N※N

Show Stocks and Investing Publications

Trump Attacks Hawley Over Pelosi Stock Trading Ban Bill

Trump Blasts Sen. Josh Hawley Over Proposed Pelosi Act Banning Congressional Stock Trading

In a fiery outburst that has reignited debates over ethics in Washington, former President Donald Trump has publicly lambasted Republican Senator Josh Hawley for his support of the so-called Pelosi Act, a bipartisan bill aimed at prohibiting members of Congress from trading individual stocks while in office. The criticism, delivered via Trump's preferred platform of Truth Social and amplified through a series of interviews, underscores growing tensions within the GOP over issues of financial transparency and insider trading. Trump, never one to mince words, accused Hawley of betraying conservative principles by aligning with what he described as a "radical left-wing agenda" disguised as reform.

The Pelosi Act, formally known as the Ending Trading and Holdings in Congressional Stocks (ETHICS) Act, draws its informal name from former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, whose husband's stock trades have long been a point of controversy. The legislation seeks to address widespread concerns that lawmakers could exploit privileged information for personal gain. Under the proposed rules, members of Congress, their spouses, and senior staff would be barred from buying or selling individual stocks during their tenure. Instead, they would be required to place their investments in blind trusts or diversified funds like mutual funds or ETFs. Proponents argue this would eliminate conflicts of interest and restore public trust in government, especially amid scandals involving unusually timed trades that coincided with major legislative or market events.

Trump's attack on Hawley came swiftly after the Missouri senator co-sponsored the bill alongside progressive figures like Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren. In a post that quickly went viral, Trump wrote: "Josh Hawley is playing right into the hands of the Democrats with this phony 'Pelosi Act.' It's nothing but a witch hunt against successful Americans, including our great business leaders in Congress. We need fighters, not regulators who want to tie our hands!" Trump further elaborated in a phone interview with Fox News, claiming the bill is an overreach that would stifle economic freedom and punish Republicans who have built wealth through savvy investments. He pointed to Pelosi herself as the "queen of insider trading," suggesting the act is hypocritical given her family's financial dealings, yet he dismissed it as unnecessary red tape that would hinder conservative lawmakers more than their liberal counterparts.

Hawley, a rising star in the Republican Party known for his populist rhetoric and criticism of Big Tech, defended his position vigorously. In a statement released through his office, he emphasized that the bill is not about partisanship but about leveling the playing field for everyday Americans. "The American people are tired of Washington elites getting rich off information the rest of us don't have," Hawley said. "This isn't a left or right issue—it's about fairness and fighting corruption. If President Trump truly wants to drain the swamp, he should support measures like this that prevent self-dealing." Hawley's stance aligns with his broader agenda of economic nationalism, where he has often broken ranks with party orthodoxy to advocate for policies that curb corporate power and protect working-class interests.

The controversy has exposed fissures within the Republican Party, particularly as the 2026 midterms loom on the horizon. Trump's influence remains potent, with many GOP members wary of crossing him, yet a growing faction supports reforms like the Pelosi Act. Polling data from organizations like the Pew Research Center has shown that a majority of Americans, across party lines, favor banning congressional stock trading—figures that Hawley and his allies frequently cite. Critics of the bill, echoing Trump's sentiments, argue it could deter qualified candidates from running for office, especially those from business backgrounds who might see their financial autonomy curtailed.

This isn't the first time Trump has weighed in on congressional ethics. During his presidency, he often railed against perceived corruption in Washington, promising to "drain the swamp" but facing accusations of his own administration's ethical lapses. His current criticism of Hawley seems rooted in a broader strategy to rally his base against any perceived encroachments on personal freedoms, framing the Pelosi Act as part of a larger Democratic plot to undermine conservative economic policies. Trump has even suggested that the bill could be a backdoor way to investigate and harass Republican lawmakers, drawing parallels to what he calls the "Russia hoax" and other investigations during his time in office.

Supporters of the Pelosi Act, including a coalition of watchdog groups like Common Cause and Project on Government Oversight, have praised Hawley's involvement as a sign of bipartisan progress. They highlight numerous examples of suspicious trading activity, such as lawmakers selling stocks just before market crashes or buying into companies poised to benefit from upcoming legislation. One notable case involved multiple senators who dumped stocks in early 2020 amid briefings on the emerging COVID-19 pandemic, sparking investigations though no charges were filed. Advocates argue that without such a ban, public cynicism toward government will only deepen, potentially eroding democratic institutions.

Opponents, however, warn of unintended consequences. Financial experts have noted that blind trusts, while effective in theory, can be complex and costly to administer, potentially disadvantaging less wealthy members of Congress. There's also debate over enforcement: who would oversee compliance, and what penalties would apply for violations? Trump seized on these points, accusing the bill of creating a "bureaucratic nightmare" that would empower unelected officials to meddle in personal finances.

The exchange between Trump and Hawley has sparked a flurry of reactions from other politicians. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has remained notably silent, perhaps wary of alienating either side, while figures like Senator Ted Cruz have echoed Trump's skepticism, calling the act "performative virtue-signaling." On the Democratic side, leaders like Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer have welcomed Republican support, urging swift passage of the bill before the end of the current session.

As the debate rages on, the Pelosi Act represents a critical test for congressional reform. Will it gain enough momentum to overcome partisan divides, or will Trump's vocal opposition derail it? For Hawley, this moment could define his political trajectory—positioning him as a principled reformer or alienating him from the MAGA wing of the party. Trump, meanwhile, continues to use the issue to energize his supporters, framing it as yet another battle against the establishment. Whatever the outcome, the controversy highlights the enduring challenges of addressing ethics in a polarized political landscape, where even measures aimed at transparency can become weapons in larger ideological wars.

In the broader context, this spat reflects ongoing discussions about wealth and power in American politics. With Congress boasting some of the nation's wealthiest individuals, questions persist about whether lawmakers can truly represent the average citizen while managing multimillion-dollar portfolios. The Pelosi Act, if passed, could set a precedent for similar reforms at state levels or even for executive branch officials. Yet, as Trump's criticism illustrates, any push for change risks being portrayed as an assault on success itself.

Ultimately, the resolution of this conflict may hinge on public pressure. Advocacy campaigns have ramped up, with petitions and social media drives calling for action. As one ethics expert put it, "This isn't just about stocks—it's about trust." Whether Trump's riposte sways opinion or bolsters Hawley's resolve remains to be seen, but the episode underscores the high stakes involved in reforming how Washington handles money. (Word count: 1,048)

Read the Full New York Post Article at:
[ https://nypost.com/2025/07/30/us-news/trump-rips-sen-josh-hawley-over-pelosi-act-congressional-stock-trading-ban/ ]