Key Vote Scheduled For Sen. Hawley’s PELOSI Act Stock Ban
A Senate panel is set to vote Wednesday on whether to advance a bill introduced by Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) that would ban members of Congress from stock trades.
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.
If enacted, current members of Congress would have 180 days to comply with the new rules, while newly elected lawmakers would be required to do so within 180 days of taking office.
Those who fail to comply with the PELOSI Act would be required to surrender any stock profits to the U.S. Department of the Treasury and could face financial penalties from the House and Senate ethics committees, according to Hawley’s office.
However, the legislation has run into a bit of a snag, according to Punchbowl News.
The outlet reported Tuesday that the Trump White House now may have some issues with it following some changes to language insisted upon by various parties to include certain stock trading bans for the president and vice president, as well — which Homeland Security & Governmental Affairs Chairman Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) opposes.
Afterward, the White House Office of Legislative Affairs issued a statement clarifying why there were concerns with the changes.
“This was a last-minute deal struck to include the Executive Branch equities without touching base with the White House to discuss potential Article II concerns,” an official from the office told Punchbowl News. “Any pause comes purely from potential Article II infringement, not the Congressional ban.”
Paul reaffirmed to Axzios his opposition to the legislation, arguing that it could block individuals like Trump from becoming president and create yet another barrier for those contemplating a run for public office.
Pressed over why he would then schedule a vote on it in his committee, Paul hinted at a potential deal, saying it was “to get two bills that I want passed through without being beleaguered by amendments.”
The Kentucky senator was enigmatic when pressed about whether the alluded-to filibuster would come from Hawley: “I’ll just leave it at that.”
In the past, President Trump has expressed an openness to the PELOSI Act. “A similar bipartisan bill passed the committee last year, which also would have forced the president and VP to divest from certain investments,” Axios pointed out.
The outlet added: “It’s this language from last year’s bill that is expected to replace the PELOSI Act ahead of the committee markup — though negotiations are still in flux. In response to White House pushback, Hawley also plans to make the ban effective only at the start of a member’s or elected official’s next term, per a source familiar with the plans.”
The name of the bill is purposeful. Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has long been suspected of using insider information to inform her husband’s stock trades, which have been hugely successful over the past decade, especially.
That said, Pelosi has never been formally charged with the crime, nor has any evidence been presented to indicate illicit trading activities.
SENATOR KENNEDY DELIVERS FATAL BLOW TO OMAR'S CAREER AS SHE BLAMES TRUMP FOR SOMALI PANIC
Minneapolis, Minn. — Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) held an emergency press conference in Minneapolis to address what she described as widespread fear within the local Somali community amid reports of intensified federal deportation operations under the Trump administration.
Omar stated that the community was “paralyzed by fear,” with families taking precautions such as mothers avoiding phone calls and fathers sleeping in shifts to guard against potential enforcement actions. She attributed the heightened anxiety and an reported increase in death threats against her and her constituents directly to President Donald Trump, accusing his policies and rhetoric of targeting the community and amounting to “ethnic cleansing disguised as policy.”
Omar characterized the situation as the result of a “white nationalist agenda,” positioning herself as a defender of vulnerable families and calling for national attention to what she termed a humanitarian crisis on American soil.
In response, Senator John Kennedy (R-La.) addressed the matter on the Senate floor shortly after Omar’s remarks. Kennedy acknowledged the reported threats and community anxiety but offered a sharply different interpretation of their cause.
“The Congresswoman is very upset today,” Kennedy said. “She says she is receiving threats. She says her community is afraid. And she blames President Trump for lighting the match.”
He continued by arguing that the fear stemmed not from the president’s actions but from the consequences of Omar’s own past statements about the United States. Kennedy stated that Omar had spent years portraying America as a “hateful, racist, evil place” while benefiting from its opportunities, and that the current backlash represented “the receipts for the division you ordered.”
Kennedy concluded that the situation in Minnesota was not a tragedy caused by external forces but “poetic justice,” adding, “The fear in Minnesota isn’t because Donald Trump is a monster. It’s because for the first time in your career, the law has finally arrived to collect the debt you owe.”
The exchange has drawn significant attention on social media and in political commentary circles. Supporters of Omar have echoed her concerns about community safety and the tone of immigration enforcement, while critics have praised Kennedy’s remarks for reframing the narrative around personal accountability and the long-term effects of political rhetoric.
No official confirmation of specific deportation targets in Minneapolis has been released by the Department of Homeland Security at this time, though administration officials have previously indicated that operations would focus on individuals with criminal records or final removal orders. The incident occurs against the backdrop of ongoing national debates over immigration policy, sanctuary jurisdictions, and the balance between enforcement and community relations.
As the 2026 midterm elections approach, the public confrontation between the Minnesota congresswoman and the Louisiana senator has intensified partisan divisions and highlighted contrasting views on the roots of fear and division within immigrant communities.
BREAKING: Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas Makes Announcement No One Saw Coming
WASHINGTON, D.C. — June 2, 2026 — A explosive constitutional crisis has erupted on the nation’s highest bench, exposing a terrifying vulnerability on America's interstate highways and drawing a violent line between state sovereignty and federal enforcement.
What happens when sanctuary-state policies weaponize commercial driving licenses, placing undocumented individuals behind the wheels of 80,000-pound death machines? For a furious faction on the Supreme Court, the answer is a total betrayal of public safety. In a dramatic developments on Monday, Justice Clarence Thomas, joined in full by Justice Samuel Alito, issued a blistering, high-threshold dissent after the Supreme Court flatly refused to hear Florida’s blockbuster lawsuit challenging California and Washington for systematically issuing commercial driver’s licenses (CDLs) to undocumented immigrants in flagrant violation of federal safety standards.
Thomas argued with fierce urgency that the high court had an absolute, unyielding constitutional duty to resolve this escalating interstate warfare, issuing a dark warning that the lax, ideologically driven policies of blue states are actively endangering American roadways and public safety nationwide.
“If this Court does not exercise jurisdiction over a controversy between two States, then the complaining State has no judicial forum in which to seek relief.” — Justice Clarence Thomas
I. THE TURNPIKE MASSACRE: AN 80,000-POUND WEAPON
At the bleeding edge of this legal warfare is a gruesome, real-world tragedy that proves these border disputes are no longer confined to courtrooms.
Thomas used his powerful platform to highlight a deadly 2025 Florida Turnpike crash that shocked the nation. The catastrophic incident involved an undocumented truck driver—licensed exclusively through the lax loopholes of California or Washington—who allegedly executed a fatal, illegal U-turn. Shockingly, investigators revealed the driver could not even read basic American road signs, resulting in a horrific collision that killed three innocent people.
The raw danger of the loophole forced Thomas to issue a chillingly blunt declaration that cut straight through the political noise surrounding the case:
“An illegal alien who cannot read English road signs cannot drive an 80,000-pound tractor-trailer.”
II. THE ADMINISTRATIVE LETHALITY RESPONSE: MARITIME AND HIGHWAY SECURITY
The structural metrics of federal law are completely clear, yet they are being systematically bypassed. Thomas explicitly emphasized that binding federal statutes mandate proper English proficiency, a grueling valid driver’s test, and appropriate, verified immigration status before any individual can legally acquire a commercial license.
This high-stakes case exposes how sanctuary-style policies in liberal states create devastating, border-crossing hazards that spill violently across state lines. This direct defiance collides perfectly with President Donald Trump’s aggressive, heavy-handed immigration enforcement agenda.
Moving at true wartime speed, Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy has already stepped into the arena, moving decisively to tighten federal rules for non-citizens seeking CDLs. Duffy has issued a stern, high-threshold warning to California, threatening that the state could lose massive tranches of vital federal funding if it continues its reckless defiance of federal guidelines.
III. THE CONSTITUTIONAL ABDICATION
Thomas made it entirely clear that states surrendered their individual rights to ignore such conflicts the moment they joined the Union. Under the original architecture of the Constitution, the Supreme Court must act as the supreme forum for interstate resolution. By walking away from this fight, Thomas accused the majority of cowardice, prioritizing policy preferences over their sacred constitutional oaths.
“We have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given, than to usurp that which is not given.” — Justice Clarence Thomas
In a telling display of ideological alignment, the Court's liberal justices remained entirely silent during the majority’s refusal to take the case, quietly enabling the dangerous, multi-state commercial licensing practice to continue completely unchecked.
THE FINAL VERDICT
This powerful, historic dissent from Justice Thomas reinforces the absolute baseline of President Trump’s America First priorities: secure borders, unyielding public safety, and total accountability from states that put everyday citizens at risk.
As mass deportation operations rapidly expand across the homeland and federal standards are ruthlessly enforced, Thomas’s call for judicial responsibility highlights an urgent, terrifying truth. The nation must immediately end the reckless policies enabling illegal immigrants to operate heavy commercial vehicles across the American grid. As the high court slams its doors, everyday drivers are left to scan the highway lanes and wonder: who is behind the wheel of the next 18-wheeler approaching them in the dark?
