Leavitt Slams Pelosi Over Stock Trades As Trump, Hawley Reconcile On Ban Effort

WASHINGTON, D.C. — The White House has intensified its campaign against congressional insider trading, with Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt delivering a blistering critique of former Speaker Nancy Pelosi. The move comes as the Trump administration signals its full support for the PELOSI Act, a legislative effort to bar members of Congress and their spouses from holding or trading individual stocks.
The "Pelosi Standard"
During a high-profile press briefing, Leavitt read a detailed list of trades made by the former Speaker and her husband, Paul Pelosi. She argued that Pelosi’s financial success is the primary reason the American public is demanding reform.
Outperforming the Greats: In 2024, Pelosi’s stock portfolio reportedly grew by 70%, more than doubling the returns of Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway and outperforming every major hedge fund on Wall Street.
-
The Wealth Gap: Leavitt highlighted the disparity between Pelosi’s $174,000 annual salary and her estimated net worth of $413 million.
Public Service vs. Enrichment: "The President stands with the American people on this," Leavitt stated. "He doesn’t want to see people like Nancy Pelosi enriching themselves off of public service and ripping off their constituents."
Trump and Hawley Reconcile
The push for the ban follow a brief but intense public disagreement between President Donald Trump and the bill’s sponsor, Senator Josh Hawley (R-MO). The conflict began after an amendment that would have exempted the current President from the trading ban was defeated, leading Trump to label Hawley a "second-tier Senator" on Truth Social.
However, the two have since reconciled following a direct phone call. Hawley clarified that the bill—the Preventing Elected Leaders from Owning Securities and Investments (PELOSI) Act—already exempts the current President and Vice President, focusing its restrictions on future administrations and all sitting members of Congress.
Mechanics of the PELOSI Act
If passed, the legislation would fundamentally alter how lawmakers manage their personal finances:
Prohibited Actions: Members of Congress and their spouses would be strictly prohibited from buying, selling, or holding individual stocks.
Permitted Investments: Lawmakers would be restricted to diversified mutual funds, exchange-traded funds (ETFs), or U.S. Treasury bonds.
Restoring Trust: Senator Hawley emphasized the need to end "day trading at the expense of constituents," noting that the bill has gained traction among House Republicans and even some Democrats.

A Unified GOP Front
Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) has reportedly signaled his support for the measure, positioning it as a key "drain the swamp" initiative ahead of the 2026 midterms. While Senate Democrats recently teamed up with Hawley to defeat a Republican-led effort to force a specific report on the Pelosis' past trades, the broader momentum for a total ban remains at an all-time high.
The White House confirmed that discussions are ongoing with "friends on Capitol Hill" to move the legislation forward, signaling that the era of lawmakers "beating the market" through non-public information may be coming to a close.
"""My husband brought his mistress to our daughter’s wedding—and then asked me to give her my seat beside him.

"""My husband brought his mistress to our daughter’s wedding—and then asked me to give her my seat beside him. For a few seconds, I honestly thought I was looking at the wrong table, because my name card had vanished and Melissa’s was sitting exactly where mine had been on every seating chart. She wore a pale blue silk dress, lifted her champagne as if she belonged there, and avoided my eyes when I stopped beside the chair. David stood up, pointed to an empty seat at the next table, and quietly said, “For tonight, why don’t you sit over there?”
I had spent fourteen months helping our daughter, Emily, plan that wedding, from dress fittings and florist meetings to late-night calls over napkins and seating charts. That morning, while I fastened the pearl buttons on her gown, she made me promise I would enjoy the day and not let anything between her father and me touch it. I meant that promise, because whatever was left of my marriage, I would not make my daughter’s wedding the battlefield where it died. But David had apparently made a different plan, and he expected me to cooperate with it in silence.
When I asked what Melissa was doing there, David’s face showed guilt for only a second before he hid it behind irritation. He acted as though I were creating the problem simply by noticing that his mistress was seated at the family table in the place reserved for the bride’s mother. Then Melissa looked at me and said, “Honey, today really isn’t the day to make Emily uncomfortable.” I almost laughed, because the woman who had been sleeping with my husband for nearly a year was now warning me not to embarrass my own daughter.
I could feel people settling into nearby seats, laughing and talking, unaware that my marriage was being quietly rearranged in front of them. David kept his voice low and told me we should not “do this here,” as if the humiliation belonged to me because I refused to disappear politely. I looked at the empty chair he had chosen for me between a cousin and someone from the groom’s side, and I realized something colder than anger. This was not spontaneous; he had thought about where Melissa would sit, and he had assumed I would move.
For twenty-eight years, I had been the woman who adjusted, explained, forgave, and made excuses when David forgot anniversaries, missed dinners, or put work ahead of family. When he became distant, I learned to expect less instead of asking for more, and somewhere along the way he mistook that patience for permission. Even now, part of me considered taking the other chair, smiling for photographs, swallowing the humiliation, and telling myself it was all for Emily. I actually reached for the chair because protecting my daughter still mattered more to me than winning a public fight.
Then I heard one word behind me: “Mom?” Emily was walking toward us in her wedding dress, still glowing from the ceremony, and at first she looked confused rather than angry. Her eyes moved from me, to the empty chair, to Melissa, then back to the family table where she had personally placed me months ago. David quickly stepped in and announced that he had “rearranged a few things,” as if changing the bride’s seating chart without permission were no more serious than moving a centerpiece.
Emily asked why I was not sitting in my seat, and David casually pointed to the neighboring table and said I would be sitting “right there.” Her smile disappeared, and her eyes dropped to the place card in front of Melissa. I watched my daughter’s expression go completely still as she picked up that card and turned it over in her hand. In that instant, I understood the worst part: Emily had not approved this, and David had brought his mistress into our daughter’s wedding believing he could force everyone to accept what he wanted once it was already done.
What Emily did not know was that six months earlier, I had discovered David’s affair through a message that appeared on his phone while he was in the shower. Melissa had written, “I hate pretending I don’t miss you when she’s around,” followed by another message asking whether Friday was still theirs. When I confronted him, David spent eleven minutes calling me paranoid, insecure, dramatic, suspicious, and unfair before I repeated Melissa’s words exactly. The silence that followed ended our marriage long before either of us ever said the word divorce.
We had kept the details quiet because Emily was planning her wedding, and I refused to turn her happiest season into a crisis about us. David told me he was “confused,” that what he had with Melissa was “more complicated than an affair,” and that he needed time before making decisions. I agreed only that Emily’s wedding came first, so we slept in separate rooms, spoke carefully, and tried to appear functional while our marriage quietly collapsed. I believed David understood that one day required restraint, but he had apparently used that silence to prepare something else.
Three weeks before the wedding, he had casually asked whether Emily had finalized the family table and whether every seat had been assigned. At the time, I thought it was harmless conversation, but standing there with Melissa’s card in my daughter’s hand, I finally understood why he had asked. He had been checking whether there would be room, and when there was not, he simply removed me. Emily looked up at her father and asked, very quietly, “Where is Mom’s place card?”—and for the first time that night, David had no easy answer.
…FULL STORY IN THE COMMENT 👇👇👇"" "