Two senior Democratic senators have called for an urgent federal investigation into whether government insiders may have profited from advance knowledge of major White House policy decisions.

The calls focus on stock and derivatives trades, escalating scrutiny over a string of suspicious trades placed ahead of market-moving announcements tied to President Donald Trump’s agenda.

Sens. Mark Warner and Adam Schiff on Thursday demanded that the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and the Pentagon’s inspector general examine whether government-linked actors may have traded on confidential policy information tied to Trump’s announcements on Iran, tariffs, and other market-moving decisions.

In their letter, the senators warned that recent trading patterns suggest “material nonpublic information may be unevenly distributed” ahead of sensitive government actions, raising concerns that federal officials could be using privileged access for financial gain.

“Recent reports of equity trading that occurred shortly before significant government policy announcements suggest that federal officials are disclosing material nonpublic information for financial gain,” the lawmakers wrote in the letter to SEC Chair Paul Atkins and Pentagon IG Platte Moring. “These actions undermine public interest and market integrity, and demand oversight by each of your respective authorities, as well as by Congress.”

What makes this latest intervention particularly significant is that it taps into a broader pattern that has dogged successive administrations and members of Congress for years: repeated allegations, public outrage, and congressional inquiries over well-timed trades, often followed by little or no visible enforcement action.

That history is central to understanding why this story resonates beyond the immediate allegations. Government officials’ stock market activities have continued to attract intense public and political scrutiny, especially during moments of acute market volatility, yet punitive outcomes have so far remained conspicuously scarce.

Even where conduct has raised ethical concerns, the line between legally disclosed trading and unlawful use of material nonpublic information has proved difficult to establish. Many believe that the legal hurdle is one reason enforcement remains rare.

To prove insider trading in this context, regulators would need to establish that the trader possessed confidential, market-moving information not available to the public and knowingly used it for financial gain, or tipped others who did. In cases involving government officials, that often requires tracing communications, timing, intent, and beneficial ownership structures, a high evidentiary bar.

The senators’ latest concerns are sharpened by the nature of the trades reportedly under review. According to recent reporting, there were large positions built in equities, equity-linked derivatives, and prediction markets shortly before major administration announcements. Those trades allegedly coincided with decisions involving the Iran conflict, tariff pauses, and other sensitive geopolitical developments.

Warner and Schiff also pointed to a Financial Times report that a broker associated with Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth sought to make a multimillion-dollar investment in a defense-related fund shortly before the White House escalated military action involving Iran.

This is no longer simply a market integrity issue, given the status of the political figure involved. The lawmakers explicitly tied the matter to national security, warning that the possibility of someone connected to the Defense Department trading on advanced military information presents “serious implications” for the country.

The senators said in their letter that the “possibility that someone connected to the Secretary of Defense may have been attempting to trade on material non-public information is highly concerning, and presents serious implications for U.S. national security.”

But beyond national security, they equally note the market consequences. At a time when financial markets react within seconds to presidential posts, military briefings, and tariff announcements, even the perception that a select group may be receiving privileged access ahead of the public can erode investor confidence.

The senators captured this risk directly, warning that such activity undermines the principle of a level playing field in U.S. capital markets.

The “appearance that material nonpublic information may be unevenly distributed in advance of government announcements risks undermining investor confidence and the integrity of U.S. capital markets,” they said.

Yet the more politically sensitive question is whether this latest round of scrutiny will produce a different outcome from previous episodes.

The reason for skepticism is that earlier concerns around trades ahead of tariff pauses and other policy shifts had already prompted demands for disclosure from lawmakers, including Schiff himself, who previously called for White House officials to release detailed financial transaction records.

Those demands intensified public scrutiny but did not, at least publicly, lead to punitive enforcement. That pattern has contributed to a growing perception that Washington’s oversight mechanisms are more reactive than disciplinary.

The Defense Department inspector general has confirmed it is reviewing the letter, while the SEC has so far declined public comment. However, the latest inquiry revives a question that has persisted across administrations and Congresses, which borders on the ability of America’s political and regulatory institutions to police the financial conduct of those closest to power.

China’s top cyberspace regulator has proposed strict new rules for the fast-growing world of digital humans, requiring every virtual character to carry a clear label and banning services that offer “virtual intimate relationships” to anyone under 18.

The Cyberspace Administration of China (CAC) released the draft regulations on Friday for public comment until May 6. The measures would also prohibit the use of anyone’s personal information to create digital humans without their consent and ban virtual characters from being used to dodge identity checks or spread content that threatens national security.

The rules mark the latest effort by Beijing to draw firm boundaries around powerful new artificial intelligence technologies, even as it pours resources into making the country a global leader in the field. Digital humans, realistic AI-generated avatars that can chat, perform, teach, sell products, or keep lonely users company, have exploded in popularity across Chinese social media and live-streaming platforms. Some have built followings in the millions and generate serious revenue through virtual gifts, endorsements, and companionship.

Under the draft, service providers must ensure prominent “digital human” labels appear on all virtual content. Digital humans would be barred from providing “virtual intimate relationships” to those under 18. They would also be prohibited from disseminating material that endangers national security, incites subversion of state power, promotes secession, or undermines national unity.

Platforms would have to block sexually suggestive content, depictions of horror or cruelty, and anything that incites discrimination based on ethnicity or region. The rules further encourage companies to monitor users for signs of suicidal or self-harming behavior and step in with professional assistance when needed.

“The governance of digital virtual humans is no longer merely an issue of industry norms; rather, it has become a strategic scientific problem that concerns the security of the cyberspace, public interests, and the high-quality development of the digital economy,” an official analysis published alongside the draft on the CAC’s website said about the issue.

Just last month, China’s latest five-year economic blueprint singled out artificial intelligence as a top national priority for aggressive adoption across the economy. At the same time, regulators have been tightening oversight of the sector to ensure it stays aligned with the Communist Party’s vision of “socialist values” and does not erode social stability or public trust.

The proposed rules aim to close a regulatory gap in a booming industry that has so far operated with relatively light supervision. Virtual idols, AI news anchors, digital tutors, and increasingly sophisticated companion avatars have become commonplace on platforms like Douyin, Kuaishou, and WeChat. Many users already spend hours interacting with these lifelike figures, raising official worries about addiction, emotional manipulation, and blurred lines between real and artificial relationships — especially among younger people.

By insisting on clear labeling, Beijing hopes to prevent users from mistaking AI creations for genuine human beings. The ban on virtual intimacy for minors directly addresses concerns that highly realistic digital companions could prey on emotional vulnerabilities or encourage unhealthy dependencies.

In recent years, China has moved quickly to govern deepfakes, generative AI tools, and algorithm-driven recommendation systems, always with an emphasis on content control, data security, and ideological alignment. The digital human rules continue that approach, treating the technology not just as an innovative new industry but as a potential vector for social and political risk.

For companies building or deploying digital humans, the new regulation denotes that innovation is encouraged, but only within tightly drawn red lines. Developers will now need robust systems for labeling, age verification, content moderation, and user monitoring to stay on the right side of the law. Those who fail to adapt could face heavy penalties once the rules are finalized.

Beijing is racing to contain the escalating evolution of artificial intelligence despite warnings that tight regulations will slow the sector’s explosive growth. The latest regulatory move shows that Beijing is determined to keep a firm hand on one of the most emotionally engaging and commercially promising frontiers of artificial intelligence.

The push to make digital humans more realistic and more deeply woven into daily online life now must be shaped by the government to make sure they serve its vision of a controlled, orderly digital future.

U.S. stocks ended Thursday’s holiday-shortened session on a mixed note, recovering from sharper early losses as tentative diplomatic signals from the Middle East helped calm nerves over a possible prolonged disruption to global oil supplies. The late rebound allowed Wall Street to close out its strongest week in four months, even as investors remained on edge over the evolving U.S.-Iran conflict and the inflation risks posed by surging crude prices.

By the close, the Dow Jones Industrial Average slipped 0.13% to 46,504.67, while the S&P 500 added 0.11% to 6,582.69 and the Nasdaq Composite rose 0.18% to 21,879.18. The modest finish, however, belied the sharp intraday volatility that dominated trading for much of the session.

Markets had opened sharply lower after President Donald Trump signaled a tougher military posture toward Iran, reigniting fears that the conflict could intensify and keep the Strait of Hormuz effectively constrained for longer. That initially sent investors fleeing risk assets as oil prices surged.

Front-month U.S. crude climbed about 11% to around $111 a barrel, while Brent settled near $108, reinforcing concerns that higher energy costs could feed into inflation just as investors had begun to anticipate a more benign rate environment.

Sentiment improved materially in afternoon trade after Iran’s foreign ministry said it was working with Oman on a protocol to manage traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, while Britain disclosed that dozens of countries were engaged in discussions aimed at ending the crisis.

Those diplomatic signals were enough to ease immediate fears of a sustained chokehold on one of the world’s most critical oil transit routes. The market’s reaction suggested that investors are still treating the geopolitical shock as temporary rather than structural.

That view is most clearly reflected in the futures curve, where October crude was trading near $82 per barrel, far below prompt-month prices. The steep backwardation indicates that traders expect current supply dislocations to ease in the months ahead, even if near-term stress remains acute.

This divergence between spot and forward pricing has become a central theme in market positioning. Investors appear willing to look through the immediate oil spike, betting that the conflict will not derail economic activity into the second half of the year.

That optimism helped power the first weekly gain in six weeks. For the week, the S&P 500 rose 3.36%, the Nasdaq advanced 4.44%, and the Dow climbed 2.96%, marking the best weekly performance for the three major indexes since late 2025. Small caps also participated in the rebound, with the Russell 2000 up 3.19%.

Still, the recovery was selective and defensive in character as investors rotated into sectors traditionally seen as better insulated from macroeconomic turbulence.

Utilities gained 0.6%, benefiting from their reputation for stable earnings and dependable dividends, while real estate stocks rose 1.5% as investors sought predictable cash-flow businesses.

By contrast, economically sensitive consumer names remained under pressure. The consumer discretionary sector fell 1.5%, the weakest performer on the day, led by a sharp 5.4% drop in Tesla, Inc. after the electric-vehicle maker’s first-quarter delivery figures disappointed the market.

The session also carried signs of deeper stress beyond geopolitics. Private credit concerns resurfaced after Blue Owl Capital Inc. capped withdrawals from two retail-focused funds, reviving worries over liquidity and valuation pressures in alternative asset markets. That development added another layer of caution, particularly for institutional investors already assessing risks tied to higher oil prices and geopolitical volatility.

Meanwhile, the CBOE Volatility Index, Wall Street’s closely watched fear gauge, fell to 23.87, suggesting that while anxiety remains elevated, markets are not yet pricing outright panic.

Looking ahead, the focus now shifts to Friday’s nonfarm payrolls report, which will be released while U.S. equity markets remain closed for Good Friday.

That timing raises the prospect of pent-up volatility when trading resumes next week, especially as investors weigh the interaction between labor-market resilience, war-driven oil inflation, and the Federal Reserve’s policy path.

With crude back above $100, investors are increasingly alert to the possibility that headline consumer prices could reaccelerate, potentially complicating expectations for rate cuts later in the year.

Thursday’s session ultimately captured the market’s current dilemma: investors are willing to buy the dip, but conviction remains fragile and heavily dependent on diplomatic headlines. This means that Wall Street is currently betting that the geopolitical shock will fade before it morphs into a broader economic crisis.

Artificial intelligence is already reshaping the ride-hailing business in a way that would have seemed futuristic only a few years ago: some Uber drivers are now relying on Tesla’s Full Self-Driving system to handle part of the driving task, and Uber’s chief executive is openly acknowledging it.

In remarks on Peter Diamandis’ Moonshots podcast, Uber CEO Dara Khosrowshahi said the company has “tens of thousands” of Teslas operating on its platform and confirmed that some drivers are using Tesla’s Full Self-Driving, or FSD, while transporting passengers.

“We’ve got tens of thousands of Teslas on our platform now,” Khosrowshahi said. “And some of our drivers use FSD. Sure. So we’ve got a lot of data. It’s a great car. It’s a safe car.”

The disclosure offers a striking glimpse into how AI-assisted driving is quietly entering the mainstream ride-hailing economy, long before fully autonomous robotaxis become widespread. While Tesla markets FSD as an advanced driver assistance system rather than a fully autonomous platform, its growing use by Uber drivers effectively means passengers are already experiencing AI-assisted rides in human-supervised settings.

This is not, strictly speaking, illegal.

At present, there are no US laws that explicitly prohibit ride-hail drivers from using advanced driver assistance systems during trips, provided they remain fully attentive and retain control of the vehicle. Tesla itself states that active safety and driver-assistance features are designed to assist, not replace, the driver, and that the human behind the wheel remains responsible for safe operation at all times.

Uber’s own policy aligns with that standard. The company requires drivers using such systems to keep at least one hand, and normally both hands, on the steering wheel while the technology is engaged.

However, the development raises fresh questions about liability, safety, and public trust. Tesla’s driver-assistance systems have long been under legal and regulatory scrutiny. Several incidents involving Autopilot and FSD have intensified debate over whether the branding and real-world use of the technology outpace its actual capabilities.

Tesla has come under the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)’s investigation following the growing number of crashes involving the EV maker’s vehicles.

One notable case cited in earlier reporting involved an Uber driver using Tesla’s FSD who crashed into an SUV while the system was active. That case underscores a central tension in the emerging AI mobility market: these systems are sophisticated enough to take over large portions of the driving task, but not advanced enough to absolve the human driver of responsibility.

For Uber, however, the shift is expected to evolve into its broader robotaxi strategy. Khosrowshahi’s comments indicate that Uber is treating today’s human-supervised AI driving as a bridge to tomorrow’s autonomous network.

He went further, saying Uber would welcome Tesla’s future robotaxis onto its platform once the company’s camera-only autonomous system is proven sufficiently safe for fully driverless deployment.

“When the day comes when those Teslas are safe enough with a camera-only approach, we’d love to have those Teslas on our platform as well,” he said.

This is consistent with Uber’s broader strategy of rebuilding its position in autonomous mobility through partnerships rather than in-house development. After exiting its own self-driving programme years ago, Uber has increasingly aligned itself with external autonomous vehicle players, including Waymo, Zoox, Pony.ai, and WeRide. More recently, it has expanded its ambitions through fresh robotaxi rollout plans in multiple global cities.

The company appears to be positioning itself as the distribution layer for whatever form autonomy ultimately takes, whether human-supervised Teslas today or fully driverless fleets tomorrow. That approach is commercially pragmatic. Uber no longer needs to win the technology race itself if it can remain the platform through which autonomous mobility is monetized at scale.

For Tesla, meanwhile, the development offers a preview of how its FSD ecosystem may evolve commercially beyond private ownership. Even before the company’s dedicated Robotaxi service achieves broad regulatory clearance, Tesla vehicles are already functioning as what some analysts describe as “proto-robotaxis” on platforms like Uber, where AI handles parts of the trip under human oversight.

The broader implication is that the line between assisted driving and autonomous ride-hailing is becoming increasingly blurred. Passengers booking an Uber may still see a driver in the front seat, but in a growing number of cases, AI is already doing part of the work.

That may be the most consequential transition underway for the ride-hailing industry: not the sudden arrival of driverless cars, but the gradual normalization of shared control between human drivers and machine intelligence.