Information that will impact a company or many companies that is the result of research is never insider trading, at least not by any legal definition.
Millions of investors do private analysis on things that could impact securities, trade on that info, and share that info with others to trade on. Just being information not publicly available doesn’t make it “non-public” for the legal definition of “material non-public information”.
I think most americans are pretty uncomfortable with our leaders profiting off their own decisions and information they have access to but we don't. Those briefings were private. It's also deeply troubling that they were saying one thing, and privately doing another
An excellent weather forecaster can make a fortune in the natural gas market, could trade fruit company stock, etc. and there is nothing wrong with that.
You have a problem with Congress using their access, that’s fine. But let’s not call it something it’s not because that hurts your cause.
This happens many times a year with company buyouts where many shares are accumulated first, then a buyout is announced, which boosts the share price further.
That doesn't make it more ethical.
Professors who promote their own research programs. Surgeons who come up with new techniques, etc.
There is nothing wrong with coming out and saying, “we really like this company so we bought 5% of the shares and intend to take it fully private at $X/share” if the rest of the share holders are interested.