White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt has delivered a harsh critique of former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi over her stock trading activities, asserting that Pelosi’s controversial trades are the reason why a congressional stock trading ban is even being discussed.
Leavitt’s remarks, made during a briefing, focused on the growing public outrage surrounding the financial dealings of high-profile politicians, with Pelosi's trades standing as a glaring example of the need for reform.
The exchange comes amid an ongoing push from both political parties to introduce new legislation aimed at curbing stock trading by members of Congress.
Leavitt didn’t mince words as she pointed to Pelosi’s lucrative stock portfolio, claiming that the former Speaker’s trading success has far outpaced that of prominent investors like Warren Buffett and major hedge funds.
She specifically referenced the remarkable growth of Pelosi’s stock portfolio in 2024, noting that it grew by 70% in one year, a figure that allegedly outperformed every large hedge fund on Wall Street.
Leavitt highlighted the fact that Pelosi’s portfolio more than doubled the returns of Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway, sparking further criticism of her financial activities.
“Pelosi makes $174,000 a year as a public servant, yet she has a net worth of $413 million,” Leavitt said, continuing her criticism. “Her stock portfolio grew 70% in one year. I mean, that beats Warren Buffett. That’s not something that should be happening for someone in public service.”
Leavitt also indicated that former President Joe Biden stands with the American people in wanting to curb these practices. She echoed Biden’s support for legislation that would ban members of Congress from engaging in individual stock trading while in office.
Leavitt added that the White House was in ongoing discussions with lawmakers on Capitol Hill to ensure that this policy proposal moves forward.
The focus on Pelosi’s trading activities has sparked a renewed debate in Washington about how to address perceived conflicts of interest among elected officials, particularly when it comes to financial dealings.
Leavitt’s remarks about Pelosi, who has faced criticism for her financial gains, come at a time when lawmakers are increasingly under pressure to address the concerns raised by voters over insider trading and financial transparency in Congress.
The calls for a congressional stock trading ban have been amplified by a growing frustration among American voters, who believe that lawmakers should not be allowed to profit from stock trades while serving in office.
The idea of a ban gained traction when Sen. Josh Hawley, a Republican from Missouri, sponsored a bill that would prohibit members of Congress and their spouses from buying, selling, or holding individual stocks while in office.
The bill, known as the Preventing Elected Leaders from Owning Securities and Investments (PELOSI) Act, seeks to eliminate conflicts of interest and restore public trust in the legislative body.
The PELOSI Act would allow lawmakers to invest in diversified mutual funds, exchange-traded funds (ETFs), or U.S. Treasury bonds, but would prohibit them from engaging in individual stock trading.
The bill is aimed at addressing concerns over politicians using insider information for personal financial gain, an issue that has long plagued the public’s perception of Congress.
Hawley introduced the bill in 2023, citing the need for greater transparency and ethical standards among elected officials. He argued that the current system allows politicians to exploit their positions of power to enrich themselves at the expense of the public.
In a statement at the time, Hawley said, “Members of Congress should be fighting for the people they were elected to serve—not day trading at the expense of their constituents.”
Hawley’s efforts to curb stock trading in Congress have gained support from both sides of the political spectrum, with many Republicans and some Democrats backing the idea.
House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) and other Republicans have shown their support for the PELOSI Act, emphasizing the need for more stringent regulations on lawmakers’ financial activities.
Despite the bipartisan backing for the bill, however, resistance remains among some members of Congress, particularly those who argue that such a ban would infringe on personal freedoms and could discourage talented individuals from running for office.
Critics of the bill contend that lawmakers should have the same rights as other citizens to invest in the stock market, as long as they are not engaging in insider trading or illegal practices.
Hawley’s push for a stock trading ban also led to a temporary rift between him and President Donald Trump, who took to social media to criticize the Missouri senator after he voted against an amendment to the bill that would have exempted the president from the trading ban.
The amendment was a controversial move that would have allowed Trump to continue trading stocks while in office, but Hawley and several Senate Democrats voted against it, prompting a public rebuke from the former president.
Trump, who has long been critical of Washington’s political elite, took to his Truth Social platform to slam Hawley, calling him a “second-tier senator.” Trump’s scathing comments highlighted the tension between the two political figures, as Hawley’s bill aimed to curtail financial activity among politicians, while Trump’s own business dealings and financial background have often been scrutinized.
However, Hawley defended his position, explaining that the amendment was intended to ban future presidents from engaging in stock trading, not to target Trump or other sitting officials.
He clarified that the bill was aimed at preventing future conflicts of interest among elected leaders, rather than specifically applying to Trump’s financial activities.
In an interview with Fox News, Hawley said that there had been a misunderstanding over the intent of the amendment, adding that the overall goal of the legislation was to “ensure that politicians don’t use their office to line their pockets.”
Hawley also emphasized that the PELOSI Act had significant bipartisan support, including backing from many Republicans and some Democrats, which he believed would help advance the bill.
He added that Speaker Mike Johnson and President Trump had both expressed support for the bill’s original form, and he was hopeful that it would move forward in the coming months.
The PELOSI Act has also sparked a broader debate about the role of money in politics and the ethical standards that should apply to elected officials. Former Speaker Nancy Pelosi has been at the center of this discussion due to her high-profile stock trading activity, which has been the subject of scrutiny and speculation for years.
Pelosi and her husband, Paul Pelosi, have made significant profits from trading individual stocks, leading some critics to question whether their financial activities have influenced their political decisions.
In addition to her investments, Pelosi has faced criticism over her wealth, which has reportedly ballooned to over $400 million. Despite her relatively modest salary of $174,000 as a member of Congress, Pelosi’s net worth has raised questions about how she and her family have accumulated such significant wealth while in office.
Critics argue that Pelosi’s wealth is a direct result of her position in Congress, pointing to her stock trades as evidence of potential conflicts of interest. In contrast, Pelosi has denied any wrongdoing, insisting that she and her husband follow all relevant laws and regulations regarding stock trading.
She has also rejected the idea that her wealth undermines her ability to serve the public, asserting that her financial dealings are no different from those of other Americans.
While Pelosi’s stock trading has been a flashpoint for critics, others argue that there is no evidence to suggest that her financial activities have influenced her policy decisions. Supporters of Pelosi argue that her success in the stock market is simply a reflection of her investment acumen, rather than a sign of unethical behavior.
As the debate over stock trading by members of Congress continues to evolve, the question of whether lawmakers should be allowed to trade individual stocks remains unresolved.
The PELOSI Act represents an important step in the ongoing effort to regulate the financial activities of elected officials and ensure that public servants are not using their positions for personal financial gain.
The bill’s sponsors, including Sen. Hawley and House Republicans, are hopeful that the legislation will gain traction in the coming months and lead to meaningful reforms in how lawmakers manage their financial portfolios.
If passed, the PELOSI Act would mark a significant shift in the way Congress approaches financial ethics, setting a new standard for transparency and accountability among elected officials.
In the meantime, the political battle over stock trading in Congress is likely to continue, with both sides of the debate seeking to influence public opinion and push for changes in how lawmakers handle their financial affairs.
As the conversation unfolds, it is clear that the issue of congressional stock trading will remain a key topic in the broader discussion about political ethics and the integrity of U.S. democracy.
Full video:
