Is Trump Really Responsible for Stock Market Rally? What We Know

In a sweeping Super Tuesday victory speech, former President Donald Trump attributed the current stock market rally to his superior polling numbers against Joe Biden, suggesting a direct correlation between his popularity and the recent bull run.

"A lot of experts have said the stock market is the only thing that's doing well and that's doing well because our poll numbers are so much higher than Joe Biden's," said the former president to loud cheers from his supporters.

The statement, shared widely across social media platforms such as X, formerly known as Twitter, amassed over 3 million views. It comes as a recent YouGov poll indicated a 2 point lead for Trump, while a Morning Consult poll showed Biden ahead by 1 point.

However, stock market analysts challenged Trump's claims and told Newsweek there is no factual basis for attributing the rally solely to his polling numbers or policies.

Newsweek has reached out to the Trump campaign on Thursday morning by email for comment.

The Stock Market Surge

The past 15 months have seen remarkable growth across major stock market indices. The S&P 500 surged 27.99 percent, the Nasdaq Composite jumped over 39 percent, the Dow Jones Industrial Average increased by nearly 18 percent, and the QQQ, an exchange-traded fund that tracks the Nasdaq 100 Index, soared over 48.07 percent.

The surge is largely attributed to the burgeoning interest in AI, with Nvidia, a leader in AI chip production, seeing a 292 percent stock increase.

AI's influence extends across the "Magnificent 7," a group of tech giants including Alphabet, Amazon, Apple, Meta, Microsoft, Tesla, and Nvidia, collectively valued at over $13.25 trillion. Their investments in AI, such as Microsoft's $10 billion-plus funding for OpenAI (the maker of ChatGPT), have been crucial in driving the stock market upwards, experts say.

What The Analysts Say

Ryan Detrick, chief market strategist at Carson Group, and Matthew Tuttle, founder of Tuttle Capital, said they doubt Trump, or indeed any sitting president or potential commander in chief, could directly influence the stock market to such an extent.

Detrick told Newsweek: "It is very hard to justify this. The truth is we just had another very solid earnings season, with likely double-digit earnings growth in 2023 now expected, along with improving profit margins and strong investment. Add it all up and this is why stocks are at all-time highs and in a new bull market."

Tuttle said: "My belief is that it is very hard for a president to impact the market on the upside. They can impact certain stocks or sectors, but places like the Fed and the business cycle have a much greater effect."

Detrick suggested the closely run House and Senate races could be having more of an impact. He said: "The truth is markets like gridlock and when all is said and done, we very well could have a flip-flop of the House and Senate.

"The Republicans could lose the House, but take the Senate, while the Democrats lose the Senate, but take the House. This matters because we found that the past 13 years that had a divided Congress also saw stock prices increase."

He added: "This is because checks and balances work, as you don't want the pendulum to swing too far red or blue. We think when all is said and done, a divided Washington could be in store in November, which could be a positive for investors."

Both experts agree that while a president can affect certain sectors, the broad market rally cannot be solely attributed to Trump's (or Biden's) actions or policies. Detrick said: "We don't think who might be the next president had much (if anything) to do with Nvidia profits up close to 900 percent the past year."

He also noted that significant market shifts, like the 2008 crash and the tech bubble of the late '90s, occurred independently of the sitting president's influence. "Much like the Great Financial Crisis took place in 2008, it was going to happen whether [George W.] Bush II was a lame duck president or not. And the tech bubble of the late '90s would have happened if [Bill] Clinton or someone else was in office," Detrick added.