Feinstein Stock Sale in Allogene Raises Questions Over Timing & Oversight

The transaction history of Senator Dianne Feinstein and her husband in early 2020 raises questions of timing, disclosure, and potential conflicts of interest—especially given heightened scrutiny of congressional stock trades preceding the COVID-19 market crash.

Transaction details and timing: Financial disclosure records show that on January 31, 2020, Feinstein disclosed a sale of $500,001 to $1 million worth of Allogene Therapeutics stock by her husband. On February 18, 2020, another larger range—$1 million to $5 million—was sold in Allogene shares. These sales occurred shortly before the public market began reacting sharply to COVID-19. [2][6]

Stock price context: On January 31, Allogene traded at around $21.28, which was very close to its intraday low for early-2020, with a further low reached on February 1 at approximately $21.25. After these sales, ALLO stock appreciated for several weeks. [1][6]

Legal and ethical posture: Feinstein’s office has emphasized that her financial assets were held in a blind trust and that she had no involvement in the decisions to sell. Senate rules require her to report her husband’s transactions. [1][2][4] The company in question was said to be unrelated to COVID-19, limiting arguments for misuse of pandemic-related information. [1][6]

Outcome of investigations: As of May 26, 2020, the Department of Justice formally closed its investigations into Feinstein, Kelly Loeffler, and Jim Inhofe concerning these trades, finding no charges. Senator Richard Burr remained under separate investigation at that time. [5][6]

Strategic implications: These events highlight the risks senators face regarding perception of impropriety, even when under legal compliance, especially during periods of high market volatility. Travel dates and timing of briefings relative to stock sales become focal in public and official scrutiny. Also, the existence of blind trusts and the specifics of ranges in disclosure statements suggest inherent limitations in transparency.

Open questions:

• How precisely “blind” was Feinstein’s trust—did she receive any non-financial information about portfolio holdings?
• Were there internal communications or knowledge preceding formal briefings that could implicate timing?
• Given the range disclosures ($500,001-$1 million, etc.), is there sufficient precision in reporting to assess risk of insider information abuse?
• Has precedent or regulation changed since 2020 to tighten oversight of such transactions?