The price of crude increased in late February and remained there for weeks as US military action against Iran started to alter estimates of the world’s oil supply overnight. Financially speaking, the timing was favorable for anyone with major positions at ExxonMobil, Chevron, or ConocoPhillips. Donald Trump was involved in each of the three.
Trump’s nine biggest oil and gas holdings—Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Exxon Mobil, Kinder Morgan, Marathon Petroleum, Occidental Petroleum, Phillips 66, Valero Energy, and the Williams Companies—gained an estimated $1.5 million to $4.4 million between February 27th, the eve of the Iran conflict, and August 31st, according to a CNBC analysis of his annual financial disclosures, quarterly corporate reports, and market data. These holdings were worth between $12.5 million and $45.6 million at the end of 2025. Examining a larger portion of his energy positions, Congressional Democrats calculated that the gains might be as much as $15.5 million.
It’s not just that the numbers increased that makes them worth looking at. During geopolitical conflicts involving oil-producing regions, energy stocks frequently do. Given that Trump’s investment accounts were actively purchasing and disposing of energy shares during the conflict, including on days when his own policy decisions affected markets, the more focused question is one of timing and overlap. Through June 29th, the most recent date for which trades have been disclosed, his filings reveal purchases and at least 23 sales involving the nine companies.
The White House’s stance has been unambiguous. “Neither President Trump nor any member of his family has any ability to direct, influence, or provide input regarding how the portfolio is invested or when investments are bought or sold,” Davis Ingle told CNBC. “Independent managers make all of the investment decisions. Conflicts of interest do not exist. In earlier reporting on the matter, the Trump Organization described the accounts as entirely discretionary and heavily dependent on automated tactics. CNBC was unable to find any proof that Trump’s financial interests influenced any policy decisions or that he ordered particular trades.
Even though the arrangement’s structure is above legal scrutiny, ethics observers have been paying close attention to it. According to Donald Sherman of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, “the public is left wondering where national policy ends and private financial interest begins when a president can move a market through official decisions and personally benefit from the outcome.” Proof of misconduct is not necessary for that kind of worry to feel valid. The extent and specificity of the overlap between the policy domain and the portfolio are just out of the ordinary.
Reading the disclosures gives the impression that it is challenging to completely distinguish conflicts of interest from regular market participation due to the size of Trump’s energy holdings. He owns up to $6 million in Chevron and up to $12 million in Exxon Mobil alone. Over the relevant period, the stock values of Valero and Marathon both nearly doubled. These are significant side wagers on the energy industry. They hold significant positions in businesses whose success is directly influenced by the foreign policy choices made at the Oval Office.
The same fundamental question is given a new dimension by the Venezuela oil deal. Following the US seizure of Nicolás Maduro, Trump announced what he called “the biggest oil deal in world history,” which involved the US government owning a portion of a private Venezuelan oil company.
Significant issues were discovered by experts and legal analysts who examined the agreement: the Office of Strategic Capital might not be legally permitted to own company shares; the deal’s structure as announced would not provide new capital to Venezuela’s oil sector in any near-term meaningful way; and Venezuelan law restricts oil development contracts to 25 years, not the 100-year term described. Regardless of whether the deal succeeds or fails, the announcement consistently follows this pattern: Trump approaches energy deals in a way that tends to bring his executive authority and personal financial interests into the same general neighborhood.
It’s important to exercise caution when exaggerating what the disclosures reveal. Public officials can legitimately and frequently use independent portfolio management, and automated trading strategies can result in transactions that appear suspicious in retrospect simply because a president’s actions have an impact on the underlying companies. The fact that there is no proof of directed trading is significant. However, the arrangement raises more questions than it answers given the size of the portfolio, its concentration in the energy sector, and the active trading during a war that directly affected oil prices.
