Feinstein’s Blind Trust Sparks Ethics Questions After Husband’s Allogene Sales near Lows

The biopharmaceutical stock sales by Richard Blum in early 2020—specifically, of Allogene Therapeutics—raise questions of timing and rule compliance, though the available evidence offers mitigating factors that can shift perspective.

Facts and timing: On January 31, 2020, shares of Allogene Therapeutics closed at about US$21.72; on February 18, 2020, they were about US$24.25—both relatively low points ahead of sharp market drops later that month. Blum reportedly sold two tranches of stock on those dates, cumulatively between US$1.5 million and US$6 million in value. [9][12]

Response and credibility: Senator Feinstein maintains that her assets are managed via a blind trust, that she was not involved in the decision to sell, and that she did not attend a closed briefing on January 24 about the coronavirus threat. She also states the biotech company involved was unrelated to any coronavirus-related government work. [2][9][12]

Investigative outcome: The DOJ opened a broad inquiry into multiple senators’ stock trades during the startup of the COVID-19 pandemic but later dropped the investigation concerning Feinstein, among others, without filing charges. [1][5]

Strategic implications: These transactions underscore the tension between legal compliance and public perception, especially for lawmakers under the STOCK Act. Even with blind trusts, the optics of selling significant holdings in a biotech firm just before public market turmoil—in a sector that might benefit from a pandemic—can lead to reputational and political risk. Policymakers may face calls for stricter clarification or reform of blind-trust arrangements, disclosure timing, and legislative oversight.

Open questions: What level of influence, if any, does Senator Feinstein retain over her husband’s investment decisions despite the blind trust arrangement? Was there any nonpublic information available by January that could have influenced investor decisions? How precise are the reporting thresholds and categories (value ranges) in Senate financial disclosures—is there room for more transparency? What procedural reforms might reduce ambiguity in similar situations in the future?