Karoline Leavitt Walks Into Briefing - Shows Paper That Could Land Nancy Pelosi In Serious Trouble
White House Press SecretaryKaroline Leavittsharply criticized former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi over her controversial stock trades, labeling her the primary reason a congressional trading ban is currently being debated.
Leavitt highlighted a series of investments made by Pelosi and her husband, Paul Pelosi, which she asserted exceeded the performance of Warren Buffett and every major hedge fund on Wall Street.
“The President has held talks with Senator Hawley, who initiated the call, and the President accepted it,” Leavitt stated. “As the President remarked in the Roosevelt Room yesterday, in principle, he supports the concept of ensuring that members of Congress and U.S. Senators, who are in Washington for public service, cannot profit personally.”
She was direct in naming individuals.
“The very reason this idea—implementing a stock trading ban for members of Congress—is even under consideration is because of Nancy Pelosi,” Leavitt said. “She is rightfully scrutinized because she earns a salary of approximately $174,000 a year, yet possesses a net worth of nearly $413 million.”
“In 2024, Nancy Pelosi’s investment portfolio—an intriguing statistic to me—expanded by 70% in a single year. Her returns bested every major hedge fund during that period and were more than double the returns of Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway.”
Leavitt noted that the President aligns with the public's frustration. “The President stands with the American people on this matter. He does not want to see officials like Nancy Pelosi enriching themselves via public service while exploiting their constituents in the process.”
She added: “Regarding the technical details of the legislation and its path forward, the White House remains in discussion with our allies on Capitol Hill.”
This development followed a sharp critique on social media from President Donald Trump directed at Senator Josh Hawley (R-MO). Hawley is spearheading a bill intended to prevent members of Congress from trading individual stocks.
An initial version of the bill included a provision allowing the President to trade stocks, but Hawley joined Senate Democrats in voting against it. This led to a rebuke from Trump on Truth Social, where he called Hawley a “second-tier Senator.”
Hawley characterized the situation as a misinterpretation, telling Fox News that the legislation exempts President Trump and Vice President Vance, and instead focuses on banning future presidents from such trades.
Republicans are intensifying their efforts this week for a trading ban, especially following President Trump’s call for Congress to act. Representative Anna Paulina Luna (R-FL) introduced a discharge petition to force a vote on the Roy and Magaziner bill. Ultimately, however, leadership chose to move forward with Representative Steil’s Stop Insider Trading Act.
Trump has urged congressional members to pass the Steil legislation “immediately.”
Meanwhile, retiring former Speaker Nancy Pelosi—one of the House's most effective traders—recently asserted that financial gain was not her motivation for serving, despite her net worth increasing by an immense margin during her tenure.
During a forum at the University of Virginia’s Center for Politics, Pelosi pointed out that she was the top-salaried legislator while serving as Speaker. Despite claiming she was unmoved by monetary incentives, her wealth has surged by at least 2,292% over her 37 years in office.
As of early 2026, Pelosi’s net worth is valued at approximately $270 million, per Quiver Quantitative. In 2024, her portfolio outperformed the S&P 500 by nearly 200%, prompting demands for reforms and raising questions about potential illegal insider trading.
According to the 2024 Congress Trading Report by Unusual Whales, Pelosi’s portfolio increased by 70.9% between late 2023 and late 2024. This growth substantially beat the S&P 500’s 24.9% return during the same timeframe, outperforming many of the world's premier hedge funds.
Nearly 150,000 California Mail Ballots Rejected In Primary
California election officials are examining why nearly 150,000 mail-in ballots were rejected during the state’s June primary, with late-arriving ballots accounting for most of the increase.
The higher rejection rate comes despite years of election law changes designed to make voting more accessible and ensure more ballots are ultimately counted.
According to data compiled by the California Secretary of State’s office, 148,241 mail-in ballots were rejected during the June primary, representing 1.73% of all mail ballots returned.
That marks an increase from the 2024 primary, when 108,982 ballots were rejected, or 1.56% of all mail ballots cast.
The largest reason for rejection was ballots arriving too late to qualify under California law.
State data shows that 93,479 ballots were rejected because they failed to meet the state’s deadline requirements.
California allows mail ballots to arrive up to seven days after Election Day, provided they are postmarked on or before Election Day.
Voting experts believe many of the rejected ballots received postmarks dated after Election Day, making them ineligible to be counted even if they arrived within the seven-day grace period.
Kim Alexander, president of the nonpartisan California Voter Foundation, said the timing of postal processing appears to be a significant concern.
“Ballots rejected due to lateness are caused primarily to being postmarked too late to count, not because they arrived too late to count,” Alexander said.
Election experts have questioned whether recent operational changes within the U.S. Postal Service may be contributing to delayed postmarks.
Earlier this year, a group of mostly Democratic U.S. senators wrote to the Postal Service expressing concern that mail-processing changes could affect ballot handling during federal elections.
Updated Postal Service procedures mean postmarks may reflect when mail is processed at regional facilities rather than when it first enters the mail system.
Because processing centers have been consolidated in some areas, election officials have warned that postmark timing could be affected.
Before the June primary, California election officials encouraged voters to mail ballots as early as possible because of potential postal delays.
The June election also featured a highly competitive race for governor, which some experts believe encouraged many voters to wait until the final days before casting ballots.
In addition to late-arriving ballots, approximately 44,000 ballots were rejected because election officials determined the voter’s signature did not match the signature on file.
Another 8,300 ballots were rejected because the return envelope did not contain a signature.
State records also show that 743 ballots were rejected because those voters had already cast another ballot.
Other rejected ballots involved missing ballots inside return envelopes or multiple ballots submitted in a single envelope.
The highest rejection rate in the state occurred in Tulare County, where 3.52% of returned mail ballots were rejected.
Alpine County and Merced County followed closely, each recording rejection rates of 3.36%.
California has frequently faced criticism for taking weeks to complete vote counting after major elections, largely because state law permits ballots meeting certain requirements to continue arriving after Election Day.
Following the June primary, President Donald Trump again criticized California’s election system, while the Department of Justice opened an investigation into election administration in Los Angeles County.
Election experts emphasize that the increase in rejected ballots should not be interpreted as evidence of widespread voter fraud.
A 2025 report by the Brookings Institution found documented cases of mail ballot fraud remained extremely rare, estimating roughly four cases for every 10 million mail ballots cast, The Associated Press reported.
State officials have not identified evidence of widespread fraud connected to the June primary, but the increase in rejected ballots is expected to receive additional scrutiny as election administrators evaluate whether changes in postal operations, voter behavior or election procedures contributed to the higher rejection rate.
