Tomorrow's news today

IN A MEMORABLE scene from one of the Back to the Future films, Marty McFly, played by Michael J. Fox, discovers a booklet with stock market history featuring daily quotes. He’s from 1985, and so when he and Doc go to 2015 via time travel, what they find is an extremely valuable piece of insider information.

To be able to know next year or ten years from now, or even tomorrow what an equity will do is like investing in the sunrise. It’s an investor’s dream.

There’s a difference between smart investing after tedious due diligence, and knowing as Marty McFly did what an equity will be doing in a few days or a few years. One might carry an investor on to good fortune, and the other can land an insider in jail, as it did about twenty years ago for highly successful businesswoman Martha Stewart.

Ms. Stewart was alleged to have gotten insider information respecting shares she owned in a bio pharmaceutical company called ImClone Systems. The CEO of the company, she learned through her broker, was dumping his shares because, the broker somehow knew, the Food and Drug Administration intended to reject Erbitux, a cancer drug developed by the company. Ms. Stewart, a billionaire at the time, sold all of her 4,000 or so shares an avoided a loss.

For normal people, even well-connected ones such as Martha Stewart, acting on insider information can lead to a prison term. Called out for the suspicious trade, she and her broker lied about it, which led to charges including conspiracy and obstruction of justice. She spent five months in prison, punished rather severely for doing the wrong thing.1

What about market manipulaton? In recent days, the current president has single-handedly caused jaw-dropping fluctuations in stock markets. His vacillating directives on tariffs have caused extreme market swings, what traders call high volatility. Last week was one of the most volatile periods on record for the U.S. exchanges. The major averages gyrated as traders shifted from fear to hope. Historic gains on Wednesday were recorded after Trump announced a 90-day reprieve on some of his high “reciprocal” tariffs. If the swings can be anticipated, big gains are possible. So, what if the current president made it known what his next whimsical move would be?

A few members of Congress are asking that very question. Sen. Adam Schiff last Wednesday called on Congress to investigate whether the current president’s actions amounted to market manipulation and whether his family or cronies placed trades based on the certainty of manipulated market swings. 2 Arizona Sen. Ruben Gallego has also raised the question of manipulation, and Democratic leader Chuck Schumer and Sen. Elizabeth Warren, both Democrats, are calling on the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to investigate. When the president initiated a pause in the tariff, market prices rose dramatically. Did Trump administration insiders and friends profit from insider knowledge? “We ask the SEC to determine whether President Trump, any members of his cabinet, or other donors, insiders, and administration officials engaged in insider trading, market manipulation or other securities laws violations on April 9, 2025,” the senators wrote.

On Wednesday in particular, no higher “insider” than the president himself tipped his hand. He announced on social media that “THIS IS A GREAT TIME TO BUY!!!!” He followed the post with his initials, which just happen to be the ticker symbol for his media company. Four hours later, he “paused” his tariff program, and markets rose rapidly.

At the very least, this is not acceptable presidential behavior, although arguing as much to the Supreme Court may be like whistling in the wind. There isn’t any way this behavior can be good for all Americans, and it could be a fraudulent windfall for some insiders. Will Sen. Schiff and others be able to make a case? Will any Republicans begin to squirm if their financial disclosures reveal trades timed with the president’s whimsy?

Sadly, it’s doubtful, but we can hope that wrongdoing does not go unpunished. By the way, Marty McFly and Doc did the right thing: They did not return to 1985 with insider market information. That would have been unfair and illegal.

HATS OFF TO THE ASSOCIATED PRESS. You don’t have to be a former newspaper person, as I am, to know that press freedom is so essential for democracy that it was guaranteed by the First Amendment. But the current president doesn’t seem to give a whit about any newspaper, social platform, or broadcast company other than those which bend a knee to his self-importance. When the Associated Press continued to refer to the Gulf of Mexico rather than the “Gulf of America” in its Stylebook, the current president banned AP reporters from White House and presidential events. 3

The AP fought back in court and the White House ban was removed. The concept of access in this case has to be controlled, because there isn’t space to acommodate all the press people who would like to be in the room or at the events. But the policing traditionally has been left to the press pool members, not the president and staff. 4

For decades the Associated Press Stylebook has provided direction on usage, capitalization, second references and a host of other mundane topics, and member newspapers generally depended on it in the interest of consistency. For example, should a person named in a news story be referred to by only their last name upon second reference? Yes, says the Stylebook that rests on my shelf, dated as it surely is (2009). Consistency was the issue, but there was nothing legalistic about the Stylebook’s recommendations. If member news outlets wanted to use an honorific such as Mr., Mrs. or Dr. upon second reference, they were certainly welcome to do so.

The current president very obviously doesn’t like anything that contrasts with his supreme authority. The episode is a small reminder, as if we needed one, that this White House is vindictive. If there’s anything firm in the First Amendment regarding press freedom it’s that the government doesn’t establish or limit usage. Whether to use Gulf of Mexico or some other whimsical utterance from a nattering nabob is up the free press.