Being that you’re a liberal, I can see why you take that stance. You are too far gone to expect you to see another side, but here it is……
‘Google search:
Under U.S. law, it is not illegal or a formal legal conflict of interest for a president to own stock in a defense contractor like Lockheed Martin, but ethics watchdogs argue it creates a severe appearance of a conflict. [1, 2]
The Legal Reality
Exemption from Statutes: The primary federal criminal conflict-of-interest statute (18 U.S.C. § 208) bars executive branch employees from participating personally in government matters that affect their financial interests. However, the president and vice president are explicitly exempt from this law. [1, 2]
No Direct Ban: Presidents are not legally prohibited from holding individual stocks, managing portfolios, or having trades executed through third-party accounts or family trusts while in office. [1, 2]
The Ethical Debate
The Appearance of Profiteering: Critics and ethics experts point out that a president commands the military, shapes defense budgets, and makes public statements or policy decisions that can directly drive up the stock prices of major military contractors during a conflict. Holding millions in these specific companies while overseeing a war creates an inherent conflict between public duty and potential personal financial gain. [1, 2]
The Defense: Administrations typically defend these holdings by asserting that the president's assets are handled by independent managers or trusts, meaning the leader has no direct input, control, or foreknowledge over individual daily stock buys and sales