Here's how Obama dropped more than 26K bombs on 7 countries without congressional approval in 2016
Obama did not obtain an act from Congress to conduct his military operations; however, his actions were not illegal. Congress passed a broad 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force to approve war against al-Qaida and the Taliban, which Obama relied on to justify his military activities. However, Obama stretched use of the 2001 AUMF to target militant groups that either did not exist on Sept. 11, 2001, or were not al-Qaida affiliates.
U.S. presidents have repeatedly conducted military activities in other countries without seeking approval from Congress. President Donald Trump justified military activities during his first administration by citing the AUMF as well.
As U.S. President Donald Trump authorized surprise airstrikes on Iranian nuclear facilities in June 2025 without seeking congressional approval, many of his defenders pointed out that former President Barack Obama carried out similar actions during his presidency.
Conservative podcaster Alec Lace wrote on X:
2016 - Barack Obama dropped 26,171 bombs on Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen, Somalia, and Pakistan without Congress Approval
2025 - Donald Trump dropped 36 bombs on Iran nuclear sites without Congress Approval
Guess which one libs are mad about?
The above claim about Obama is technically correct in that he did not obtain an act of Congress to conduct his military activities, though numerous presidents — including Trump — have done the same. We looked through old databases and reports about Obama's airstrikes and drone warfare program conducted with coalition partners through the year 2016 to confirm the number of strikes he authorized.
However, Obama relied on an Authorization for Use of Military Force that Congress issued in 2001 to target al- Qaida and the Taliban as a legal basis for his administration's military actions.
In June 2025, Trump sent stealth aircraft into Iran with so-called Massive Ordinance Penetrator "bunker buster bombs" to reach concealed sites. Per a Pentagon briefing, around 75 precision-guided weapons were used in the overall operation, which included missiles sent by a U.S. submarine toward Isfahan. Around 14 of the bunker busters hit their targets.
In 2014, the U.S. along with a number of coalition partners began Operation Inherent Resolve against the militant Islamic State group. The U.S. conducted numerous airstrikes in Iraq and Syria using both manned and unmanned aircraft, including drones. According to data from the U.S. Air Force Central Command, in 2016 the coalition dropped a total of 30,743 weapons in Iraq and Syria.
According to an analysis by the think tank Council for Foreign Relations, the U.S. carried out 79% of airstrikes in Iraq and Syria in 2016 and was responsible for 24,287 of these bombs.
In addition, through Operation Enduring Sentinel in Afghanistan, the U.S. dropped a total of 1,337 weapons through both manned and unmanned aircraft, according to data collected by The Bureau of Investigative Journalism, an independent media outlet.
Data from the Long War Journal — part of the conservative Foundation for Defense of Democracies think tank — and the liberal think tank New America also found the U.S. conducted around 513 strikes in Libya, 43 in Yemen, 14 in Somalia, and 3 in Pakistan in 2016. This data didn't give the exact numbers of weapons used. Regardless, keeping in mind the number of strikes in Libya, Yemen, Somalia and Pakistan, as well as the quantity of weapons used in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria, the total still amounts to more than 26,000 bombs in seven countries in just 2016.
Trump is not the first president who did not get congressional consent to carry out military actions in another country. In 1950, President Harry Truman used his authority to send U.S. troops to defend South Korea along with a U.N. Security Council resolution, but no authority from Congress. In 1980s, President Ronald Reagan ordered military force in Libya, Grenada and Lebanon, and in 1989 President George H.W. Bush directed the invasion of Panama to topple the dictator Manuel Noriega.
According to a National Constitution Center analysis, while the U.S. Constitution gives the president the title of commander in chief of all armed forces, only Congress can declare war. Over the years, presidents have broadly interpreted their roles as commander in chief and often used it to bypass Congress.
In 1973, Congress passed the War Powers Resolution to ensure Congress had a role in approving U.S. involvement in any armed conflicts. However, Congress has also passed numerous Authorizations for the Use of Military Force that give the president the ability to carry out limited and clearly defined military actions. In practice, however, these AUMFs have been interpreted broadly to justify all kinds of military actions.
In 2001, Congress passed an AUMF authorizing military actions against "those responsible for the recent [Sept. 11, 2001] attacks against the United States." In 2002, Congress passed another AUMF calling for the use of military force against Iraq. When Obama ordered military intervention in 2011 in Libya without congressional approval, he said his actions did not fall under the War Powers Resolution.
A 2016 analysis by left-leaning think tank Center for American Progress found that the Obama administration had continued to use this justification for drone strikes: "Congress initially authorized war against al-Qaida and the Taliban in its 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force, or AUMF, and the Obama administration continues to rely on that AUMF as congressional authority for ongoing military operations."
The Council for Foreign Relations also evaluated the legality of Obama's drone strikes in 2017. It found that the 2001 AUMF had been "stretched" by the Obama administration to "justify strikes against terror groups that either did not exist on 9/11, or are unaffiliated with al-Qaida. Yet, the AUMF remains the domestic legal underpinning for all U.S. military actions against Islamist terrorists."
A 2016 paper by a pair of Duke and Harvard Law School professors, Curtis A. Bradley and Jack L. Goldsmith, on "Obama's AUMF Legacy" noted that Obama initially wanted to repeal the 2001 AUMF, but by the end of his presidency it acted as the legal underpinning for his military actions:
Despite massive changes in the geographical scope of the conflict that began on 9/11, the strategy and tactics employed, and the identity of the enemy, the AUMF remains the principal legal foundation under U.S. domestic law for the president to use force against and detain members of terrorist organizations. The AUMF is already the longest operative congressional authorization of military force in U.S. history, and, as of fall 2016, there was no immediate prospect that Congress would move to repeal or update it. With the continued vibrancy of Al Qaeda, its associates, and the Taliban, and with the 2014 presidential extension of the AUMF to cover military operations against the Islamic State, the AUMF is likely to be the primary legal basis for American uses of force for the foreseeable future.
[…]
For many years, President Obama proclaimed that he wanted to repeal the AUMF and end the AUMF-authorized conflict. By the closing year of his presidency, however, his administration had established the AUMF as the legal foundation for an indefinite conflict against Al Qaeda and associated groups and extended that foundation to cover a significant new conflict against the Islamic State.
In 2014 and 2015, Obama did try to get Congress to pass an updated AUMF for his ongoing war against the Islamic State. In February 2015, he sent Congress a draft AUMF, but disagreements over how it would limit the powers of a future U.S. president, and even Obama, meant the measure stalled.
In 2020, Trump also cited the 2002 AUMF as the legal justification for the Jan. 2, 2020, U.S. drone strike that killed Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani.
Obama did use more than 26,000 bombs in 2016 alone against seven countries. However, while he did not get congressional approval at the time, he relied on older congressional authorizations as the legal basis for such strikes, a practice that Trump also continued.
"Afghanistan: Reported US Air and Drone Strikes 2016." TBIJ, https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/drone-war/data/get-the-data-a-list-of-us-air-and-drone-strikes-afghanistan-2016. Accessed 24 June 2025.
"America's Counterterrorism Wars." New America, http://newamerica.org/future-security/reports/americas-counterterrorism-wars/. Accessed 24 June 2025.
Bradley, Curtis A., and Jack L. Goldsmith. "Obama's AUMF Legacy." The American Journal of International Law, vol. 110, no. 628, 2016, https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6661&context=faculty_scholarship. Accessed 24 June 2025.
Combined Forces Air Component Commander 2014-2021 Airpower Statistics. U.S. Air Force Central Command, 30 Nov. 2021, https://www.afcent.af.mil/Portals/82/November%202021%20Airpower%20Summary_FINAL.pdf. Accessed 24 June 2025.
Crowley, Michael, and Edward Wong. "Is the U.S. at War With Iran? What to Know About Trump, Congress and War Powers." The New York Times, 22 June 2025. NYTimes.com, https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/22/us/politics/trump-strikes-war-iran.html. Accessed 24 June 2025.
"Does the President Need Congress to Approve Military Actions in Iran? | Constitution Center." National Constitution Center – Constitutioncenter.Org, https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/does-the-president-need-congress-to-approve-military-actions-in-iran. Accessed 24 June 2025.
Elsea, Jennifer. "Defense Primer: Legal Authorities for the Use of Military Forces." U.S. Congress, 10 Dec. 2024, https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/IF10539. Accessed 24 June 2025.
"Evaluating the Obama Administration's Drone Reforms." Council on Foreign Relations, 31 Jan. 2017, https://cdn.cfr.org/sites/default/files/pdf/2017/01/Workshop_Report_Obama_Drone_Reforms_OR.pdf. Accessed 24 June 2025.
Fowler, Stephen. "Trump Administration Defends Iranian Strikes as Some Lawmakers Question Its Legality." NPR, 22 June 2025. NPR, https://www.npr.org/2025/06/22/nx-s1-5441731/iran-strike-congress-reaction-vance-rubio. Accessed 24 June 2025.
Glass , Andrew. "United States Invades Panama, Dec. 20, 1989." Politico, 20 Dec. 2018, https://www.politico.com/story/2018/12/20/united-states-invades-panama-1989-1067072. Accessed 24 June 2025.
"Hegseth, Caine Laud Success of U.S. Strike on Iran Nuke Sites." Department of Defense, 22 June 2025, https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/Article/4222533/hegseth-caine-laud-success-of-us-strike-on-iran-nuke-sites/. Accessed 24 June 2025.
Herb, Jeremy. "Congress War Authorization: Where We Last Left off." CNN, 7 Apr. 2017, https://www.cnn.com/2017/04/07/politics/congress-obama-war-authorization. Accessed 24 June 2025.
"H.J.Res.114 - Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002." U.S. Congress. https://www.congress.gov/bill/107th-congress/house-joint-resolution/114/text. Accessed 24 June 2025.
"Interpretation: Declare War Clause." National Constitution Center. https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/articles/article-i/clauses/753. Accessed 24 June 2025.
Kheel, Rebecca. "Trump Administration Outlines Legal Justification for Soleimani Strike." The Hill, 14 Feb. 2020, https://thehill.com/policy/defense/483135-trump-administrtion-outlines-legal-justification-for-soleimani-strike/. Accessed 24 June 2025.
Liptak, Kevin. "Strikes on Iranian Nuclear Sites Thrust US into Escalating Middle East Conflict." CNN, 22 June 2025, https://www.cnn.com/2025/06/21/politics/trump-iran-air-strikes. Accessed 24 June 2025.
Martin, Kate. "Are U.S. Drone Strikes Legal?" Center for American Progress, 1 Apr. 2016, https://www.americanprogress.org/article/are-u-s-drone-strikes-legal/. Accessed 24 June 2025.
"Operation Enduring Sentinel Lead Inspector General Quarterly Report to Congress, January 1, 2024—March 31, 2024." Office of Inspector General. https://oig.usaid.gov/node/6845. Accessed 24 June 2025.
"Public Law 107–40." U.S. Congress, 18 Sept. 2001, https://www.congress.gov/107/plaws/publ40/PLAW-107publ40.pdf. Accessed 24 June 2025.
"US Airstrikes in the Long War." FDD's Long War Journal, https://www.longwarjournal.org/us-airstrikes-in-the-long-war. Accessed 24 June 2025.
"What We Know about US Air Strikes on Three Iranian Nuclear Sites." BBC, 23 June 2025, https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cvg9r4q99g4o. Accessed 24 June 2025.
"Who We Are." Operation Inherent Resolve, https://www.inherentresolve.mil/WHO-WE-ARE/. Accessed 24 June 2025.
Zenko, Micah and Jennifer Wilson. "How Many Bombs Did the United States Drop in 2016?" Council on Foreign Relations. https://www.cfr.org/blog/how-many-bombs-did-united-states-drop-2016. Accessed 24 June 2025.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Epoch Times
12 minutes ago
- Epoch Times
Trump Signs Bill to Enhance Oversight of US Export Controls
President Donald Trump signed a bill on Aug. 19 that aims to improve national security and transparency of the export control system by increasing oversight of American-made technologies being shipped to foreign nations. The bill, the Maintaining American Superiority by Improving Export Control Transparency Act, amends the Export Control Reform Act of 2018 and requires Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick to report annually to Congress on applications for dual-use export licenses.
Buzz Feed
14 minutes ago
- Buzz Feed
DC Residents React To National Guard Mobilization As Crime Rate Falls
DC has been stretched thin this year, first staring down a potential $1.1 billion cut to its local budget — which Congress ultimately reversed with the backing of both city leaders and President Trump — and then absorbing a very real $20 million slash in federal security funding, a 44% cut in FEMA's urban grant program. Now, Trump has signed an executive order to place the city under a federally controlled "Safe and Beautiful Task Force," raising fresh questions about federal overreach into local governance. On August 11, he invoked the District's unique federal status to seize control of the Metropolitan Police Department and mobilize 800 National Guard troops — a force that has since swelled past 1,500 with reinforcements from Republican-led states like Ohio, South Carolina, and West Virginia. While Trump framed the decision as a response to "totally out of control" crime, the numbers tell a different story: violent crime in DC is actually at a 30-year low. Legally, the maneuver lives in a gray space. Unlike in states, where governors control the National Guard, DC's lack of statehood allows the president to deploy local troops with little resistance, citing "emergency" powers that can last up to 30 days unless extended by Congress. Critics warn that conflating routine urban challenges like crime, homelessness, and public safety with a so-called "emergency" risks not only mischaracterizing the District's needs, but also normalizing the use of military or federal force against civilians — a violation of the 19th-century Posse Comitatus Act, which prohibits the military from acting as domestic police unless explicitly authorized by Congress. For DC locals, the reaction has been swift and visceral. Residents point out that Trump has simultaneously undercut the city's budget, ignored its actual needs, and now parachuted in soldiers to patrol some of its wealthiest neighborhoods. To many, it looks less like a crime crackdown and more like a test run to normalize military presence in a liberal stronghold — laying the groundwork for heavier crackdowns on dissent down the line. Here's what people in the District are saying: "If he cared about violence in the city, he wouldn't have signed off on a cut to our budget. The only thing he cares about is control." "It feels like trying to put a Band-Aid on a bullet wound. You can't gut funding for the stuff that actually prevents violence, and then act shocked when things get worse. Short-term control isn't the same as long-term safety. I'm curious as to what people think would make the biggest difference here, because it sure isn't just more boots on the ground." "The thing is, crime is WAY down in DC. This isn't about crime. It's a test run and a way to set a precedent to get people used to the idea. So when the social uproar over Trump's policies finally reaches a boiling point, he can say, 'Look, we've done it before. It's totally legal.' It's a precursor to putting down the inevitable dissent that will come once his policies finally start working their way through everyday life." "DC native here. He must have a lot of pages in the Epstein files to be making this much noise. Every time that pig opens his mouth, I want to scream, especially when he's got my city in it." "Your question is flawed because this isn't to address violence — violence is at a 30-year low. Sending in federal troops for law enforcement is also explicitly illegal for the president to do." "If it's anything like LA, they'll stand around doing nothing, stay at hotels that will draw protests, or sleep on the floor somewhere. They'll also do one or two 'crackdowns' in a safe area where they won't get pushback and can create a performative soundbite, and a 'crackdown' that's completely unorganized and wastes everyone's time and money. Then, they'll eventually leave because they are ineffective and Trump has moved on to something else." "The idea is to start normalizing the notion of using the military to do police work. One day, it's completely unheard of and taboo to send the military to detain civilians. Before you know it, it's just another Wednesday. It's the boiling frog analogy. To put it into perspective, think of how normal Trump's first term seems compared to his current term. Remember how the big controversy then was whether Trump was racist or not? The Charlottesville and George Floyd stuff? Now, we're having conversations about how fascist is he, and whether he'll leave office, rig elections for one-party GOP rule, use military force to occupy Democratic cities, start arresting Democratic politicians just because, his tariffs will cause a depression, he's done long-term damage to our relationships with international partners, the dollar will remain the world reserve currency, the US will be in another war by the end of his term, etc." "Lots of them standing around doing nothing so far." "By the way, sending the army into domestic cities was also illegal in ancient Rome. When Caesar sent the army over the Rubicon River (the phrase 'Cross the Rubicon'), across the border into the city, it was basically the end of Roman democracy and the beginning of the Roman Empire." "The last time there was 'mass violence' on the streets of DC was January 6, 2021." "I don't think this is just a distraction. It's also a distraction, but he always intended to put troops in the street. Next year, it will be the Gestapo." "So far, the shit I've seen is mostly from the video of some wealthy preppy-looking dude slapping a cop with a sub sandwich and leisurely running away." "My take is that it's not to address violence but the unhoused population. It's disgusting. My understanding is that Trump plans to federalize the Metropolitan PD, too. The 'sweeping' of the unhoused population started happening more drastically a few months ago." "The National Guard has little to no training on how to deal with homelessness, mental illnesses, addiction, and poverty. That's not what they know, have been trained for, or have any experience in doing. It's a big mistake on so many levels in terms of the public and use of federal workers." "It's not a mistake. My $5 says it's intentional. They send in soldiers who don't have training to deal with the perceived problem in any way other than how soldiers are trained to act — aggressively. The goal is to provoke incidents of retaliatory violence against the soldiers in order to justify full military lockdown of the city and/or mass incarcerations of protesters, the unhoused, dissenting politicians, and media, etc." "It's easy. It's a loyalty test to see just how Gestapo the National Guard can get before there is dissent. The DC Home Rule Act, Section 740, which he is using to mobilize the National Guard and federalize the police force, allows for this action during a declared federal emergency in DC for up to 48 hours, unless Congress votes to extend it, with a maximum limit of 30 days." "I've run a community cleanup organization in the District since 2021 — more on that in a minute. Every month, we hold a cleanup somewhere in the District in a new location. It moves from neighborhood to neighborhood. We go to ALL of the neighborhoods. I'd offer that I've spent more time in every rough part of DC than anyone involved in making this decision has. I started my organization after an impromptu cleanup of the National Mall area in front of the Capitol building on January 9, 2021, in response to what happened three days prior. It wasn't overtly a political thing — I was just tired of my city being littered by a bunch of clowns who see it as a stage for their nonsense. Since then, we've had dozens of cleanups with thousands of volunteers. We know what it looks like when the trash comes into town. And, like always, we'll be here when it's time to take out the trash. Bet on it." "No one wants it. DC has problems, but they're just normal for a city. Crime is at a 30-year low. They're just testing out fascism. Also, Trump doesn't like the city because the city actively doesn't like him. He's a petty man who enjoys making people suffer if he feels they didn't compliment the size of his hands enough." "Federal troops going to hot zones isn't new. But this isn't a hot zone. There aren't riots in the streets. Violence in DC is at a 30-year low. This is just federal agents arresting unhoused people for being unhoused. I also feel obligated to mention that people experiencing homelessness is a macro problem with micro solutions. Soup kitchens aren't going to 'solve' it. We would be far better off reforming our healthcare industry if that is our real goal (the majority of people experiencing homelessness are doing so because of medical debt). That doesn't mean that soup kitchens are wrong — just that their goal is different from solving the main problem. Arresting people experiencing homelessness also does not 'solve' it. It costs $150k per year to jail someone. It would be cheaper for us to buy every person experiencing homelessness a house than it would be to arrest them all (moral arguments aside)." "Per my buddy in DC this morning: Unhoused encampments ARE a real problem. We need to get these people with mental illness off the streets because they do create real issues for residents. But that should be done by giving resources to existing DC agencies, not by using federal troops. This is just a pretext for martial law." "They're out patrolling the safest, whitest, and richest neighborhoods in DC. The Wharf, DuPont Circle, Navy Yard — all the most gentrified places in the city. One thousand bucks says they never go east of the river. It's a joke and a distraction from the Epstein List." "It's nonsense and performative. It is NOT dangerous here, and Trump has never cared about law and order. That being said, Trump is good at parroting things that he knows a fringe group of people — some of whom don't even live here — believe. It also aligns with his talking points that all big liberal cities are shitholes. The reality is that he knows DC didn't and would never elect somebody like him." "It's too soon to say. I'm out around town this evening, and it's oddly quiet. There are fewer police than usual. Only local cops were protecting a small anti-Trump protest. Maybe this is the calm before the storm? I'm used to seeing cops all over since I live in the Navy Yard near a lot of congresspeople. Summer 2020 seemed much more severe with Humvees on Pennsylvania Avenue. It's insulting altogether, given the fact that he refused to put down January 6. I witnessed it, and it was truly astonishing. Most people don't realize that Trump didn't do anything — the military came in under Pence's orders. If it wasn't for Pence, things would have been far worse that day." In the end, whether you see Trump's move as a necessary intervention or an alarming overreach, it raises a deeper question: what precedent will this set for the future of federal authority in American cities? So, what do you think — is this a legitimate response to crime, or a dangerous expansion of federal control? Share your thoughts in the comments below.
Yahoo
17 minutes ago
- Yahoo
The Americans making millions buying shares like top politicians
US politicians seem to know something about the stock market that ordinary Americans don't. Since April 2020, the value of the S&P 500 has surged by a heady 165pc. But over the same period, the stocks most purchased by members of Congress or their families have registered paper gains of no less than 465pc. That's according to a trading strategy designed by a start-up called Quiver Quantitative. American lawmakers are so consistently successful that a flurry of new platforms and apps now compile filing data from US politicians as a key input in strategies for retail investors and even hedge funds. The number of people using these so-called 'copy trading' strategies has exploded. Tens of thousands of Americans now follow and imitate trades made by members of Congress, and they are making millions of dollars in the process. New plans to ban members of Congress from trading could make the boom short-lived, however. The ban comes amid concerns that politicians are unfairly profiting from information gained in their privileged position as a representative of the American people. Former House speaker Nancy Pelosi is the old guard of Congressional trading and by far the most copied. The trades she discloses have developed such a reputation for out-performance that they have become market moving in themselves. In January, for example, Pelosi disclosed an investment in a health tech company called Tempus AI. Retail investors piled in. The company's share options surged 124pc. 'It's all INSIDE INFORMATION! Is anybody looking into this??? She is a disgusting degenerate,' Trump wrote on Truth Social earlier this month. Pelosi says all the trades are made by her husband, a property investor, and she has no involvement in the transactions. Whatever motivates these trades, it is becoming increasingly lucrative for a growing cohort of everyday Americans. Dub launched in March 2024 as America's first regulated brokerage to offer copy trading accounts to mimic politicians and star traders. 'It's been absolutely insane in terms of growth,' says Steven Wang, the founder and chief executive who dropped out of his freshman year at Harvard to build the platform. Today, it has 1.5 million users across America. Of the $100m or so invested across dub, nearly $23m is in its Pelosi tracker account. Since its launch in early 2024, its paper gains are 172pc. 'She beat every single hedge fund last year. Our customers have made millions of dollars just through her portfolio,' says Wang. Dub is one player in a rapidly expanding field. Autopilot launched in 2023 and allows retail investors to copy trade a variety of portfolios, including its Pelosi Tracker, by linking up their existing brokerage accounts. Also in 2023, financial data platform Unusual Whales launched two exchange-traded funds (ETFs) tracking trades made by politicians – one for Democrats' holdings, one for Republicans'. Insiderwave is a similar app under construction. 'I wouldn't be surprised if there are 100,000 people out there who are copy-trading different strategies based on Congressional trading data,' says James Kardatzke, who founded Quiver Quantitative with his twin brother in 2020. The data company now has around 750,000 registered users. It publishes a wide range of alternative datasets, scraping sources such as private jet flight patterns and turning them into digestible datasets that can be used to inform investment strategies. One of the first datasets on its platform was its Congressional investment tracker, a trading strategy that involves investing in the companies that have the most net purchases by members of Congress. More than 5,000 investors are currently using this copy trade bucket approach, says Kardatzke. Most of the platform's users are retail investors, but Quiver Quantitative also has a couple of dozen institutional clients that pay for the raw data feeds, building them into the decision-making processes behind their own trading strategies. 'Many of them see it as a source not only for figuring out how companies might be impacted by government legislation going forward, but even just thinking about how politicians might have access to inside information when they're making their trades,' says Kardatzke. Alongside Pelosi, House Republican Marjorie Taylor Greene's investments are becoming an increasingly popular copy trade. In April, Greene made an investment in Palantir just before immigration and customs enforcement (Ice) handed the company a $30m (£22m) contract. Greene sits on the committee for homeland security that oversees Ice. Since her trade, the value of her Palantir stock has jumped by 142pc. Dub recently released a copy trade account for Greene, which so far has $30,000 invested and is up by 22pc. Users have also invested $665,000 in a portfolio tracker for Donald Trump, which is up 24pc since it launched. The portfolio is based on the assets that Trump's family owns publicly, such as the Trump Media and Technology Group and Bitcoin, and the companies that donated to his campaign. 'It's our best guess of the stocks that would be very tightly correlated to Trump's actions and Trump's wealth,' says Wang. Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary, says: 'Neither the president nor his family have ever engaged, or will ever engage, in conflicts of interest.' Altogether, there are two or three dozen Congressmen who trade actively, says Kardatzke. Pelosi ranks third in terms of paper profits over the last 12 months, at just under $1m, according to Quiver Quantitative. She was outdone by Republican Representative Michael McCaul, whose declared trades have made paper gains worth $3.6m and Democrat Representative Cleo Fields, who made $1.1m. Greene ranked sixth in terms of paper profits, at $367,000. Lawmakers insist that the stock market trades that they register are made without their knowledge, by their family members or wealth managers, and have nothing to do with insider information. 'I learnt about my Palantir trades when I saw it in the media,' Greene said back in May. McCaul's attorney says: 'Congressman McCaul did not purchase these stocks and had no advanced knowledge of the purchase. Rather, his wife has assets she solely owns, and a third-party manager made the purchase without her direction.' Ian Krager, Pelosi's press secretary, says: 'Speaker Pelosi does not own any stocks and has no knowledge or subsequent involvement in any transactions.' The crux of the problem, Kardatzke says, is that it is very difficult to prove which trades are made with someone's knowledge and which aren't. The copy trade boom began in the wake of the pandemic when lawmakers drew scrutiny for suspicious trades made after closed-door briefings. It has only gained more traction as start-ups work to make the filing data more accessible. Transparency rules in America are tighter than those in the UK. Members of Congress must detail any purchase, sale or exchange of an asset exceeding $1,000, made by themselves or their family members. In the UK, members of parliament are only required to register holdings worth £70,000 or more. The US system may be about to become even more strict. Republican Senator Josh Hawley is pushing for legislation that would ban officeholders from trading stocks. His bill, originally called the preventing elected leaders from owning securities and investments (Pelosi) Act, passed the Senate committee on homeland security and governmental affairs at the end of July. Trump had initially expressed support for the idea, saying 'I like it conceptually.' When the act passed the committee, however, Trump lashed out at long-time Maga ally Hawley, calling him a 'second-tier Senator' and claimed the Democrats were using him 'as a pawn to help them'. Hawley later said the bust-up was caused by a misunderstanding, as the president had wrongly been told the bill would force him to sell his assets. 'When we walked through the text of the bill, he was like, 'Oh, OK,'' Hawley told Business Insider, adding that the president was committed to a stock-trading ban. Scott Bessent, the US treasury secretary, has also voiced his support. 'Whether it's Rep. Pelosi, Sen [Ron] Wyden, every hedge fund would be jealous of them,' Bessent told Bloomberg last week. 'And the American people deserve better than this.' Wyden, a Democrat, is also in the top 30 by paper trading profits in the last 12 months. Wang welcomes a Congressional trading ban, but is sceptical that it will pass. There is simply too much money being made. 'Until then, here's a product where if you can't beat them, we can at least provide you with a way to join them and make money.' Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
