GOP congressman suggests he'd ‘lose money and go broke' if advisers stop stock trades
Bresnahan, who has come under heat for continuing stock trades carried out by his advisers despite writing in support of banning congressional stock trades while campaigning for his seat, made the comment in an interview with local public news organization WVIA that was published Thursday.
While Bresnahan said he has not been involved with the stock trades directed by his financial advisers, the outlet noted that he could order his advisers to stop trading stocks.
'And then do what with it?' Bresnahan told WVIA. 'Just leave it all in the accounts and just leave it there and lose money and go broke?'
Bresnahan, a businessman whose net worth is estimated to be in the multi-millions, has said he would like to form a blind trust that would block him from having any control or knowledge of trades made on his behalf. But Bresnahan said he wants to use his existing financial advisers and wants to instruct the trustee to avoid investments that benefit foreign adversaries and avoid shorting American companies — running into problems with the House Ethics Committee.
'So, you would have to then find someone else that would even consider taking you to manage through a trustee account,' Bresnahan told WVIA. 'So, it became a disaster.'
Last week, Bresnahan's lawyer sent a letter to the House Ethics committee saying that the Pennsylvania congressman prohibited his advisers from those types of investments or trades, the Washington Examiner reported. The letter also said Bresnahan is not consulted about any trade and is informed of trades only after they are complete.
Bresnahan has also introduced a bill to ban stock trading for members of Congress and their spouses, and is open to working with other members on the issue.
Still, Bresnahan has caught heat for being an active trader in Congress. The New York Times in April brought attention to Bresnahan continuing to trade despite writing a letter to the editor in The Citizens' Voice local newspaper in 2024 calling to ban congressional stock trading.
The contrast between Bresnahan's statement during the campaign and his continued stock trades has made the freshman swing-district congressman a top target of Democrats hoping to win back the seat in 2026.
'Multi-millionaire Rob Bresnahan is full of shit,' Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Spokesperson Eli Cousin said in a statement in response to the WVIA interview. 'He campaigned on a promise to ban congressional stock trading, but is now saying that he must continue his prolific trading in order to prevent himself from going broke. He doesn't care about his constituents – he only cares about his bottom line.'
Bresnahan's spokesperson Hannah Pope fired back by pointing to trades reported in former Speaker Nancy Pelosi's (D-Calif.) financial disclosures.
'Rep. Bresnahan was a small business owner before becoming a Member of Congress, and unlike the DCCC's long-time benefactor, prolific stock trader Nancy Pelosi, he does not plan on being a Member of Congress for the rest of his career. He does not trade his own stocks and is unaware of what is traded or when,' Pope said in a statement.
The trades reported by Pelosi that have garnered scrutiny were made by her husband Paul Pelosi, according to the disclosures, and Pelosi has thrown her support behind an effort to ban stock trading by members of Congress.
Bresnahan's spokesperson continued: 'He believes Members of Congress should not be allowed to profit off the information they are entrusted with, which is why he introduced legislation to ban Congressional stock trading, restoring the integrity Americans expect and deserve from their government. As a Member of Congress, his number one focus will always be the people of Pennsylvania's Eighth Congressional District.'
Bresnahan's comments come as legislative action on stock trading bans heat up. A Senate committee this week advanced a bill to ban congressional stock trading, and Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.) has pledged to file a discharge petition to try to force a vote on a bill to ban stock trading in the House.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Black America Web
43 minutes ago
- Black America Web
Trump Moves Obama and Bush Portraits to Hidden White House Hallway
Source: STAN HONDA / Getty The White House isn't just a seat of power—it's a stage for American history and a canvas reflecting the nation's leaders. Once, presidential portraits, including those of President Barack Obama and President George W. Bush, occupied celebrated public spaces where millions could appreciate their legacies. That changed during Donald Trump's presidency, when both portraits were quietly moved to a discreet, staff-only hallway—an act that resonated especially strongly with communities close to both leaders, and provoked a broader conversation about respect, representation, and the power of symbols. Presidential portraits have always carried weight—especially Obama's, as the first Black president and a powerful symbol of breaking barriers for African-Americans and all Americans who value representation. His portrait's removal from the Grand Staircase, a place where history breathes and visitors reflect on leadership, was far more than a simple change in décor. But Obama's wasn't the only portrait to be relocated. George W. Bush's was also moved out of public view—a decision that raised questions, given Bush's notable relationship with the Obamas. Over the years, Presidents Bush and Obama, and their families, have demonstrated deep mutual respect and even genuine friendship at public events—sending a message of unity and civility across the political aisle RELATED STORY: Daughter of George W. Bush Endorses Harris What Michelle Obama Said About Trump's 1st Inauguration Could Be Why She's Skipping His 2nd We care about your data. See our privacy policy. Why was Bush's portrait moved too? One clear factor is that President Bush notably never endorsed or supported Donald Trump, choosing to be a rare Republican voice who, along with the Obamas, represented a vision of leadership distinct from Trump's. Their visible friendship highlighted a different standard for presidential behavior—one grounded in decency and common ground, traits that many saw as starkly contrasting with the Trump years. By relocating the portraits of both Obama and Bush, Trump didn't just alter the visual landscape of the White House; he signaled a sharp departure from the legacy—and alliances—these two men represented. It's impossible to ignore the political tensions influencing these moves. Trump's infamous clashes with Obama and the public 'birther' claims are well known, but Bush, too, had a complicated relationship with Trump, marked by a lack of support and public silence during Trump's campaigns. Moving both men's portraits has been widely interpreted as an attempt to minimize their presence and legacy in the nation's house, especially for visitors. For the African-American community, and Americans who value unity, this act raises real questions: Whose stories do we honor? Whose images deserve to inspire the next generation when they walk the halls of history? For Black Americans, the very presence of Obama's portrait is deeply meaningful—but the message is amplified when paired with Bush's, given their visible friendship and mutual respect. Together, those portraits once reflected a rare and hopeful moment of bipartisanship and inclusion. Removing them is more than a symbolic sidelining; it's a reshaping of the narrative about whose leadership belongs at the forefront. The decision to relocate Obama's and Bush's portraits, in the context of their legacies and their relationship, makes it clear that vigilance is necessary—not just to preserve the legacy of the first Black president, but to protect a more inclusive, honest story of America's leadership. As history continues to unfold, it's up to all of us to insist on a White House—and a nation—that honors the full truth and diversity of its past and present. LIKE US ON FACEBOOK . FOLLOW US ON INSTAGRAM & TWITTER . SUBSCRIBE TO OUR YOUTUBE . STAY INFORMED! CLICK HERE TO SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER! HEAD TO THE HOMEPAGE SEE ALSO
CNN
44 minutes ago
- CNN
The legal battle over Trump's use of the National Guard moves to a California courtroom
Lawyers for President Donald Trump and California Gov. Gavin Newsom are set to face off Monday to determine whether the president violated a 147-year-old law when he deployed the National Guard to quell protests over immigration raids in Los Angeles – against the wishes of the Democratic governor. In June, as hundreds of people gathered in Los Angeles to protest a string of immigration raids that targeted workplaces and left dozens of people detained or deported, the president federalized and deployed 4,000 National Guard members over the objection of Newsom and local officials, who said the deployment would only cause further chaos. Trump invoked a rarely used law that allows the president to federalize the National Guard during times of actual or threatened rebellion or invasion, or when regular forces can't enforce US laws. The president's lawyers said in a court filing that the duties of the National Guard troops and a handful of Marines also dispatched were narrowly circumscribed: They were dispatched only to protect federal property and personnel, and they didn't engage in any law enforcement activities. Newsom filed a lawsuit June 9 against Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, saying they violated the Posse Comitatus Act and the 10th Amendment. Trump's lawyers say the act, which prevents the use of the military for enforcing laws, doesn't provide a mechanism for a civil lawsuit. But Newsom's lawyers have argued the president illegally made an 'unprecedented power grab' – and even violated the Constitution – by overruling local authorities to send in the military. The president and Hegseth 'have overstepped the bounds of law and are intent on going as far as they can to use the military in unprecedented, unlawful ways,' Newsom's lawyers say in a complaint. The trial represents a crucial moment for determining how much power a US president can lawfully exercise over the military on domestic soil. During his first term, Trump had often speculated openly about the possibility of deploying the military on American soil, whether to suppress protests or combat crime. Now he's talking about deploying the National Guard to the nation's capital over recent high-profile crimes. The trial also represents an escalation of the feud between Trump and Newsom, which saw the president threaten to have the Democratic governor arrested during the Los Angeles protests. Newsom described the comment as 'an unmistakable step toward authoritarianism.' The judge set to preside over the bench trial, Charles R. Breyer, previously granted a temporary restraining order against the Trump administration, ruling that the president unlawfully federalized the National Guard and that the protests didn't amount to an insurrection. But just hours later, an appeals court paused his ruling, allowing the deployment to continue. Here's more on what to know about the upcoming trial – and the three laws Newsom's team says Trump and Hegseth violated. The trial is taking place in San Francisco, presided over by Breyer, who sits on the US District Court for the Northern District of California, with proceedings scheduled from Monday to Wednesday. At the center of the legal proceedings is the Posse Comitatus Act, which largely prevents the president from using the military as a domestic police force, according to the Brennan Center for Justice, an independent law and policy organization. 'Posse Comitatus' is a Latin term used in American and British law to describe 'a group of people who are mobilized by the sheriff to suppress lawlessness in the county,' according to the Brennan Center. The act, signed into law by President Rutherford B. Hayes in 1878, consists of just one sentence: 'Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.' Newsom's lawyers say the deployment of the National Guard to Los Angeles was a violation of the act since it bars 'the military from engaging in civil law enforcement unless explicitly authorized by law,' according to the complaint. But Trump's lawyers insist the National Guard and Marines didn't engage in any civil law enforcement – and therefore didn't violate the act. Moreover, they say the act itself doesn't provide any mechanisms for its enforcement in a private civil lawsuit. Newsom's lawyers also argue that by overriding California officials, Trump violated the 10th Amendment of the Constitution, which governs the sharing of power between the federal government and the 50 states. The amendment says 'the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.' Trump and Hegseth's move to call up the National Guard against the governor's wishes 'infringes on Governor Newsom's role as Commander-in-Chief of the California National Guard and violates the State's sovereign right to control and have available its National Guard in the absence of a lawful invocation of federal power,' Newsom's complaint says. Policing and crime control are some of the most crucial uses of state power, Newsom's lawyers say. Additionally, Newsom's lawyers argue Trump and Hegseth violated the Administrative Procedure Act, which says a court must 'hold unlawful and set aside agency action' that is 'arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with the law,' that is 'contrary to constitutional right (or) power,' or that is 'in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, or short of statutory right.' Hegseth and the Department of Defense 'lack authority to federalize members of the California National Guard without issuing such orders through Governor Newsom, who has not consented to their actions or been afforded the opportunity to consult on any deployment. Such agency actions are unauthorized, unprecedented, and not entitled to deference by this Court,' reads the complaint. Trump's lawyers, meanwhile, have focused in their filing on a little-used law they cited to federalize the National Guard. Section 12406(3) of the US Code says the president can federalize the National Guard of any state in three circumstances: if the US is being invaded or faces danger of invasion; if there is a rebellion or danger of rebellion; or if the president is unable 'with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States.' The law, however, stipulates the orders should be issued 'through the governors.' Newsom's lawyers say Trump didn't consult with the governor before issuing the order. Breyer previously pointed out Trump's memo directed Hegseth to consult the governor before federalizing the National Guard – but that he didn't. The Los Angeles deployment was only the second time in US history that a president has used the 'exclusive authority' of this law to federalize the National Guard, according to Newsom's lawyers. The first was when President Richard Nixon called on the National Guard to deliver the mail during the 1970 Postal Service strike. And it's the second time since 1965, when President Lyndon B. Johnson sent troops to Alabama to protect civil rights demonstrators, that a president activated a state's national guard without a request from the governor – though he used a different law to do so. Trump's lawyers say the president was unable to enforce federal immigration law 'as well as laws forbidding interference with federal functions or assaults on federal officers and property' with 'the regular forces' – so the deployment falls within the limits of Section 12406(3). With only 300 National Guard troops still deployed in Los Angeles, Newsom's lawyers are looking mostly for symbolic relief: a declaration the memorandum used to federalize the National Guard and Hegseth's orders were unauthorized and illegal. The remaining troops are stationed at Joint Forces Training Base – Los Alamitos, Newsom says, 'without a clear mission, direction, or a timeline for returning to their communities.' Newsom's team is also asking for 'injunctive relief' prohibiting Hegseth and the Department of Defense from federalizing and deploying the California National Guard and military without meeting legal requirements, including the cooperation of the governor. Finally, they ask to recoup the state of California's costs and attorneys' fees and 'such additional relief as the court deems proper and the interests of justice may require.' Trump's lawyers indicated in a court filing they plan to call as a witness Maj. Gen. Scott M. Sherman, deputy commanding general of the National Guard. Sherman is expected to discuss the National Guard's deployment to Los Angeles and their compliance with the Posse Comitatus Act. Newsom's lawyers also plan to call Sherman, as well as US Army official William B. Harrington to testify about the activities of Task Force 51, the command post activated to coordinate deployment of National Guard troops and Marines to Los Angeles. Ernesto Santacruz Jr. of US Immigration and Customs Enforcement is also expected to testify about the federalized National Guard's activities in support of federal law enforcement officials during immigration enforcement operations.
Black America Web
an hour ago
- Black America Web
Ex-Superman Dean Cain Joins ICE, Social Media Cooks Super Lame
Source: DOMINIC GWINN / Getty Former 'Superman' actor Dean Cain announced that he's joined ICE, leading to unsurprised replies and jabs from social media. As the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency has wreaked havoc in the United States in line with President Donald Trump's agenda towards immigrants, conservative actor and former 'Superman' star Dean Cain has announced that he's joined ICE. He spoke about joining the agency while appearing on Fox News' Jesse Watters Primetime on Wednesday (August 6), revealing that his posting of a recruitment video led to his ultimately signing up. 'I'm actually… a sworn deputy sheriff and a reserve police officer – I wasn't part of ICE, but once I put that (the recruitment video) out there and you put a little blurb on your show, it went crazy,' Cain said to Watters. 'So now I've spoken with some officials over at ICE and I will be sworn in as an ICE agent ASAP.' Cain is a sworn sheriff's deputy in Frederick County, Virginia and has served as a reserve officer in two Idaho counties in 2018 and 2019. We care about your data. See our privacy policy. The former Lois & Clark: The New Adventures of Superman star continued, 'This country was built on patriots stepping up, whether it was popular or not, and doing the right thing. I truly believe this is the right thing.' He added that it was what Trump ran on, and 'It's what I voted for and he's going to see it through, and I'll do my part and help make sure it happens.' The announcement earned Cain an overwhelming amount of scorn online. The 59-year-old has been a staunch conservative for years as well as an avid supporter of Trump. Many weren't surprised at the actor's moves, with media personality Van Lathan dismissing fellow panelist Scott Jennings' defense of him on CNN: 'Scott, it's not 1995. No one gives a sad hell what Dean Cain thinks. Dean needs the $50,000 – that's what got him off the couch.' Others pointed out how Cain is willfully joining an agency who has been consistently criticized for its aggressive mass deportations and arrests nationwide placing people in detention camps, recalling the actor's detailing of how his Japanese-American relatives on his father's side of the family were in the Minidoka War Relocation Center in Idaho during World War II. Ex-Superman Dean Cain Joins ICE, Social Media Cooks Super Lame was originally published on
