Trump Takes Credit When the Market Soars—Blames Biden When It Sinks
In a pair of sharply contradictory statements posted to his Truth Social account, former—and now current—President Donald J. Trump has offered starkly opposed interpretations of who deserves credit or blame for the performance of the U.S. stock market, depending on whether that performance aligns with his political fortunes. The juxtaposed messages, dated January 29, 2024, and April 30, 2025, provide a revealing case study in political opportunism, attribution asymmetry, and media manipulation at the highest levels of American leadership.
On January 29, 2024, with stock indices rising and his polling numbers showing promise against President Joe Biden, Trump boldly declared: “THIS IS THE TRUMP STOCK MARKET.” He credited his own perceived electoral viability with energizing investors and boosting asset values. In that post, he attributed market momentum to expectations of his return to power, positioning himself as the gravitational center of investor confidence. This narrative fit neatly within a broader Trumpian messaging arc: that the economy is a reflection of his personal magnetism, and that political sentiment among market actors translates directly into financial performance.
Fast forward to April 30, 2025—just over 100 days into his new presidential term—and the tune had changed dramatically. Facing economic headwinds and possible investor skittishness, Trump deflected responsibility. “This is Biden’s Stock Market, not Trump’s,” he wrote, stating explicitly that he didn’t assume office until January 20 and could not be held accountable for post-inaugural market conditions. He cited inherited “bad numbers” and blamed what he termed the “Biden Overhang” for suppressing economic confidence. The post struck a defensive tone, urging followers to “BE PATIENT!!!” while predicting a coming boom driven by his own tariffs and reshoring policies.
The contradiction could not be clearer: In January 2024, Trump pre-claimed ownership of a rising market based solely on polling-driven momentum. In April 2025, after officially reclaiming the White House, he explicitly disavowed ownership of the very same market now underperforming. These posts lay bare the strategic elasticity of Trump’s economic messaging—he will own market success in advance of any formal authority, but will disclaim responsibility for market stagnation long after assuming power.
Political analysts have pointed to this rhetorical whiplash as evidence of a deliberate narrative tactic rooted in plausible deniability and attribution laundering. “Trump governs and campaigns with a coin in his pocket,” said Dr. Alicia Browne, a political communications scholar at Columbia University. “Heads, he wins. Tails, Biden loses.” The epistemic double standard allows him to frame outcomes not by policy cause and effect, but by narrative convenience. When things go well, it’s his legacy. When things go poorly, it’s Biden’s residue.
Critics have also emphasized the implications of such rhetorical reversals for democratic trust. The financial markets are not just abstract indicators—they are tied to retirement funds, investor behavior, public sentiment, and real-world economic stability. When a sitting president manipulates attribution of market dynamics to fit short-term political goals, the result is confusion, not clarity; distortion, not transparency.
International observers have noted that this kind of politicized economic spin is not unique to the U.S., drawing parallels to authoritarian playbooks in countries like Hungary, Russia, and Turkey. In those regimes, leaders routinely frame economic volatility as a function of external sabotage or the residual effects of previous governments, never of their own decisions.
Domestically, the reaction has been mixed. MAGA loyalists continue to defend Trump’s framing, citing deep-seated skepticism of Biden-era policy. But financial analysts have sounded alarms, noting that tariffs and policy instability could be contributing to investor hesitancy—something Trump did not acknowledge in either post.
What remains is a pair of screenshots: one claiming victory over a market rise, the other denying fault in a market decline. The gap between them is not just a matter of months, but of narrative coherence and accountability. In the digital age, where political memory is preserved in real time, these moments are not forgotten—they are contrasted, collated, and critiqued.
Trump’s dual stock market statements—January’s triumphalism and April’s deflection—serve as a high-visibility reminder of the political manipulation of economic narratives. Whether markets rise or fall, the stakes are not only fiscal but epistemological: who controls the meaning of events, and how that meaning is weaponized.
