Her remarks came shortly after President Donald Trump and Senator Josh Hawley (R-MO) reportedly spoke by phone about advancing bipartisan legislation to prohibit members of Congress from trading individual stocks while in office.

“The reason this idea — to put a ban on stock trading for members of Congress — is even a thing, is because of Nancy Pelosi,” Leavitt said during the briefing. “She makes around $174,000 a year, yet she’s managed to build a fortune estimated at over $400 million. That tells you everything you need to know about how broken the system has become.”

White House Confirms Trump-Hawley Coordination

According to Leavitt, President Trump spoke directly with Senator Hawley earlier in the week after the Missouri Republican reintroduced his long-standing proposal to ban congressional stock trading. The conversation, she said, was “productive” and focused on restoring public trust in elected officials.

“The president has spoken to Senator Hawley, who called him, and the president took that call,” Leavitt told reporters. “As the president said in the Roosevelt Room yesterday, conceptually, he of course supports the idea of ensuring that members of Congress and U.S. senators who are here for public service cannot enrich themselves.”

The White House has not yet confirmed when legislation might formally be introduced, but insiders suggest the administration is eager to align itself with what has become a broadly popular issue across party lines.

Recent polling from the University of Maryland’s Program for Public Consultation found that 86 percent of Americans—including majorities of Republicans, Democrats, and independents—support banning lawmakers from buying or selling individual stocks while in office.

Pelosi’s Portfolio in the Spotlight

Pelosi’s financial activity has long been a target of scrutiny, particularly after several high-profile disclosures revealed trades made around the same time Congress was considering legislation that could impact certain industries. While Pelosi has repeatedly denied wrongdoing, critics say her trading record raises questions about access to privileged information.

Leavitt did not mince words when recounting the data.

“In 2024, Nancy Pelosi’s stock portfolio grew seventy percent in one year,” she said. “Her returns outperformed every major hedge fund on Wall Street — even doubling Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway. So when the American people are struggling to pay for groceries, and their representatives are somehow turning public service into an investment strategy, there’s clearly something wrong.”

Paul Pelosi, who manages the couple’s investments, has maintained that all trades are based on public information and that neither he nor his wife has ever acted on insider knowledge. Still, the perception of impropriety has persisted.

Financial transparency advocates argue that even if no laws were broken, the appearance of potential conflicts of interest undermines public confidence in government institutions.

A Bipartisan Cause With a Political Edge

The issue of stock trading by members of Congress has gained rare bipartisan traction. Both progressives and conservatives have voiced frustration over the lack of accountability among elected officials.

Senator Hawley, who has previously clashed with Trump on several issues, recently indicated a willingness to work with the White House on this legislation. According to reports, their recent conversation helped “reset” their relationship following months of tension.

“They both agree that restoring integrity in Washington requires action, not just talk,” a senior White House aide said. “This isn’t about party politics. It’s about sending a message that public office should be about service — not profit.”

Hawley’s proposal mirrors previous versions introduced in Congress that failed to advance amid partisan gridlock. The new iteration would likely prohibit lawmakers, their spouses, and dependent children from owning or trading individual stocks. Instead, members would be allowed to hold diversified mutual funds or blind trusts.

Pelosi Responds to Criticism

Representatives for Pelosi pushed back strongly against Leavitt’s remarks, accusing the White House of “deflecting” and engaging in “cheap theatrics.”

“Speaker Pelosi has always complied fully with financial disclosure laws and supports transparency in government,” said a spokesperson from Pelosi’s office. “The Leavitt comments are simply an attempt to score political points and distract from this administration’s failures.”

Pelosi herself addressed the issue briefly in a statement from San Francisco.

“I’ve said before that members of Congress should be judged by their record of service, not their stock portfolio,” Pelosi said. “My husband and I have followed every rule and reported every trade.”

Despite her defense, Pelosi has long been dogged by stories highlighting the uncanny timing of some of her family’s transactions. In 2022, Paul Pelosi made a high-profile purchase of semiconductor stocks shortly before Congress passed legislation benefiting the chip industry — a move that fueled widespread criticism, though he ultimately sold the shares at a loss to avoid further controversy.

The Push for Reform

The push to restrict or ban stock trading among lawmakers has accelerated over the past three years, following mounting public frustration over financial disclosures that appear to reveal insider advantages.

Former President Trump has expressed support for the ban multiple times since returning to office, framing it as part of a broader effort to “drain the swamp.”

“We are not here to make millionaires richer,” Trump said during a recent press event. “We’re here to make America stronger. If you want to play the stock market, stay in the private sector. If you want to serve your country, then serve — and do it honestly.”

Leavitt echoed those sentiments during Thursday’s briefing, saying that the president’s position “reflects the anger of the American people.”

“The president stands with the people on this,” she said. “He doesn’t want to see people like Nancy Pelosi enriching themselves off of public service and ripping off their constituents in the process.”

Political Implications Ahead of 2026 Elections

The timing of the administration’s renewed focus on this issue may not be coincidental. With the 2026 midterm elections approaching, Republicans see the stock-trading debate as a potent populist message — one that underscores frustration with Washington’s elite and appeals to voters across ideological lines.

Democrats, for their part, have struggled to present a unified stance. While many members, including progressive lawmakers such as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Elizabeth Warren, have supported a ban, others within the party have resisted restrictions, arguing that blind trusts or index funds should suffice.

“Every time we have this discussion, someone finds a reason to stall it,” said reform advocate Rep. Abigail Spanberger (D-VA), who has co-sponsored bipartisan legislation on the issue. “Meanwhile, public confidence in Congress keeps falling.”

Political analysts say the White House’s involvement could finally bring momentum to the effort, though it remains uncertain how far the proposal will go in a divided Congress.

White House Signals Next Steps

Leavitt concluded the press conference by confirming that the administration is “in active discussions” with lawmakers from both parties to finalize the language of a potential bill.

“As for the mechanics of the legislation and how it will move forward,” she said, “the White House continues to be in discussions with our friends on Capitol Hill. This is about rebuilding trust and showing that serving in government means putting the public first.”

Whether those discussions result in meaningful reform remains to be seen. But for now, Leavitt’s pointed criticism of Pelosi — and the bipartisan phone call between Trump and Hawley — have placed congressional stock trading squarely back in the national spotlight.

As one administration official put it, “If Washington won’t police itself, the American people will demand that someone else does.”