OMITTED

What the news leaves out.

← Omitted front page

NYU Professor Galloway Regrets Selling Stocks After Trump 2016 Win

3 sources · updated 2026-09-30
Left 0% Center 0% Right 100%
0 left · 0 center · 3 right

What happened

NYU Stern marketing professor Scott Galloway said on the Monday episode of his podcast The Prof G Pod that he sold all of his stocks after Donald Trump won the 2016 U.S. presidential election. He described the sale as an emotional reaction that triggered capital-gains taxes while he lived in New York, and said he bought back into the market about six months later after stocks had risen 10% to 20%. Galloway called the move his biggest investment mistake and said it notionally cost him 40% of his liquid net worth in stocks. White House spokesman Davis Ingle later criticized Galloway in comments to Fox News Digital. Galloway also said he believes Trump’s economic and foreign policies could cause long-term damage to the U.S. economy.
Sourcing check · Fully on the record · 3 articles

3 of 3 articles cite a named source for the story. It was on the record from the first report.

What these terms mean and how they're counted
On the record · names a source 3 of 3
On the record means the article cites a source by name for the story's main claim: a person, or an institution speaking officially, such as a company statement or a named agency's spokesperson. The opposite is an unnamed source. The count is how many of the counted articles cite at least one such source; the names are everyone named across them, each once however the articles spell it. Here: Scott Galloway and Davis Ingle
Primary evidence · cites a document or data 1 of 3
Primary evidence means the article cites a record you could check yourself: a court filing or ruling, a dataset or report, a recording or transcript, an official statement or press release, market data. A quote is not a document. The count is how many articles cite one. Here: market data
Credits another outlet 0 of 3
The article says the story comes from another outlet's reporting (“first reported by Reuters”). Those articles relay the story; they are not independent confirmation. Here: Each article presents its own reporting.
Unnamed sources 0 of 3
The main claim is attributed to people who are not identified: “people familiar with the matter”, “officials said”. The count is how many articles do this.
How it developed
When the first report landed and whether it named anyone; when the first named source and the first document appeared. Here: First report Sep 29, 23:27 UTC by New York Post, naming its source. First document in the first report, from New York Post (market data).
Not counted 0
Opinion, analysis and video pieces, and articles too short to assess. Every count above is out of the counted articles. An article republished under a new headline is one article.
This is about who is cited, not whether the story is true. Each source below says what it names. How we count
BLINDSPOT. Only right-leaning outlets are covering this story — the other side's media is silent.
Omitted — what each side leaves out

Unpacked

Left-leaning coverage has not reported this story at all. Right-leaning coverage reports that Scott Galloway sold all of his stocks after Donald Trump won in 2016 and later named that move his biggest investment mistake. He said the decision notionally cost him 40% of his liquid net worth in stocks after he paid New York capital-gains taxes and bought back into a higher market. Readers who see only the silent side miss that he called the dump stupid because, in his account, the fear of a Trump win had already been priced in. The contrast that stands out is in the headlines rather than the body copy. One right-leaning headline calls Galloway a "Trump-hating podcaster," while the others introduce him only as an NYU professor. What was Galloway's actual dollar loss, rather than the notional share of stock wealth he described?
Bottom line

Galloway's claim that dumping stocks after 2016 notionally cost him 40% of his stock wealth has run only in the New York Post; left-leaning coverage has not carried it.

The receipts — 5 facts one side's coverage lacks
  • Galloway said one could argue, at least notionally, that the decision cost him 40% of his liquid net worth in stocks numberin New York Post · absent from left-leaning coverage
  • Galloway returned to the market about six months later numberin New York Post · absent from left-leaning coverage
  • Stocks had risen between 10% and 20% by the time Galloway bought back in numberin New York Post · absent from left-leaning coverage
  • The S&P 500 gained 19.4% in 2017 numberin New York Post · absent from left-leaning coverage
  • The S&P 500 climbed 3.4% in November 2016 and reached a then-record high later that month numberin New York Post · absent from left-leaning coverage
The Right View
New York Post coverage, drawing on Galloway’s Prof G Pod remarks and Fox News Digital reporting, presents the episode as a prominent Trump critic admitting a costly, emotion-driven selloff after the 2016 election. Outlets quote Galloway calling the decision “stupid” and his “biggest investment mistake,” and they cite federal Economic Reports of the President showing the S&P 500 rose 3.4% in November 2016 and 19.4% in 2017. The same reports include Galloway’s estimate of a 40% notional hit to his liquid stock wealth, a White House spokesman’s personal attack invoking “Trump Derangement Syndrome,” Galloway’s harsh language about Trump’s policies, and his earlier incorrect prediction that Trump would leave the 2024 race as part of a plea deal.
Our Take (balanced)
The story is substantively thin as news but the central quotes are first-party and checkable: Galloway’s own podcast statements establish that he described selling his stocks after the 2016 election, taking a tax hit, re-entering later, and calling it his biggest investment mistake. The 40% figure is his notional estimate, not audited records or filings. Post-2016 S&P 500 performance is documented public data. Ingle’s response is an on-the-record political attack, not evidence about Galloway’s finances. No left-leaning outlet has reported this. Watch for the full podcast audio, any comment from Galloway or NYU, and whether he provides documentation beyond the self-reported estimate.

3 sources

More stories

The week's bottom lines, in your inbox

One email a week: the five stories that mattered and what they actually mean. Free.