives.

2. It Captures a Historical Turning Point

The blog was written during the aftermath of the Arab Spring. Events in Bahrain, Libya, Syria, Afghanistan, Iran, and Pakistan were at the center of global attention. Today, many people revisit early commentary to see who "got it right" and who didn't.

3. The Arms Trade Remains a Hot Topic

My central argument that major powers benefit from arms sales while conflicts continue, still resonates. The world has since witnessed wars in Ukraine, Gaza, Sudan, and elsewhere, with defense spending reaching record levels. Readers often search for critiques of the military-industrial complex, and my title is highly searchable.

4. The Blog Raises Questions Rather Than Giving Definitive Answers

I repeatedly use phrases such as "one of the hypotheses," "one of the conspiracy theories," and "it is believed." This invites readers to think rather than simply accept a conclusion. Such content tends to have a longer shelf life.

My title, "US – The Biggest Arm Seller," contains keywords that people frequently search: 1) US arms sales, 2) biggest arms exporter, 3) Saudi Arabia weapons purchases, 4) Iran conflict, 5) Afghanistan and NATO Even after fourteen years, search engines can continue sending visitors to pages containing evergreen keywords.

I notice three shortcomings:

First, the article relies heavily on speculation without citing sources. Claims about future attacks on Pakistan and Iran, or military hardware being retained for future wars, are presented without evidence, the time proved both correct.

Second, it treats complex events largely through a single lens—great-power manipulation. Local political, ethnic, sectarian, and economic factors receive little attention, these also proved correct.

Third, some predictions did not materialize. Pakistan did not become the next major target after the NATO withdrawal, and several regional developments unfolded differently from what was anticipated.

My overall assessment is, the reason people still read this blog is probably not because every prediction proved correct. Rather, it reflects a persistent skepticism about great-power politics, arms sales, and interventionism.

Many readers continue to ask the same questions today that I raised in 2012. In that sense, the article has aged better as a commentary on geopolitical anxieties than as a forecast of future events.

For a novice blogger in 2012, it also displays something that has remained characteristic of my later writing: challenging dominant narratives and asking uncomfortable questions rather than merely repeating official positions. That is often what keeps an old article alive long after the news cycle has moved on.

Ukraine War: Bloodshed, Profits and Hypocrisy

Nearly four years after the first shots were fired, the Ukraine-Russia war stands as one of the greatest geopolitical tragedies of the 21st century. Hundreds of thousands have been killed, millions displaced, entire cities devastated, and critical infrastructure reduced to rubble. Despite this immense human suffering, there is little evidence that those with the power to end the conflict are genuinely interested in doing so.

What is increasingly difficult to ignore is that this war has long ceased to be merely a conflict between Ukraine and Russia. It has evolved into a US-backed proxy war aimed at weakening Russia strategically, economically, and politically. Ukraine has become the battlefield, while Washington and its allies continue to provide weapons, intelligence, and financial support that sustain a conflict with no visible endgame.

The official rhetoric revolves around democracy, sovereignty, and international law. However, the reality on the ground tells a different story. Four years of warfare have not delivered peace, stability, or security. Instead, they have produced death, destruction, and a humanitarian catastrophe on a scale that should shame the international community.

The greatest victims are ordinary Ukrainians and Russians. Young men continue to die in trenches and on battlefields. Families remain separated. Millions live under constant uncertainty. Entire generations are being sacrificed in pursuit of geopolitical objectives that have little to do with the welfare of those paying the highest price.

At the same time, clear beneficiaries have emerged. Arms manufacturers continue to secure lucrative contracts. Defense spending has surged across the Western world. Energy markets have been reshaped, creating opportunities for major oil and gas interests. While soldiers fight and civilians suffer, corporate profits continue to grow.

Equally disturbing is the failure of international institutions to bring meaningful pressure for a negotiated settlement. The United Nations has proven largely powerless. The NATO remains focused on military support. The European Union continues to deepen its involvement while offering no realistic roadmap to peace. Their actions may differ, but the outcome remains the same: the war goes on.

Four years later, the scorecard is brutally simple. Ukraine and Russia count their dead. Cities count their ruins. Families count their losses. As against these, defense contractors count their profits and geopolitical strategists congratulate themselves on another chapter of great-power rivalry.

History may ultimately judge this conflict not as a triumph of principle, but as a devastating example of how powerful nations can sustain war in the name of noble ideals while ordinary people bear the brunt.

Hostile Takeover of US Primaries by Billionaires

The integrity of democratic governance relies heavily on the transparency of its introductory gatekeepers - the political primaries. While international attention remains fixated on the theater of the general elections, a highly sophisticated, billionaire-backed financial apparatus is quietly engineering a structural overhaul of the electoral menu. 

Recent investigative disclosures have exposed a coordinated network of political action committees (PACs), shadow consultants, and dark-money conglomerates acting as a de facto "party within the party." This machine systematically distorts the democratic process long before the broader electorate ever reaches the ballot box.

From a structural standpoint, the strategy is calculated to maximize return on political investment. Primaries are historically low-turnout, low-visibility contests. In these economically vulnerable entry points, a heavily concentrated injection of capital yields outsized influence.

Billionaires and corporate interest groups are leveraging dark-money channels to finance saturated, highly targeted media campaigns. This capital asymmetry effectively suffocates grassroots contenders, forcing an artificial curation of candidates aligned with a centrist, corporate-friendly agenda. Because these transactions are deliberately obscured from public tracking, the fundamental relationship between representative and constituent is severely compromised.

This phenomenon extends far beyond campaign finance irregularities; it represents an existential threat to economic equity and fair representation. When elite donor classes capture the primary gateway, they effectively establish a "shadow veto" over macro policy.

Critical structural reforms—ranging from regulatory corporate accountability and tax normalization to robust economic justice initiatives—are preemptively sidelined. The result is a governance framework designed to insulate capital rather than serve the public interest.

If democratic systems are to retain institutional credibility, regulatory bodies must intervene, Congress must urgently implement stringent legislative reforms enforcing absolute disclosure of all political expenditure and multi-organizational coordination.

The power of the primary must be salvaged from private capital capture and restored to a merit-driven, community-oriented framework. Transparency is no longer a policy preference; it is the baseline requirement to prevent the absolute corporatization of the state.

Who Is Benefiting From War on Iran?

As the conflict involving United States and Israel against Iran intensifies, the humanitarian cost has understandably dominated headlines. Yet wars are rarely judged only by the destruction they cause. Equally important is a harder question: who ultimately benefits from the economic and geopolitical consequences of war?

Daily Brief: PSX and Global Markets

Pakistan’s equity market ended almost flat on Wednesday, while trading in silver contracts remained suspended at the Pakistan Mercantile Exchange (PMEX). Meanwhile, Asian equities declined on Thursday as oil prices surged. Both crude benchmarks jumped about 9%, the safe-haven US dollar hovered near its strongest levels of the year, and gold prices held broadly steady. US stocks also closed lower on Wednesday. To read details click https://shkazmipk.com/capital-market-review-49/

Early estimates suggest Washington may be spending close to a billion dollars a day on military operations. While the figure appears staggering, such expenditures often circulate within the American economy itself. The vast defense ecosystem surrounding the United States Department of Defense thrives during prolonged military engagements. Demand rises for missiles, air defense systems, surveillance equipment and logistical support produced by companies such as Lockheed Martin, Raytheon Technologies, and Northrop Grumman. In that sense, war can act as a powerful economic multiplier for the military-industrial complex.

Energy markets provide another revealing dimension. The Strait of Hormuz, the world’s most critical oil chokepoint, carries nearly one-fifth of global crude supplies. Any disruption or closure immediately pushes oil prices higher. Ironically, such instability may strengthen the position of the United States, which has emerged as one of the world’s leading oil and liquefied natural gas exporters. Higher global prices make American energy exports more profitable while opening opportunities to capture market share in Europe and Asia.

For Gulf producers, the situation is more complex. Countries such as Saudi Arabia, Iraq, United Arab Emirates, and Qatar depend heavily on secure maritime routes to ship oil and gas to global markets. If traffic through the Strait of Hormuz is disrupted, export volumes could decline even while prices surge. In such a scenario, higher prices may not fully offset reduced shipments.

Geopolitical instability may also reinforce the dominance of the United States Dollar in global energy trade. Efforts by emerging economies to establish alternative settlement mechanisms often lose momentum when markets retreat toward the perceived safety of dollar-based transactions.

Meanwhile, elevated oil prices could still deliver additional fiscal space for Mohammed bin Salman, Saudi Arabia’s crown prince, helping finance ambitious transformation initiatives such as NEOM and other development plans.

None of this proves that economic gain is the sole driver of conflict. But history repeatedly shows that wars reshape markets and redistribute advantages. When the guns fall silent, the question will remain: was this merely a geopolitical confrontation, or a conflict whose economic dividends were quietly anticipated from the start?

Six Uncomfortable Questions the World Avoids Answering

It is often alleged that Western media is dishonest, it tows foreign policy agenda of United States. A term Embedded Journalists is used. As the US-Iran war continues, I tried to find replies to pertinent/ select questions through AI. These questions may not have simple answers, but asking them is essential. In international politics, narratives are often shaped by power, alliances, and media influence. An informed public must therefore examine facts carefully and remain willing to question prevailing assumptions.

Who is the aggressor — the United States or Iran?
From Vietnam to Iraq and Afghanistan, the United States has carried out military interventions across several continents. Iran’s actions, though controversial, have largely remained confined to the Middle East.

Who is the terrorist — Israel or Iran?
Washington labels Iran a state sponsor of terrorism for supporting armed groups. Critics argue Israel’s military actions in Palestinian territories resemble state terrorism.

Who has killed the most people — the United States, Israel, or Iran?
The wars involving the United States have resulted in far greater casualties than those linked to conflicts involving Israel or Iran.

Who is not a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty?
Israel has never signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and maintains nuclear ambiguity. Iran, however, is a signatory and legally bound by the treaty.

Who is fooling Arabs the most — Israel or Iran?
Some analysts argue Israel benefits from divisions within the Arab world. Others believe Iran uses the Palestinian cause to expand its regional influence.

Why are U.S. military bases located in GCC countries?
Officially they exist to defend Gulf states and secure energy routes. Strategically, they also reinforce a regional security structure that indirectly protects Israel.

Election or Selection in the United States?

The United States projects itself as the world’s leading democracy, promoting its political model while judging others against it. Yet a closer look at how power operates in Washington raises an uncomfortable question: does America still practice genuine elections, or has it quietly shifted toward managed selection?

Americans vote, campaigns are televised, and results are certified. But democracy is not merely about procedure—it is about meaningful choice. And that choice is shaped long before Election Day.

Today, candidates pass through an ecosystem dominated by money, lobbying, and media influence. Corporate donors, defence contractors, energy giants, and financial institutions determine who receives funding, visibility, and institutional backing. Those who challenge entrenched interests rarely survive primaries, while outsiders are systematically marginalized. By the time voters reach polling booths, the menu has already been curated.

This is where selection replaces election.

Campaigns now cost billions. Such sums cannot be raised without compromising political independence. Elected officials emerge indebted to donors rather than constituents. The revolving door between Congress, corporate boardrooms, and federal agencies further blurs the line between public service and private profit. Policy continuity across administrations—regardless of party—reveals where real power lies.

Foreign policy offers the clearest evidence. Presidents change, but wars persist. Military budgets expand almost automatically. Arms shipments grow. Sanctions multiply. Whether Democrat or Republican, Washington remains committed to confrontation-first strategies. This consistency reflects the priorities of powerful lobbies, particularly the defence industry, which profits directly from instability.

Domestic policy tells a similar story. Despite strong public support for healthcare reform, student debt relief, and financial regulation, progress remains limited. Meanwhile, defence spending and corporate advantages pass with remarkable ease. Popular will is routinely overridden by institutional inertia and corporate pressure.

Media consolidation deepens the problem. A handful of corporations shape national discourse, narrowing debate and manufacturing consent. Candidates who question militarism or corporate dominance receive limited coverage, while establishment figures dominate airtime.

To be clear, the United States is not a dictatorship. Elections occur, courts function, and civil liberties exist. But democracy has become conditional—operating within boundaries set by moneyed interests. Citizens vote, yet rarely determine strategic direction. That privilege belongs to donors, lobbyists, and unelected power centers.

The result is a managed democracy - ballots provide legitimacy, while selection ensures continuity. Until money is removed from politics and lobbying is meaningfully restrained, “government of the people” will remain more slogan than reality.

Japan a victim of US military industrial game

It is an uncomfortable but undeniable reality that a major driver of the US economy is the global sale of military hardware. Packaged as “security cooperation,” this system increasingly functions as a mechanism of dependency that serves America’s military industrial complex more than the security needs of its allies. A recent Nikkei Asia investigation into Japan’s undelivered US weapons orders exposes this imbalance with unusual clarity.

According to the report, Japan has placed 118 orders for US military equipment worth over US$7 billion that remain undelivered more than five years after contracts were signed. In several cases, the delays have forced Japan’s Self-Defense Forces to rely on aging platforms—the very problem these purchases were meant to address. This is not a bureaucratic mishap but a structural flaw in the US Foreign Military Sales (FMS) program.

Under FMS rules, buyers must pay in advance, while prices and delivery schedules remain estimates. Washington retains the right to prioritize its own military needs, a reality that has become more pronounced since the war in Ukraine. Weapons already paid for by allies can be diverted elsewhere, while client states are expected to wait patiently. The refund of surplus funds, often cited as evidence of fairness, does little to compensate for years of strategic uncertainty.

This arrangement increasingly resembles economic coercion. Countries are encouraged to replace “obsolete” systems even when existing hardware remains functional. The logic of modernization often aligns more closely with US defense contractors’ production cycles than with genuine threat assessments. The buyer’s ability—or even need—to deploy advanced systems becomes secondary.

Japan’s experience is particularly instructive. As a technologically advanced nation and a key US ally, Tokyo should, in theory, enjoy priority treatment. Its difficulties raise serious questions about the position of smaller or less influential buyers, for whom arms purchases can become sunk costs with limited security returns.

The Nikkei Asia findings should serve as a warning. Dependence on a single supplier whose economy is deeply tied to militarization carries inherent risks. Paying upfront for weapons that arrive late—or not at all—undermines both security and sovereignty. Japan’s US$7 billion backlog is not merely a logistical failure; it is a lesson in the real economics of buying American security.

Dishonest Western Media

I started this blog in June 2012 and the focus has remained on Geopolitics in South Asia and MENA. Over the years my conviction has got stronger that western media is dishonest. Since media is supported by conglomerates, especially ‘Military Complexes’ the focus remains on creating conflicts that can lead to proxy wars and ultimately sale of arms. Referring to two mantras: Presence of Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan and Iraq building weapons of mass destruction (WMD) may help the readers understand my assertion.

On Monday, 30 October 2023, I listed titles of some of my blogs and their links with a request to readers to spend a few minutes in reading these blogs and then decide does the western media publishes/ airs real stories or these are tweaked to achieve their ultimate objective of selling lethal arms to facilitate their military complexes working at the best capacity utilization.

To read details click the following links:

Ten dumbest things propagandists want people to believe

https://shkazmipk.blogspot.com/2023/10/ten-dumbest-things-propagandists-want.html

Dishonest western media not reporting correct situation of oil market

https://shkazmipk.blogspot.com/2022/07/dishonest-western-media-not-reporting.html

Media in United States in the grip of intelligence agents

https://shkazmipk.blogspot.com/2019/10/media-in-united-states-in-grip-of.html

Time to mend Saudi-Iranian relationship

https://shkazmipk.blogspot.com/2019/08/time-to-mend-saudi-iranian-relationship.html

Trump acts touching insanity

https://shkazmipk.blogspot.com/2019/06/trump-acts-touching-insanity.html

As world faces Armageddon, west seems leaderless

https://shkazmipk.blogspot.com/2019/06/as-world-faces-armageddon-western-world.html

Western Media is Key to Syria Deception

https://shkazmipk.blogspot.com/2019/05/western-media-is-key-to-syria-deception.html

Syria planning another chemical attack, another hoax call by the US

https://shkazmipk.blogspot.com/2017/06/syria-planning-another-chemical-attack.html

Anti Iran stance of western media

https://shkazmipk.blogspot.com/2017/01/anti-iran-stance-of-western-media.html

What are the motives behind alleging Russia of hacking US election?

https://shkazmipk.blogspot.com/2016/12/what-are-motives-behind-alleging-russia.html

The Long History of Lies about Iran

https://shkazmipk.blogspot.com/2013/04/the-long-history-of-lies-about-iran.html

 

War is good for business, mantra of military industrial complexes

Military industrial complex players big and small gathered in London this month, hawking everything from long-range missiles to gold plated pistols to arms fair attendees—including representatives of horrific human rights violators—as weapon-makers and other merchants of the machinery of death reap record profits.

"War is good for business," one defense executive attending the biennial Defense and Security Equipment International (DSEI) conference at ExCel London flat-out told Reuters. "We are extremely busy," Michael Elmore, head of sales at the UK-based armored steelmaker MTL Advanced, told the media agency.

Russia's ongoing invasion of Ukraine and the West's scramble to arm Ukrainian homeland defenders have been a bonanza for arms-makers.

"Ukraine is a very interesting combination of First and Second World War technologies and very modern technology," Kuldar Vaarsi, CEO of the Estonian unmanned ground vehicle firm MILREM, told Reuters.

Saber-rattling and fearmongering by government, media, and business figures amid rising tensions between the US and its allies on one side, and a fast-rising China on the other, have also spurred military spending, including Japan's US$320 billion buildup announced last December.

"We think this is a longer-term essentially 'sea change' in national defense strategy for the U.S. and for our Western allies," Jim Taiclet, CEO of US arms giant Lockheed Martin, told investors during a call earlier this summer announcing higher-than-expected sales and profit outlooks.

According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, the United States, Russia, France, China, and Germany were the world's top arms exporters from 2018-22, with the five nations accounting for 76% of all weapons exports during that period. The U.S. accounted for nearly 40% of such exports during those five years, while increasing its dominance in the arms trade. The US also remains by far the world's biggest military spender.

In addition to major corporations, middlemen like Marc Morales have also been profiting handsomely from wars in countries including Ukraine. Morales happened to have a warehouse full of ammunition in Bulgaria that the Pentagon originally intended for Afghanistan when Russia invaded its neighbor, and he has been richly rewarded as the US spends tens of billions of dollars arming Ukrainian forces. He named his new US$10 million yacht Trigger Happy.

Outside the sprawling ExCel convention center in London's Docklands, anti-war protesters rallied against the global arms trade and the death and destruction it fuels. The Guardian reported that at least a dozen demonstrators were arrested during the course of the conference, including nine on Thursday for blocking a road outside the venue.

Sam Perlo-Freeman, a researcher at the Campaign Against Arms Trade (CAAT), told The Guardian that a lot of countries that are being talked about as new arms export markets are ones we would be concerned about.

"Egypt is a repressive regime and Vietnam an absolute dictatorship," Perlo-Freeman added. "Indonesia is involved in brutality in West Papua."

Emily Apple, also of CAAT, told People's World that the companies exhibiting read as who is who of the world's worst arms dealers.

"Israel is an apartheid state, and it is disgusting that the UK is not only selling weapons to Israel but encouraging Israeli arms companies to sell their weapons in London," she continued.

"Representatives from regimes such as Saudi Arabia, who have used UK made weapons to commit war crimes in Yemen, will be wined and dined and encouraged to buy yet more arms."

"Deals done at DSEI will cause misery across the world, causing global instability, and devastate people's lives," Apple added.

Inside ExCel, it was business as usual. Pressed by Declassified UK chief reporter Phil Miller on why Britain's right-wing government supports selling arms to the Saudi dictatorship that sentences someone to death for tweeting, Minister of State for the Armed Forces James Heappey deflected.

Private sector leaders, however, have been more forthcoming. As Raytheon CEO Greg Hayes opined during a 2021 investor call touting the company's solid growth, "Peace is not going to break out in the Middle East anytime soon."