‘Would That Be Illegal?’: Bessent Walked Into Warren’s Hearing Not Knowing He Was About to Help Her Build the Case That Trump Should Be Investigated

During a Senate Finance Committee hearing on June 3, Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren walked Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent straight into a trap of his own making — using his own words against him to expose what she called a brazen pattern of self-dealing by President Donald Trump that would have any private citizen facing an SEC investigation.

The three-term Massachusetts sentator opened by reminding Bessent of something he said himself before he became the man defending the very behavior he once condemned.

“Last year, you came out in support of a trading ban for members of Congress,” Warren said. “You explained the need for a ban by saying, ‘You look at some of these eye-popping returns every hedge fund would be jealous of them.’ And that if any private citizen traded that way, ‘the SEC would be knocking on their door.'”

‘Pathetic Liar’: Trump Caves After Another Woman on His Team Allegedly Threatened to Walk, and Quietly Knifed the Man She Hated Right In the Back

‘Sir, Yes or No!’: Warnock Had Bessent Trapped and Wouldn’t Let Him Breathe — Then Asked the One Question That Broke Him Open in Front of Everyone

Then she dropped the number.

“President Trump’s latest financial disclosures show that he made more than 3,400 stock trades worth more than a quarter of a billion dollars in just the first three months of 2026. That’s roughly half of what all 535 members of Congress made last year combined.”

Bessent’s defense — that Trump had an outside manager handling the trades and that Congress should get its own house in order first — landed with a thud. Warren wasn’t having it.

“You are a Wall Street guy. So you know better. President Trump literally signed a 113-page document publicly listing all of his individual stock trades at the same time that he is making decisions affecting those stocks. So you’re going to sit here with a straight face and say it’s not a conflict of interest?”

Warren then laid out specific trades that told their own story. On Jan. 6, Trump purchased up to $1 million in Nvidia stock. One week later, his administration loosened export controls allowing Nvidia to sell chips to China. Nvidia’s stock soared. Then there were Trump’s purchases of Robinhood and Bank of New York Mellon stock, both of which rose after Treasury announced those very companies would implement the new Trump Accounts program.

“If these stock purchases were made using inside information, would that be illegal?” Warren asked.

“I’m not a lawyer. I’m not going to speak to that,” Bessent replied.

Every time Bessent retreated to his “get your house in order” deflection, Warren had the same answer ready.

“I don’t trade in individual stocks. I don’t own any individual stocks. My house is in order.”

She closed with a verdict that cut straight through the deflection.

“Instead of draining the swamp, what Donald Trump is doing is enriching himself by taking advantage of his position. That is not public service. He’s the one who should lead by example.”

Bessent had no answer for that either. Watch the full video clip here.

Democracy needs journalism it can trust.

This election season, the stakes are higher than usual — and so is the pressure on newsrooms to soften their coverage, stay quiet, or just disappear. Independent reporting, the kind that answers to readers instead of advertisers or political pressure, matters more in a moment like this, not less.

For over 14 years, Atlanta Black Star has stayed independent and reader-funded. We have no corporate owner and no shareholders telling us what to cover or how to cover it. That independence is also our biggest vulnerability: nothing protects it except readers choosing to fund it directly.

Newspaper ad revenue has fallen more than 80% since 2005, and local newsrooms are closing at a rate of roughly two a week nationwide. When outlets go under in a moment like this, it's rarely the independent, reader-funded ones that get to stick around.

We know a request for support isn't why you came here. But without readers choosing to fund this work directly, the depth of reporting we can do at home and abroad shrinks along with everyone else's. If you're not in a position to give, that doesn't change how much we value you as a reader.

If you are able to, a recurring contribution does more for us than a single one-time gift, because it lets us plan the next investigation instead of just the next invoice. It takes about 30 seconds, no long form, no account. Thank you for continuing to support independent journalism and freedom of the press.

Back to top