Leavitt read out loud a list of trades made by Pelosi and her husband, Paul Pelosi, that she said beat out Warren Buffett and every hedge fund on Wall Street.
“The president has spoken to Senator Hawley, who called him, and the president took that call,” Leavitt said. “As the president said in the Roosevelt Room yesterday, conceptually, he of course supports the idea of ensuring that members of Congress and United States senators who are here for public service cannot enrich themselves.”
She didn’t hold back when naming names.
“And the reason that this idea—to put a ban on stock trading for members of Congress—is even a thing is because of Nancy Pelosi,” Leavitt said. “I mean, she is rightfully criticized because she makes, I think, $174,000 a year, yet she has a net worth of approximately $413 million.”
“In 2024, Nancy Pelosi’s stock portfolio—this was a fascinating statistic to me—grew 70% in one year, and her portfolio outperformed every single large hedge fund in that same year, and even more than doubled the returns of Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway.”
Leavitt said the president supports the public’s outrage.
“So I think the president stands with the American people on this. He doesn’t want to see people like Nancy Pelosi enriching themselves off of public service and ripping off their constituents in the process.”
“As for the mechanics of the legislation and how it will move forward,” she added, “the White House continues to be in discussions with our friends on Capitol Hill.”
This came after Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Missouri, found himself on the receiving end of a harsh social media post by President Donald Trump.
Hawley is sponsoring a bill to ban members of Congress from being able to trade individual stocks. An amendment to the bill would have carved out an exemption to allow the president to engage in stock trading, but Hawley joined Senate Democrats in voting “no.” That prompted Trump to blast Hawley on Truth Social, calling him a “second-tier Senator.”
Hawley described the situation as a misunderstanding, telling Fox News that the bill exempts President Trump and Vice President Vance. The language instead bans future presidents from trading stock.
Republicans also attempted to add language that would have required a report on stock trades made by former Speaker Pelosi and her husband, but Senate Democrats and Republican Hawley teamed up and defeated the move.
In an interview with reporters on Tuesday, Hawley said that the legislation has the support of House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.), many Republicans, and even some Democrats. He also said Johnson told him President Donald Trump supported the original bill titled Preventing Elected Leaders from Owning Securities and Investments (PELOSI) Act.
“Members of Congress should be fighting for the people they were elected to serve—not day trading at the expense of their constituents,” stated Hawley in April when he originally introduced the bill. “Americans have seen politician after politician turn a profit using information not available to the general public. It’s time we ban all members of Congress from trading and holding stocks and restore Americans’ trust in our nation’s legislative body.”
The PELOSI Act would prohibit members of Congress and their spouses from buying, selling, or holding individual stocks while serving in office. Instead, lawmakers would be permitted to invest in diversified mutual funds, exchange-traded funds (ETFs), or U.S. Treasury bonds.
The political tensions surrounding Representative Ilhan Omar reached a boiling point during the recent Minneapolis mayoral race, revealing deep, entrenched
The electoral result has exposed the pervasive role of “tribal politics” in local U.S. governance and triggered a raw public confrontation where Omar was verbally attacked by a Somali rival who questioned her loyalty and identity.
The recent Minneapolis mayoral election has brought to light the internal fragmentation within the city’s significant Somali-American community, where political alignment appears to follow traditional tribal loyalties rather than simple party lines.
Reports suggest that the victory of incumbent Mayor Jacob Frey was achieved by strategically exploiting existing rivalries within the Somali electorate.
Political Fragmentation: The core issue is the breakdown of the Somali vote, with reports indicating that different Somali clans actively campaigned for opposing candidates. As one commentator noted, this is a clear case where “Somali clans wouldn’t vote for that Omar guy because he was from a different clan,” underscoring the dominance of kinship ties over ideological unity.
The frustration over this political division boiled over in a public confrontation where Representative Omar was attacked by a Somali rival.
The Direct Challenge: A woman, speaking in Somali (with English phrases interspersed), directly challenged Omar’s status and influence, shouting,
The revelation of this divisive political strategy underscores the challenges of integrating diverse immigrant populations whose political allegiances are dictated by historical and ethnic ties that often override American political norms.
Representative Omar, who is often a vocal proponent of immigrant rights and anti-deportation policies, recently gave a controversial answer regarding her own potential deportation, which critics swiftly deemed hypocritical.
When asked in an interview about the persistent threats from conservative figures to strip her of American citizenship and deport her, Omar adopted a dismissive posture:
She emphasized her adulthood and financial stability: “I’m not the eight-year-old who escaped war anymore. I’m grown. My kids are grown. Like I can go live wherever I want if I wanted to.”
Critics immediately seized on this statement, pointing out the hypocrisy inherent in minimizing the severity of deportation:
Contradiction: Omar is a leading voice for policies that treat deportation as a profound human rights tragedy and a life-destroying event. Yet, when applied to her own situation, she makes deportation sound like “it’s not that big of a deal,” suggesting she “can go live wherever I want.”
The segment concluded with a brief note on the political chaos impacting other Democratic aspirants, referencing the federal indictment of a Chicago congressional candidate, Kate Abba Gazali.
The Charges: Gazali, who was running for Congress in Chicago, was federally indicted for allegedly preventing ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) officers from doing their job while protesting deportations.
The Visuals: The visual evidence presented showed Gazali and a crowd protesting deportations, chanting “Down with deportation” and “We save our siblings,” directly confronting federal officers.
The reference to this incident, which led to a federal indictment, serves as a final example of the legal and ethical boundaries being tested by radical progressive activists who are attempting to translate activism into congressional power, often resulting in direct confrontations with the law.
Kay’Ana stood in front of the fire station mirror, gently running her fingers through her thick, growing hair. Beneath it, hidden from view, was a tattoo that carried the weight of her past and the power of her survival—spinal bones transforming into flowers, hands echoing the idea of creation. It wasn’t just ink. It was a part of her story. As a young girl, Kay’Ana had been diagnosed with scoliosis. Her spine was curved, her body challenged, and her future uncertain. But she never let her condition define her.
Through surgeries, pain, and setbacks, she kept moving forward. The tattoo became a personal promise—that no matter what, she would stand tall, live strong, and never forget what she’d overcome. Becoming a firefighter was part of that journey. She joined the department with pride, ready to serve, and committed to proving her strength in every sense of the word. The tattoo stayed hidden beneath her hair—not because she was ashamed, but because she respected the rules.
She believed that if she worked hard and showed integrity, that would be what mattered most. For a while, it did. But then the rules changed. Quietly, without warning. What had once been acceptable if covered was suddenly considered inappropriate, even invisible tattoos like hers. The shift wasn’t about safety—it was about perception. And perception, it seemed, was now policy.
On November 10, a photo taken at a department event caught a sliver of her tattoo peeking through her hair. That image—harmless to most—triggered action. Before long, Kay’Ana was told she could no longer wear her uniform. She had violated the new policy. She could have responded with anger. Instead, she chose to speak with calm and conviction. In court, she shared her story—of growing up with a condition that bent her spine but never her will. She explained what the tattoo meant, why she got it, and how she had always respected the department’s guidelines.
The court ruled against her. It was painful, yes. But it didn’t break her. Because for Kay’Ana, this was never just about a tattoo—it was about the right to carry her story with pride. Her case sparked wider conversations. Across departments, communities began to ask: Can we honor tradition while still honoring the people who serve within it? Should personal stories be erased to fit into outdated molds? Are we measuring professionalism by appearance, or by character?
Through it all, Kay’Ana stood firm. She still wears her hair long—not to hide the tattoo, but as a reminder of the strength behind it. She may not wear the fire department’s uniform anymore, but she walks with the same courage and dignity that brought her there.
Her tattoo remains—a symbol of pain transformed into beauty, struggle turned into strength. And though the system failed her, she never failed herself. Kay’Ana’s story is a quiet revolution—proof that identity matters, resilience speaks louder than judgment, and that standing up for who you are is always worth it.
Prince William Announces Queen Camilla’s Fate Upon His Accession: “A Decision That Honors My Mother and the Future”
In a historic and emotionally charged statement released from Buckingham Palace, Prince William — now King William V — has officially addressed the future role of Camilla, the Queen Consort, following the passing of King Charles III and his own ascension to the throne.
The announcement comes amid weeks of speculation about what position Camilla would hold under the new monarch, and how the late Princess Diana’s legacy would be reflected in the restructured royal household.
Standing before the press with visible solemnity and dignity, King William stated:
“With the deepest respect for my father, the late King Charles III, and the history that binds our family together, I have made a decision that I believe honors both tradition and truth.”
“Her Majesty Queen Camilla will retire from public royal duties and assume the title of ‘Dowager Queen.’ She will remain a cherished member of our family, but without the formal obligations of a reigning consort.”
According to palace officials, Camilla has accepted the decision with grace and understanding, expressing her full support for William’s vision of a modern, forward-looking monarchy.
“She has served with loyalty and discretion,” William noted, “and she deserves our gratitude. But this is a time for renewal — and for reflection.”
Royal analysts view the move as a carefully balanced gesture: acknowledging Camilla’s role in supporting Charles during his reign, while also honoring the memory of Princess Diana, whose complicated relationship with the royal family still echoes in the hearts of millions.
The announcement has sparked a mix of reactions across the UK and beyond. Some royal supporters have praised William for his “compassionate but firm” leadership style, while others express disappointment over Camilla’s quiet departure from public life.
Still, many see the move as an olive branch to the people — and to history.
Social media lit up within minutes of the news, with hashtags like #QueenCamilla, #KingWilliam, and #DianaRemembered trending globally. A common theme among public responses is the phrase:
“This is what Diana would have wanted.”
As King William takes the reins of a modernizing monarchy, he has promised a royal family that is “leaner, more transparent, and more connected to the people.” Sources close to the palace suggest that Queen Catherine will play a leading role in shaping the monarchy’s image and responsibilities in the coming years.
Camilla is expected to retire to a private residence in the countryside and continue her charitable work outside of the royal spotlight.
“This is not exile,” a royal insider said. “It’s evolution.”
After nearly 19 long months of silence and icy distance, Prince Harry finally reunited with his father, King Charles III, in what many hoped would be a healing moment for the fractured royal family. But instead of warmth and reconciliation, the meeting has sparked a storm of controversy — and whispers that Meghan Markle herself set strict conditions that cut the visit down to a fleeting 40 minutes.
Sources inside the palace revealed that Harry, who has lived in California since stepping back from royal duties, returned to the U.K. for what insiders described as a “deeply personal” meeting with his father. Many expected an extended heart-to-heart conversation, perhaps even the beginning of a fragile truce between father and son.
But to the shock of royal watchers, the meeting reportedly lasted less than an hour.
The brevity of the reunion has fueled explosive speculation. Multiple reports now claim Meghan Markle allegedly urged Harry to limit the encounter to 40 minutes, citing concerns over “emotional manipulation” and the potential for the meeting to spiral into palace politics.
One insider went further, describing Meghan’s supposed instruction as “an ultimatum, not advice.” The claim has ignited debate across social media, with critics blasting the Duchess of Sussex for inserting herself into what should have been a private father-son reconciliation.
King Charles, said to have been moved to tears upon seeing his youngest son again, reportedly appeared visibly hurt by the short duration of the meeting. “The King wanted more time. It was clear he hoped this would be a turning point,” a palace aide confided. “But the clock was ticking, and Harry left almost as soon as he arrived.”
For many, this wasn’t just a reunion — it was a missed opportunity for healing wounds that have divided the House of Windsor for years.
The public’s reaction has been swift and divided. Some sympathized with Harry, suggesting the short visit reflects just how strained the relationship has become after years of public feuds, memoir revelations, and interviews that cast the royal family in a controversial light.
Others, however, see Meghan’s alleged involvement as yet another sign of her influence. “It’s heartbreaking to think a father and son can only spend 40 minutes together after nearly two years,” one royal fan wrote on X (formerly Twitter). “And if Meghan really dictated the terms? That’s unforgivable.”
Observers are already asking whether this brief encounter marks the beginning of reconciliation or the final confirmation that the rift is too deep to heal.
Royal experts point out that, despite the short duration, the fact that the meeting happened at all may be significant. “It shows that, beneath the anger and the headlines, there’s still a bond between father and son,” noted royal commentator Richard Fitzwilliams. “But it also shows how fragile that bond truly is.”
With speculation running wild, one question looms large: Will Prince Harry return for longer, more meaningful discussions with his father, or was this fleeting reunion the best the royal family can hope for?
As whispers grow louder that Meghan’s influence may have played a decisive role, the narrative surrounding Harry and Charles’s relationship is more complicated — and more controversial — than ever.
One thing is certain: in the saga of the modern monarchy, even 40 minutes can set the world on fire.