Did Nancy Pelosi Really Make a "Fortune" Trading Stocks Based On Insider Information?

On Wednesday, the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee narrowly advanced a bill that would ban members of Congress — and their spouses — from buying, selling, or owning individual stocks. The 8–7 vote came with unanimous support from Democrats and a single Republican: Missouri Senator Josh Hawley, who originally introduced the measure.

The bill, which is titled the "Preventing Elected Leaders from Owning Securities and Investments Act," aka the PELOSI Act, would effectively ban members of Congress (and the President and Vice President) from buying, selling, or owning individual stocks. It would require elected officials to divest their stock holdings within 180 days, certify their compliance annually, and submit to biennial audits by the Government Accountability Office.

Speaking just hours after the vote, President Trump was asked about the bill during a press conference at the White House, and, perhaps not surprisingly, used the opportunity to go on the offensive against the bill's namesake:

"Nancy Pelosi became rich by having inside information. She made a fortune with her husband, and I think that's disgraceful. So in that sense, I like it [the bill], but I'd have to study this very carefully. But conceptually, I like it. And what I do think is that Nancy Pelosi should be investigated because she has the highest return of anybody practically in the history of Wall Street, save a few. And how did that happen? It happened by, she knows what's gonna happen, what's gonna be announced, she buys stock, and then the stock goes up after the announcement's made. She ought to be investigated."

It's not the first time critics have accused Nancy Pelosi — or more precisely, her husband Paul Pelosi — of trading with uncanny timing that coincides with legislative developments or high-level government briefings.

So is this just partisan political bluster aimed at a favorite target of the right? Or did Nancy Pelosi really make a "fortune" trading off insider information? And what about other members of Congress — is the transgression so widespread and egregious that it deserves to be formally banned?

(Photo By Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call)

The Roots of the Allegations

Nancy Pelosi has served in Congress since 1987, and during that time has risen to become one of the most powerful and visible political figures in America. She's also become one of the wealthiest. According to public disclosures, Pelosi and her husband, Paul, a venture capitalist based in San Francisco, have amassed a net worth in the range of $250 million and $335 million.

Their filings show the couple owns roughly a dozen real estate assets, contributing $50 million to $100 million to that total. They also hold at least $100 million worth of individual stocks, much of it concentrated in major tech companies.

While Nancy has consistently said she doesn't trade stocks herself, Paul Pelosi has made hundreds of transactions in individual companies over the years — many of them in sectors directly affected by legislation moving through Congress. Those trades are all publicly disclosed under the STOCK Act, a 2012 law designed to promote transparency and prevent lawmakers from profiting off non-public information.

And yes, time and again, the timing of Paul Pelosi's trades has raised eyebrows. Critics have pointed to examples where he bought shares — or call options — in companies shortly before Congress took action that would benefit them, or sold positions just before damaging news broke.

The Trades That Raised Eyebrows

Over the past few years, Paul Pelosi has executed a number of trades that, while entirely legal and properly disclosed under the STOCK Act, have drawn scrutiny due to their uncanny timing. Critics argue that many of these investments appear to anticipate major regulatory actions, policy shifts, or government contracts — raising the question of whether the Pelosis enjoy access to market-moving information not available to the public.

One of the most eyebrow-raising trades came in December 2023, when Paul Pelosi exercised a call option to acquire 50,000 shares of Nvidia at just $12 per share. The option had been purchased earlier that year for a reported $1.8 million premium. At the time of the exercise, Nvidia was already the face of the AI chip boom, and by mid-2025, the position was worth over $7.2 million — roughly a $5 million gain on paper. The scale of the profit, combined with Pelosi's long-running investment interest in Nvidia and prior trades around semiconductor legislation, made it one of the most scrutinized stock moves in Congress that year.

Another trade that drew immediate backlash came in February 2024, when Paul Pelosi bought a call option on cybersecurity firm Palo Alto Networks, paying between $600,000 and $1.25 million. The purchase occurred the same week lawmakers were reportedly briefed on a significant national security threat involving Russia. In the days after the briefing, Palo Alto's stock jumped nearly 20 percent. The option allowed Pelosi to scoop up 14,000 shares at a $100 strike price, when the market value was nearly double that. The position is now estimated to be worth around $2.8 million.

In July 2024, the Pelosis sold 5,000 shares of Microsoft for approximately $2.2 million. A few months later, the Federal Trade Commission announced an antitrust investigation into the tech giant. While the trade itself wasn't illegal, the timing once again allowed the couple to exit a large position just before negative regulatory news.

Just weeks earlier, Paul Pelosi had also offloaded 2,000 shares of Visa, worth an estimated $525,000, less than three months before the company was hit with a Department of Justice monopoly lawsuit. The stock dropped following the news. That sale came nearly two years after Pelosi made a similarly timed exit from Alphabet stock ahead of another antitrust lawsuit — part of a long-standing pattern of selling before bad headlines hit.

Then, in January 2025, the Pelosis bought call options in Tempus AI, a relatively unknown artificial intelligence healthcare firm. Months later, Tempus inked a $200 million deal with AstraZeneca, and its stock price doubled. Around the same time, the couple also acquired call options in Vistra, an energy company whose stock rose after announcing a $1.9 billion natural gas acquisition deal tied to rising U.S. power demand.

These were not the first suspiciously timed investments. In past years, Paul Pelosi bought Nvidia stock ahead of the CHIPS Act vote, acquired Tesla options before a federal EV push, and made moves in Apple, Amazon, and Alphabet around key moments in Congress. But 2024 brought a surge in volume, dollar value, and profitability that went beyond prior years — setting the stage for a record-breaking portfolio run.

The Year Pelosi Beat Every Hedge Fund

By any measure, 2024 was a phenomenal year for Paul and Nancy Pelosi's investment portfolio. According to newly filed disclosures and third-party analysis from Quiver Quantitative, the couple allegedly added between $7.8 million and $42.5 million to their net worth in a single year. Their estimated portfolio return for 2024? A staggering 54%, more than double the S&P 500's 25% and higher than every major hedge fund, according to Bloomberg's end-of-year rankings.

Sooooooo…. based on that number alone – 54% – Nancy and Paul certainly appear to be playing the markets with an unfair advantage. Not one that is illegal under the current rules, but certainly a loophole that should be closed, no?

BTW, if the 2024 stock trade estimates are true, it's possible that Paul and Nancy's combined net worth now touches $400 million.

How Much Has Her Net Worth Grown?

When Nancy Pelosi first entered Congress in 1987, her financial disclosure showed assets of at least $3.6 million and liabilities of about $965,000 — suggesting a net worth just under $3 million. Over the next three decades, that figure climbed steadily. By the early 2000s, her reported assets had surged into the tens of millions, and by 2010, her estimated net worth had crossed the $100 million mark. Fast forward 15 year and their fortune may have quadrupled to $400 million. Is that simply the result of natural compounding, good investment instincts, and a long time horizon? Or does it raise more uncomfortable questions about the advantages that come with proximity to power?

What About Other Members of Congress?

While Nancy and Paul Pelosi have become the public face of the stock trading controversy, they are far from alone. In recent years, lawmakers from both parties have executed trades that raised similar questions about access and timing. Former Senator Richard Burr, a Republican from North Carolina, came under FBI investigation after he sold up to $1.7 million in stock shortly after receiving early COVID briefings in 2020. Former Georgia Senator Kelly Loeffler dumped millions in holdings the same week as a classified pandemic update. Representative Mike Kelly's wife purchased steel stocks just before her husband pushed favorable policies for the industry — a move that recently earned a formal ethics rebuke.

There are dozens of other examples, and in many cases, the pattern is the same: trades made in close proximity to classified briefings, committee work, or upcoming legislation.

That's the backdrop to today's renewed momentum. Whether or not Nancy Pelosi ever broke the law, her story — and her returns — have become a symbol of why many Americans believe elected officials should not be allowed to trade individual stocks at all. The PELOSI Act may have started with her name as a political jab, but its growing support reflects a deeper public sentiment: if lawmakers want to serve the people, they shouldn't be playing the market.

After all, members of Congress already enjoy generous taxpayer-funded benefits. They earn a six-figure salary, receive a lifetime pension if they serve long enough, and get access to premium health care plans long after they leave office. They wield influence over the economy, regulation, and national policy. For many Americans, that should be compensation enough.