Pelosi's prime profits prove it's time to ban Congress' stock trading
Gee, look at that: Nancy and Paul Pelosi had yet another 'lucky' year on the stock market in 2024. What will it take for Congress to crack down on its members' insider trading?
New required disclosures show the former House speaker and her hubby raked in $7.8 million to $42.5 million last year, bumping their estimated net worth to as much $413 million. (The law doesn't make them share exact numbers.)
And a good chunk of that eye-popping wealth comes from their impressive stock portfolio, which is so consistently lucrative that entire social-media accounts are dedicated to tracking the Pelosis' buys and sells.
Nancy maintains that she owns no stocks (it's all hubby Paul) and (says a mouthpiece) she 'has no prior knowledge or subsequent involvement in any transactions.'
Which, even if she said that herself, under oath, leaves plenty of room for Paul to trade on the basis of inside information — whether things she learns on the job, or info fed to either of them for favors past, present or future from the ex-speaker.
Certainly, Paul has made some uncannily sharp moves in the markets.
In fact, his portfolio outperformed every major hedge fund last year.
In July, he sold 5,000 shares of Microsoft, months before the Federal Trade Commission announced an antitrust investigation into the company.
And he dumped 2,000 Visa shares months before the Justice Department sued the company for allegedly monopolizing the debit-card market.
If he were an average Joe, the Securities and Exchange Commission would be picking through his records with a fine-tooth comb — because that kind of foresight reeks of insider knowledge.
Fine; maybe Paul is a modern-day Nostradamus, somehow working his market magic without the least bit of impropriety.
But it sure is fishy for any top official's family member to pull in millions this way, year after year after year.
We doubt hard proof will ever come to light; the Pelosis are far too smart to leave a clear trail.
But they're only the most notable examples of this game: Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle regularly make good money off the market; the portfolios of dozens of Democrats and Republicans in Congress beat the S&P 500 in 2024, according to watchdog Unusual Whales.
Maybe they're just really good at making trades — but the simple fact is that neither the House nor Senate does anything serious to prevent such abuse of privileged information.
Even if all (or the majority) don't use that knowledge, allowing them to make trades offers too many opportunities for corruption.
And when they keep scoring big on market bets for decades, a la the Pelosis, it reeks.
House Speaker Mike Johnson and Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries have both signaled they would support a ban on congressional stock trading — the kind that Nancy blocked repeatedly as speaker.
Getting that passed before next year's midterms should be a priority for Republicans — clear proof that they want to clean up Congress.
If a career in the House no longer makes it easy to get rich, the next potential Pelosi might just go into an entirely different line of work.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Bloomberg
17 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
SNAP Cuts in Big Tax Bill Will Hit a Lot of Trump Voters Too
President Donald Trump's allies love to talk about the food we're eating here in the US: too sugary, too processed, too artificially dyed. What they're not talking about, though, is how many Americans don't have enough of it, whether it's healthy or not. If the Republicans get their way, the number of them will only go up. Exactly how the right-leaning majorities in the House and Senate will cut the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, more commonly known as SNAP, is being negotiated. But their intentions are clear: Shrink its reach, reduce the benefits of the people still on it, and leave it to the states to take the blame.
Forbes
22 minutes ago
- Forbes
Your Boss Will Soon Grade You On AI Usage - Here's Why
Here's a number that should terrify every CEO: Daily AI usage has doubled in the past 12 months - from 4% to 8% of employees. Yes, you read that correctly. After billions in investment and endless hype, 92% of employees still don't use AI daily. At first glance, this seems to capture the spectacular failure of corporate AI adoption. Yet, this belies a fundamental truth that Microsoft' CEO Satya Nadella recently admitted: "The hardest part of AI isn't the tech - it's getting people to change how they work." "The hardest part of AI isn't the tech - it's getting people to change how they work." - Microsoft ... More CEO Satya Nadella And yes, companies need to push to change how they work in the AI era. According to the PwC 2025 Global AI Jobs Barometer, the report finds that since GenAI's proliferation in 2022, globally, productivity growth has nearly quadrupled in industries most exposed to AI (e.g. financial services, software publishing), rising from 7% from 2018-2022 to 27% from 2018-2024. In contrast, the rate of productivity growth in industries least exposed to AI (e.g. mining, hospitality) declined from 10% to 9% over the same period. It's not a question of 'if', but 'how' to drive AI adoption. The Adoption Mirage The headlines scream success. 78 percent of respondents say their organizations use AI in at least one business function, according to McKinsey's latest State of AI report. Companies are patting themselves on the back for "digital transformation." However, the success or failure of technology has always been at the mercy of adoption by people. This is a fundamental principle in business transformation that consulting firms have studied for decades and have created countless presentations and papers to help enterprises with organizational change. If we dig deeper into the data, a different story emerges. Despite two years of AI hype, only 8% of U.S. employees use AI daily - up from a tiny 4% just 12 months ago. Even 'frequent' usage (a few times a week) sits at just 19%. The vast majority (60%) still don't use AI regularly at all, according to Gallup's latest comprehensive workplace study. Think about that - we're celebrating going from terrible to slightly less terrible. Regular AI Use Growing Rapidly Among U.S. Workers How often do you use artificial intelligence in ... More your role — daily, a few times a week, a few times a month, a few times a year, once a year, less than once per year, or never? The Real Numbers Nobody Wants to Share In another recent study, KPMG surveyed 48,340 people across 47 countries to understand attitudes toward AI and its usage in the workplace. But wait, it gets worse. Despite the 58% usage rate, only 47% of the surveyed employees reported any form of training or education in AI. Translation: We're asking employees to adopt technology they don't understand, for purposes that aren't clear, with no training or support. The Mandate Approach: Use It or Lose (Your Good Review) According to Business Insider, Microsoft is making AI usage mandatory for performance evaluations. Julia Liuson, president of the Microsoft division responsible for developer tools such as AI coding service GitHub Copilot, recently sent managers stating "AI is now a fundamental part of how we work. Just like collaboration, data-driven thinking, and effective communication, using AI is no longer optional - it's core to every role and every level." To drive AI use across the company, managers must now evaluate employees based on their internal AI tool adoption. Microsoft is even considering formal AI usage metrics for future performance reviews. The Evangelist Approach: Train the Trainers While most companies struggle with single-digit daily usage, Moderna achieved near-100% voluntary AI adoption within six months of deploying OpenAI's ChatGPT Enterprise. The difference? They didn't mandate - they taught. Moderna set their objective high - achieve 100% adoption and proficiency of generative AI by all its people with access to digital solutions in the six months period. Brad Miller, Moderna's Chief Information Officer, was pragmatic about the task at hand. '90% of companies want to do GenAI, but only 10% of them are successful, and the reason they fail is because they haven't built the mechanisms of actually transforming the workforce to adopt new technology and new capabilities.' For this, Moderna assigned a team of dedicated experts to drive a bespoke transformation program. Their approach combined individual, collective and structural change management initiatives. 'We believe in collective intelligence when it comes to paradigm changes,' said Miller, 'it's everyone together, everyone with a voice and nobody left behind.' The pharmaceutical giant's results speak for themselves: Moderna has successfully driven AI adoption across the company in six months. The Wall Street Journal reports that Moderna went so far as to merge its technology and HR departments, creating 3,000 GPTs while restructuring roles with regulatory oversight. How did they do all of this? By solving real problems. Clinical teams built "Dose ID GPT" for trial analysis. Legal departments created contract review assistants. HR streamlined onboarding. Most importantly, Moderna didn't force adoption through performance reviews. They created tools so useful that employees couldn't imagine working without them. That's the difference between compliance and transformation. The Path Forward: What Actually Works Amid this push for AI adoption, some patterns of success emerge from the Gallup data: Clear Strategy Matters: When employees strongly agree that their leadership has communicated a clear plan for integrating AI, they are three times as likely to feel very prepared to work with AI and 2.6 times as likely to feel comfortable using AI in their role. Experience Changes Everything: Sixty-eight percent of employees who had firsthand experience using AI to interact with customers said it had a positive effect on customer interactions; only 13% of employees who had not used AI with customers believed it would have a positive effect. Leaders Use It More: Frequent AI use is also more common among leaders (defined as managers of managers), at 33%. They are twice as likely as individual contributors (16%) to say they use AI a few times a week or more. Based on successful implementations at Moderna and others, here's what measurably works: The Uncomfortable Truth After analyzing data from thousands of employees across multiple studies, the conclusion is inescapable: The AI revolution is failing because companies are missing the most crucial steps: leadership from the top and training for everyone. They're buying tools instead of building capabilities. They're mandating usage instead of demonstrating value. They're measuring adoption instead of impact. Most importantly, they're treating AI like software when it's actually a fundamental shift in how work gets done. In five years, asking if someone uses AI will be like asking if they use email. The companies that win won't be those with the strictest mandates. They'll be the ones where that 8% of daily users becomes 80% - not because they have to, but because they can't imagine working without it. The question isn't whether your employees will use AI. It's whether you'll lead that transition thoughtfully or force it desperately. The race is on. Where does your company stand?
Yahoo
22 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump Celebrates Civil War Win by Threatening Entire GOP
Donald Trump is once again reminding Republicans where disloyalty gets you. The president celebrated on Sunday night shortly after GOP Senator Thom Tillis announced he would not seek re-election next year. A day earlier, the North Carolina Republican had voted against advancing Trump's signature spending package—the so-called 'big, beautiful bill'—incurring the president's wrath. Trump quickly slammed Tillis in Truth Social posts and threatened to back a primary challenger. 'Great News! 'Senator' Thom Tillis will not be seeking reelection," Trump wrote on Truth Social after Tillis bowed out. In a follow-up post, Trump suggested that Republicans who oppose his legislative priorities could pay a political price. 'For all cost cutting Republicans, of which I am one, REMEMBER, you still have to get reelected,' he wrote. Tillis, 64, responded on X with some politely delivered snark. 'Thanks for the retirement wishes, Mr. President, looking forward to working with you for a successful 2026,' he wrote. 'Word to the wise, let's avoid minisoldr,' he added, sharing a September 2024 article about Trump's support for then-North Carolina Lieutenant Governor Mark Robinson. Robinson, the GOP nominee for governor, lost the race after a scandal involving comments he allegedly posted on a porn forum under the screen name 'minisoldr.' In Tillis' earlier announcement, he said it had become 'increasingly evident that leaders who are willing to embrace bipartisanship, compromise, and demonstrate independent thinking are becoming an endangered species.' He said he was not eager to spend another six years 'navigating the political theatre and partisan gridlock in Washington,' and would prefer to spend more time with family. He intends to continue serving North Carolina for the next 18 months 'without the distraction of raising money or campaigning,' and with the 'pure freedom to call the balls and strikes as I see fit,' he said. Lara Trump, the president's daughter-in-law, is among the names being floated as a contender to replace him, a source close to the Trump family told NBC News. Tillis is not the first GOP lawmaker Trump has threatened to primary in recent weeks. Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky is being targeted by a new pro-Trump super PAC that seeks to unseat him next year, after he voted against the bill in the House and criticized Trump's strikes on Iran. The version of the spending bill that the Senate moved forward with on Saturday would add nearly $3.3 trillion to the national debt over a decade, according to an estimate from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. That's nearly $1 trillion more than the earlier iteration passed by the House. The package includes sweeping tax cuts, increased spending on defense and anti-immigration initiatives, and rollbacks to social programs like Medicaid. The CBO analysis also found that close to 12 million Americans would become uninsured by 2034 if the bill was passed. Tillis had said the Senate version of the bill 'contains significant changes to Medicaid that would be devastating to North Carolina, and I cannot support it.' He was one of two Senate Republicans to join Democrats in opposing the bill in a 51–49 procedural vote to advance it. The bill now proceeds to full Senate debate, with Republicans aiming to send it to Trump's desk by July 4 following final House approval. In a Sunday evening post, Trump encouraged Senate Republicans to overrule the chamber's parliamentarian—a nonpartisan official who interprets Senate rules—in order to pass key components of his bill. Democrat Chuck Schumer, the Senate minority leader, slammed the legislation as debate began on Sunday. 'Republicans are about to pass the single most expensive bill in U.S. history, to give tax breaks to billionaires while taking away Medicaid, SNAP benefits and good paying jobs for millions of people,' Schumer said.
