The president said the gains were for the United States, not himself, but his unexplained Truth Social post blurred the line between federal investments and his separately managed personal portfolio.

President Donald Trump claimed Sunday that his administration’s investments in publicly traded companies have generated “Hundreds of Billions of Dollars” for the United States.

Trump’s unusual declaration appeared in a Truth Social post accompanied by an AI-generated image depicting him trading stocks from inside the White House. Several monitors in the image showed an Intel investment climbing from $20 to $95.

“I do this for our Country, not myself,” Trump wrote. “I’ve made Hundreds of Billions of Dollars on Stocks, and many other type Holdings, for the U.S.A., not myself, and all I do is get criticized by the Radical Left Dumocrats. Very unfair, but what can you do! President DONALD J. TRUMP”

The wording led some outlets to report that Trump had claimed to earn hundreds of billions of dollars personally.

His reference to making money “for the U.S.A., not myself,” combined with the image’s Intel figures, indicates that he was more likely talking about investments held by the federal government.

The White House had not provided an itemized accounting substantiating the “hundreds of billions” figure.

Intel Investment Produced Enormous Paper Gain

The Intel reference appears connected to the Trump administration’s controversial 2025 decision to take a nearly 10% federal stake in the American semiconductor manufacturer.

The government converted approximately $8.9 billion in previously authorized CHIPS Act and national security funding into roughly 433 million Intel shares. The stock was acquired at slightly more than $20 per share.

Intel’s subsequent rally dramatically increased the position’s value.

By late April, the federal government’s stake was worth approximately $36 billion, representing an unrealized gain of about $27 billion, according to Business Insider.

The value climbed further as Intel approached $100 per share. At that price, the government’s shares would be worth more than $43 billion — nearly five times their original purchase price.

Those profits remain on paper unless and until the government sells the stock. A large federal sale could also push the share price downward, reducing the amount ultimately collected.

Even so, the Intel position represents a significant potential return for taxpayers and gives Trump a powerful talking point in defense of his unorthodox approach to industrial policy.

“Congratulations to Intel on doing such a great job and, more importantly, congratulations to the People of the United States for making such a good investment!” Trump wrote following an earlier surge in the stock.

Conservatives Questioned Government Ownership

The Intel agreement was controversial from the beginning.

Trump announced the deal in August 2025 after the federal government converted grants awarded to Intel into an equity stake. The company said Washington would hold passive ownership without a seat on its board or ordinary corporate governance rights.

Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick celebrated the arrangement at the time.

“BIG NEWS: The United States of America now owns 10% of Intel, one of our great American technology companies,” Lutnick said.

Some Democrats argued that federal support should have included stronger labor, manufacturing, and corporate-governance conditions.

Free market conservatives raised a more fundamental objection: The federal government would simultaneously serve as Intel’s regulator, customer, benefactor, and major shareholder.

Republican Sens. Rand Paul of Kentucky and Thom Tillis of North Carolina were among those questioning whether government ownership in a private corporation was compatible with traditional conservative economic principles.

The deal also risked encouraging companies to pursue political favor rather than compete exclusively through products, prices, and technological innovation.

Trump’s argument is more pragmatic. If taxpayers provide billions of dollars to strategically important companies, he maintains that the public should share in the financial upside.

Intel’s stock performance has strengthened that case financially, although the larger policy precedent remains disputed.

‘Hundreds of Billions’ Not Yet Documented

The government’s Intel investment alone does not support Trump’s claim of hundreds of billions in stock market gains.

Even near the stock’s recent highs, the paper profit was measured in the tens of billions.

The administration has pursued or explored federal equity positions, warrants, revenue sharing agreements, and other financial arrangements involving additional companies in strategic industries. Trump may have been referring to the combined market value or projected gains from all those holdings.

Market value, however, is not the same as profit. Likewise, unrealized gains can disappear if a company’s share price declines before the government sells.

Without a White House breakdown identifying the assets, their purchase prices, current values, and realized returns, the president’s “hundreds of billions” assertion cannot be independently verified.

Trump’s Personal Holdings Add Confusion

The post also attracted attention because Trump continues to possess a sprawling personal financial portfolio while serving as president.

Public filings indicate that independently managed accounts associated with Trump purchased Intel shares multiple times in 2026. The White House maintains that the president does not direct those individual transactions.

Trump has said that professional managers handle his investments and that he does not involve himself in daily decisions.

“I don’t get involved in my personal [finances],” Trump previously told reporters. “We have funds that run my money.”

His latest financial disclosure showed at least $2.2 billion in reported 2025 revenue and income across real estate, cryptocurrency, licensing, merchandise, settlements, and other ventures, according to an ABC News review.

That is an extraordinary personal total but remains far below the “hundreds of billions” described in Sunday’s post.

Trump’s claim was therefore almost certainly about money he says his administration generated for the federal government — not a boast that his personal stock portfolio earned hundreds of billions.

The wording and accompanying day-trading image nevertheless invited confusion at a time when the president’s private business interests and the government’s growing corporate holdings are both under scrutiny.

A federal appeals court ruled that the firearms industry has standing to challenge New Jersey’s public nuisance law, reviving a case that could determine whether the state may impose civil liability for otherwise lawful gun sales and marketing.

A federal appeals court has revived the gun industry’s challenge to a sweeping New Jersey liability law, ruling that the state’s enforcement campaign created a credible threat of harm sufficient to give manufacturers and sellers their day in federal court.

The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Monday that the National Shooting Sports Foundation, or NSSF, has legal standing to contest the statute and that a lower court should not have declined to consider the trade group’s claims.

The decision sends the case back to the U.S. District Court in New Jersey, where NSSF is seeking a preliminary injunction against the law. The group argues that the statute conflicts with federal protections for the firearms industry and violates the First, Second, and 14th Amendments, as well as the Constitution’s restrictions on state regulation of interstate commerce.

“In the years since NSSF I, New Jersey has commenced multiple enforcement actions against gun industry members that allege otherwise lawful yet ‘unreasonable’ conduct,” Judge David Porter wrote for the panel.

That record, the court concluded, transformed the industry’s fears from speculation into a “credible” and “substantial” threat of enforcement.

What the New Jersey law allows

Democratic Gov. Phil Murphy signed Assembly Bill 1765 into law on July 5, 2022. The enacted statute authorizes the state attorney general to bring civil actions against firearm manufacturers, sellers, distributors, importers, and marketers accused of creating or contributing to a public nuisance.

The law requires members of the gun industry to establish and enforce “reasonable controls” governing the manufacture, sale, distribution, importing, and marketing of firearms and related products.

It also prohibits a gun industry member from knowingly or recklessly contributing to a public nuisance through conduct that is either unlawful or “unreasonable under all the circumstances.”

The attorney general may seek injunctions, restitution, damages, attorneys’ fees, and other relief. The law says the state does not have to prove that a defendant intended to create a public nuisance or cause harm.

New Jersey lawmakers said the measure was needed to hold irresponsible companies accountable for commercial practices that contribute to illegal gun trafficking and violence. NSSF maintains that the statute’s expansive language could impose liability on companies engaged in lawful commerce because of crimes later committed by third parties.

That dispute brings the state law into potential conflict with the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, or PLCAA.

Federal law limits gun-industry lawsuits

Congress enacted PLCAA in 2005 to generally prevent manufacturers, distributors, and dealers from being held responsible for harm caused solely by the criminal or unlawful misuse of firearms that functioned as designed.

The federal law does not provide absolute immunity. It includes exceptions for defective products, negligent entrustment, breach of contract, and cases in which a company knowingly violates a state or federal law applicable to the sale or marketing of firearms.

New Jersey contends that its public nuisance statute falls within those exceptions. NSSF argues that states cannot circumvent PLCAA simply by enacting broadly worded statutes that relabel lawful firearm commerce as a public nuisance.

The appeals court did not decide which interpretation is correct.

It found that NSSF presented legally plausible claims that the New Jersey statute could be preempted by PLCAA, applied beyond the state’s borders, or used against constitutionally protected commercial activity.

Six enforcement actions changed the case

NSSF first sued in 2022, shortly after the law took effect. A federal district judge initially blocked enforcement, but the 3rd Circuit lifted that injunction in 2023 and dismissed the case because New Jersey had not yet used the law. At the time, the court said the possibility of enforcement against NSSF members was too speculative.

New Jersey subsequently brought six civil enforcement actions against members of the firearms industry. The defendants included Glock, Sig Sauer, FSS Armory, Point Blank Guns and Ammo, Butch’s Gun World, Eagle Shows, and JSD Supply.

The state accused Glock of selling pistols that can allegedly be converted into machine guns with illegal conversion devices commonly known as switches. New Jersey’s lawsuit seeks design changes and other relief. Glock has disputed the state’s claims.

New Jersey also sued Sig Sauer over allegations that its P320 pistol can discharge without an intentional trigger pull. Sig Sauer has repeatedly defended the safety of the pistol and challenged allegations of unintended discharges.

Other cases involved allegedly inadequate firearm storage, ammunition and magazine sales, and Pennsylvania gun show transactions involving products that New Jersey classifies as illegal ghost guns.

The appeals court emphasized that some of New Jersey’s claims target conduct that is not independently prohibited under state or federal law but that the attorney general considers unreasonable.

“New Jersey’s six civil enforcement actions under A1765 against gun industry members render the threat of imminent enforcement substantial,” Porter wrote.

Lower court must now address the challenge

After New Jersey began using the statute, NSSF successfully moved to reopen its federal case. The district court agreed that the trade group now had standing but declined to consider its request for an injunction under a doctrine known as Younger abstention.

That doctrine generally discourages federal courts from interfering with certain ongoing state proceedings.

The 3rd Circuit found that the doctrine did not apply because NSSF itself is not a defendant in New Jersey’s state court enforcement cases. Although Glock and Sig Sauer are NSSF members, the trade organization is legally distinct from those companies and does not own, control, or manage them.

The panel warned that New Jersey’s position would create a legal “Catch-22”: NSSF’s lawsuit would be premature before the state enforced the law, but barred after enforcement began.

“NSSF, and its members, are ‘entitled to [their] own day in court,’” the opinion said.

The ruling is an important procedural victory for the firearms industry, but it is not a final judgment against New Jersey’s statute. The district court must now consider NSSF’s request for preliminary relief and eventually determine whether the law conflicts with federal statutes or constitutional protections.

New Jersey’s liability law remains in effect unless a court separately blocks it. The latest decision ensures only that the industry’s objections cannot be dismissed without a federal court confronting their substance.

On April 2, 1982, Argentina sent several thousand troops to seize control of the Falkland Islands in the South Atlantic Ocean near the southern tip of South America. President Ronald Reagan had tried and failed to persuade the leader of Argentina’s military junta to call off the invasion.

Britain, led by Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, responded with a major military deployment, including warships and submarines, eventually forcing Argentina’s surrender after 74 days. The war left more than 900 people dead, mostly Argentine troops and sailors.

The British sinking of the Argentine warship Belgrano by submarine-launched torpedo was the single worst loss of life in that short-lived conflict. Some saw it as the last gasp of the British empire and the islands, mostly populated by British citizens, have remained British.

But the Argentines have not given up hope of claiming the islands, known in Spanish as the Malvinas, which is part of the Argentine Constitution. More than four decades later, the war and the loss of life are still a source of pain in Argentina. The islands are frequently invoked in expressions of national identity, especially among supporters of Argentina’s soccer team.

At the World Cup this summer, two Argentine players held up a banner saying the Falklands belonged to their country after their team defeated England.

And now Argentine President Javier Milei, a strong ally of Trump, has revived the country’s bitter dispute with the U.K. over sovereignty of the Falkland Islands — amid a potential oil boom — after President Trump raised doubts about U.S. neutrality.

Trump has expressed displeasure over the lack of support for the U.S.-Israeli war against Iran from NATO allies including Britain. A Pentagon email suggested that pulling back from the U.S. position on the Falklands would be a way to punish Britain over the Iran war.

Earlier this week, Trump said he was reviewing the U.S. position on the Falklands. And in an interview with British television news, Trump declined to directly respond when asked if he would come to Britain’s aid if Argentina claimed the Falklands. He instead turned the conversation toward the war in Iran.

“Your country was not there to help me,” Mr. Trump said.

The Falklands, an archipelago of two large islands, East Falkland and West Falkland — plus nearly 800 smaller ones — are a British Overseas Territory.

This means they are an independent democracy with the U.K. responsible mainly for their defense.

Meanwhile, while it is doubtful there will be a military conflict again over the islands, Milei is targeting oil companies operating in the disputed area under U.K. licenses and he has put in motion the filing of criminal charges against Navitas Petroleum, claiming it violates Argentine law.

A U.N. resolution also prohibits “unilateral modifications” in the status quo of the islands, which could be argued applies to the granting of drilling licenses.

Israel’s Navitas Petroleum together with the U.K.’s Rockhopper Explorations own the rights to the Sea Lion field in the North Falklands Basin which is expected to produce its first oil in March 2028 and reach peak production of 50,000 barrels per day by 2032.

Geological surveys suggest that the seas around the Falklands contain not one but several potential large oil fields.

One called Sea Lion — the most studied to date — could contain up to 1.7 billion barrels of oil, according to test drilling and seismic surveys. This is larger than anything remaining in U.K. waters.

FOR MORE DETAILED, UNCENSORED, INTELLIGENCE, AND ANALYSIS FROM PAUL CRESPO, SUBSCRIBE TO HIS SUBSTACK.

The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the positions of American Liberty News.