Trump Slams Pelosi's 'Disgraceful' Trading as Senate Advances Ban

Paul Riverbank, 7/31/2025In a remarkable display of bipartisan cooperation, the Senate committee's approval of a comprehensive stock trading ban marks a watershed moment for government ethics reform. The legislation, expanding from the "PELOSI Act" to the "Honest Act," demonstrates growing consensus on the need to address potential conflicts of interest in public service.

I've spent two decades covering Capitol Hill, and I've rarely seen such a fascinating dynamic unfold. The Senate Homeland Security Committee's approval of a comprehensive stock trading ban isn't just another piece of legislation – it's a direct response to a crisis of public confidence in our elected officials.

Let's be clear about what's happening here. The bill, which evolved from Senator Hawley's cleverly named "PELOSI Act" into the more diplomatically titled "Honest Act," would fundamentally reshape how our public servants manage their investments. The legislation's scope is remarkably broad, extending beyond Congress to include the executive branch – though that provision won't kick in until after the current administration departs.

What strikes me as particularly noteworthy is the unusual coalition forming around this issue. When Josh Hawley becomes the lone Republican supporting a measure that has broad Democratic backing, you know you're watching political plates shift. During Wednesday's markup session, I watched as traditional party lines blurred and reformed around questions of wealth and public service.

Donald Trump's qualified endorsement adds another layer of intrigue. "I like it conceptually," he said at Wednesday's press conference, before pivoting to criticism of Nancy Pelosi's trading history. It's worth noting that Pelosi herself has now embraced these reforms – a remarkable evolution for someone who once defended lawmakers' right to participate in the free market economy.

The devil, as always, is in the details. The legislation gives current officeholders 180 days to reorganize their portfolios, allowing investments in diversified mutual funds, ETFs, and Treasury bonds. But the committee markup revealed deep divisions among Republicans, with Senator Bernie Moreno's frustrated admission about the bill's complexity highlighting the challenges ahead.

Perhaps the most revealing exchange came when Senator Rick Scott defended wealth accumulation, prompting Hawley's sharp retort: "I don't mind anyone being rich. I mind people getting rich while they're here and trading stocks." That distinction cuts to the heart of this debate.

As this legislation moves to the Senate floor, its fate remains uncertain. The House is advancing its own versions, notably without executive branch restrictions. Having covered countless reform efforts that died in conference committee, I'm reminded that in Washington, the distance between a good idea and a new law can be vast indeed.

But something feels different this time. When public servants' portfolios outperform the S&P 500 by 200%, as Pelosi's reportedly did in 2024, it becomes increasingly difficult to maintain the status quo. The question isn't whether change will come – it's how comprehensive that change will be.

The winds of change are finally sweeping through the halls of Congress. After years of public outcry and countless exposés about lawmakers' questionable trading practices, we're witnessing what might be a watershed moment in congressional ethics reform.I've spent two decades covering Capitol Hill, and I've rarely seen such a fascinating dynamic unfold. The Senate Homeland Security Committee's approval of a comprehensive stock trading ban isn't just another piece of legislation – it's a direct response to a crisis of public confidence in our elected officials.Let's be clear about what's happening here. The bill, which evolved from Senator Hawley's cleverly named "PELOSI Act" into the more diplomatically titled "Honest Act," would fundamentally reshape how our public servants manage their investments. The legislation's scope is remarkably broad, extending beyond Congress to include the executive branch – though that provision won't kick in until after the current administration departs.What strikes me as particularly noteworthy is the unusual coalition forming around this issue. When Josh Hawley becomes the lone Republican supporting a measure that has broad Democratic backing, you know you're watching political plates shift. During Wednesday's markup session, I watched as traditional party lines blurred and reformed around questions of wealth and public service.Donald Trump's qualified endorsement adds another layer of intrigue. "I like it conceptually," he said at Wednesday's press conference, before pivoting to criticism of Nancy Pelosi's trading history. It's worth noting that Pelosi herself has now embraced these reforms – a remarkable evolution for someone who once defended lawmakers' right to participate in the free market economy.The devil, as always, is in the details. The legislation gives current officeholders 180 days to reorganize their portfolios, allowing investments in diversified mutual funds, ETFs, and Treasury bonds. But the committee markup revealed deep divisions among Republicans, with Senator Bernie Moreno's frustrated admission about the bill's complexity highlighting the challenges ahead.Perhaps the most revealing exchange came when Senator Rick Scott defended wealth accumulation, prompting Hawley's sharp retort: "I don't mind anyone being rich. I mind people getting rich while they're here and trading stocks." That distinction cuts to the heart of this debate.As this legislation moves to the Senate floor, its fate remains uncertain. The House is advancing its own versions, notably without executive branch restrictions. Having covered countless reform efforts that died in conference committee, I'm reminded that in Washington, the distance between a good idea and a new law can be vast indeed.But something feels different this time. When public servants' portfolios outperform the S&P 500 by 200%, as Pelosi's reportedly did in 2024, it becomes increasingly difficult to maintain the status quo. The question isn't whether change will come – it's how comprehensive that change will be.