This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Federal provision allows cash handouts to end 'pursuant to the terms and conditions of the federal award, including to the extent authorized by law, if an award no longer effectuates the program goals or agency priorities'
One thing can be said for certain, President Donald Trump's election to the Oval Office for a second term has assured the federal judiciary of job security.
Dozens, even hundreds, of lawsuits have been filed by individuals, groups, entities, states and nations over his agenda points.
From the work of the Department of Government Efficiency in making budget cutbacks, to his foreign policy, to his economics, to his appointments, no part of the executive branch's constitutional responsibilities that Trump has exercised has escaped being named in some court filing somewhere.
But now instead of waiting for some "offense" to come out of the Trump administration, leftist states that largely voted against the 2024 landslide election victory for Trump and supported the word-salad pro Kamala Harris are suing.
They want court orders to prevent Trump from acting, not just to reverse his orders.
"We can't just sit back and wait for the next set of cuts," Mathew Platkin, the attorney general for New Jersey, claimed.
At issue is a federal OMB ruling that cash handouts set up by Washington can be canceled, "pursuant to the terms and conditions of the Federal award, including, to the extent authorized by law, if an award no longer effectuates the program goals or agency priorities."
That last phrase suddenly has become important, as the priorities of federal agencies under the executive branch have changed dramatically from the tenure of Joe Biden, whose goals included abortion for all and transgenderism for children.
For instance, where Biden's Department of Justice persecuted pro-life activists who even entered those "bubble zones" around abortion businesses, Trump's DOJ is investigating the vandalism at pro-life centers and churches.
Where Biden openly pushed transgenderism on Americans and their organizations and churches, often despite outraged opposition, Trump's order states that the federal government recognizes two genders, male and female.
Biden openly promoted transgenderism in the military; Trump is working to remove those individuals, whose medical conditions are incredibly costly to taxpayers, from the ranks.
Biden insisted on open borders that allowed in millions of illegal aliens, including criminals and even terrorists; Trump has sealed the border and is working to deport those criminals.
Each issue has, at some point, generated legal conflict.
The new lawsuit has been filed in Massachusetts, where the plaintiff states of New Jersey, Massachusetts, New York, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Wisconsin, and the District of Columbia, are more likely to obtain a leftist, activist judge than in many other states.
Named are an entire list of federal departments and their managers, mostly appointed by Trump
The states claim that President Trump has launched "an unprecedented and unlawful campaign to terminate billions of dollars in critical federal funding appropriated by Congress."
The complaint doesn't immediately cite that that agenda is exactly what Americans voted for in the 2024 presidential race.
The states complain about the executive branch's decisions to end grants that the Biden administration had awarded, including billions of dollars handed out during the lame-duck part of Biden's term, like, as one commentator explained, dumping gold bars from the Titanic.
While Biden's agencies obviously "approved" those grants, the bureaucracies now under the administration of President Trump no longer support the goals.
"Federal agencies have engaged in this nationwide slash-and-burn campaign by unlawfully invoking a single subclause buried in federal regulations promulgated by the Office of Manage of Budget," the plaintiffs claim.
That, of course, is the permission for agencies to terminate grants "if an award no longer effectuates the program goals or agency priorities."
The plaintiff states, in fact, are demanding those billions of dollars adopted by Biden bureaucrats be delivered by the Trump administration. They claim without the money, hurt will be programs to fight crime, educate students, safeguard public health, protect clean drinking water, conduct medical and scientific research, address food insecurity, ensure unemployment benefits and more.
They claim the states' sole offense is to be doing just what the Biden bureaucrats demanded, even though those grants are under the auspices of the administration of Trump now, often with complete opposite priorities.
The states claim that the OMB "never suggested … that a grant could be terminated even though the grant was continuing to serve the very goals for which the monies had initially be awarded, merely because the agency's priorities shifted midway during the use of the grant…"
The leftists, including some of those who orchestrated a years-long lawfare campaign against Trump, complained that federal agencies, when Trump took office, "abruptly shifted course."
Trump had, in fact, told agencies and DOGE to "review all existing covered contracts and grants and, where appropriate and consistent with applicable law, terminate or modify" them.
The states complain that the Trump administration now is invoking the clause to terminate grants "based on newly identified agency priorities."
The states complain that the OMB itself allows "no support for a broad power to terminate grants on a whim based on newly identified agency priorities."
And they complaint that no longer being in the pipeline for federal cash handouts has hurt them.
Their solution is for a court to disallow permanently the termination of grants "on the basis that the grant 'no longer effectuates the program goals or agency priorities' if the award terms and conditions do not 'clearly and unambiguously specify' that the award can be terminated."
That ruling, if made and eventually affirmed, essentially would lock in each new presidential administration into the funding priorities that the previous administration demanded, meaning a president elected in 2028, should that be a Democrat, could be locked into hundreds of billions of dollars in spending that Trump could authorizes during his final months of his second term.
They also demand that the court set aside existing federal regulations and practice.
Among the signatures on the document was Letitia James, attorney general for New York who currently is under investigation for federal mortgage fraud; Philip Weiser, of Colorado, whose all-Democrat state Supreme Court vainly tried to bar Trump from the state's 2024 election ballot, the far-left Dana Nessel whose activities in Michigan have had extremiust overtones for several years, Keith Ellison, the extremist from Minnesota, and more.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
'In a region plagued by historical animosity and political volatility, such a breakthrough demands both courage and clarity. President Trump demonstrated both, offering the world a rare glimpse of hope'
President Donald Trump was nominated Tuesday for the Nobel Peace Prize for "his extraordinary and historic role in brokering an end to the armed conflict between Israel and Iran and preventing the world's largest state sponsor of terrorism from obtaining the most lethal weapon on the planet."
The nomination came from U.S. Rep. Buddy Carter, R-Ga., who submitted a letter to the Nobel Peace Prize Committee in Oslo, Norway.
Carter stated in his letter: "In recent weeks, the world stood on the precipice of a dangerous and potentially region-destabilizing war. Yet in the face of this crisis, President Trump took bold action to ultimately champion peace through strength and facilitate a ceasefire framework that brought hostilities to a halt.
"In a statement that has since reverberated around the globe, President Trump announced the terms of a complete and total ceasefire agreement, commending both Israel and Iran for their courage to end the war.
"His message of mutual respect and peace will now result in a full cessation of military activity, no further escalation, and the preservation of thousands, if not millions, of lives throughout the Middle East and around the globe.
"President Trump's influence was instrumental in forging a swift agreement that many believed to be impossible. President Trump also took bold, decisive actions to halt Iran's nuclear ambitions and ensure that the world's largest state sponsor of terrorism remains incapable of acquiring a nuclear weapon.
"His leadership at this moment exemplifies the very ideals that the Nobel Peace Prize seeks to recognize: the pursuit of peace, the prevention of war, and the advancement of international harmony.
"In a region plagued by historical animosity and political volatility, such a breakthrough demands both courage and clarity. President Trump demonstrated both, offering the world a rare glimpse of hope."
Carter's nomination comes just hours after Israel accused Iran of breaking Monday night's Trump-brokered ceasefire agreement, which Tehran has denied.
"You know, when I say OK, now you have 12 hours, you don't go out in the first hour just drop everything you have on them," Trump said. "So I'm not happy with them. I'm not happy with Iran either. But I'm really unhappy if Israel is going out this morning because the one rocket that didn't land, that was shot, perhaps by mistake, that didn't land, I'm not happy about that."
"We basically have two countries that have been fighting so long and so hard, that they don't know what the f*** they are doing. Do you understand that?" Trump added.
This is not the first time Trump has been nominated, as Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., pushed the president's name for the award this year, noting his 2024 electoral victory had an "astonishingly effective impact" on world peace.
According to the Nobel Peace Prize website: "The Nobel Committee does not confirm the names of nominees, neither to the media nor to the candidates themselves. There are cases where names of candidates appear in the media, either as a result of sheer speculation or because individuals themselves report to have nominated specific candidates."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
White House tells Dem operatives who worked with Biden: 'In light of unique and extraordinary nature of the matters under investigation, President Trump has determined that an assertion of executive privilege is not in the national interest and therefore is not justified'
Joe Biden's administration repeatedly attacked the concept of executive privilege. For President Donald Trump.
Among other ways, officials then used their new standard against Trump in their fight over documents that he held from his presidency.
A report at Redstate explained, "We now know that the heavily politicized agency was just seeking to establish a predicate for the DOJ to charge Trump with a crime. That led to the infamous Mar-a-Lago raid, Trump's arrest, and years of litigation. We all know how that story ended, but it only ended that way because Trump won the presidency. If he hadn't, Biden and company would have almost certainly gotten away with their gambit."
But now that Biden standard has been applied to Democrats, from Biden's own entourage, who have been summoned to testify before Congress regarding Biden's mental capabilities, or lack thereof, and to provide details about just who was running the country during Biden's decline.
In came in a letter to Neera Tanden, one of Biden's advisers, who was scheduled to testify.
It makes clear that executive privilege claims are "not justified." And it authorizes Tanden to speak openly about the condition Biden was in.
The letter is from the White House counsel.
"In light of unique and extraordinary nature of the matters under investigation, President Trump has determined that an assertion of executive privilege is not in the national interest and therefore is not justified, with respect to particular subjects within the purview of the House Oversight Committee. These subjects include your assessment of former President Biden's fitness for the office of the president and your knowledge of who exercised executive powers during his administration."
The letter went on, "Evidence that aides to former President Biden concealed information regarding his fitness to exercise the powers of the president – and may have unconstitutionally exercised those powers themselves to aid in their concealment – implicates both Congress' constitutional and legislative powers. The Constitution of the United States empowers Congress with the ability to remove the president under the 25th Amendment when the vice president and cabinet attempt to remove a president unable to perform the duties of the office."
The letter is from Gary Lawkowski, deputy counsel to the president.
The report explained, "This is what happens when you govern with the assumption you'll never lose power again. When Biden and his handlers started setting norms on fire, including those surrounding continuing executive privilege for past administrations, they never imagined that Trump would regain power. On the contrary, the Biden administration believed its nuking of executive privilege would not only keep Democrats in power but would also end up with Trump behind bars."
And the report noted Biden kept a "different standard" for himself. "Regarding the now-released audio of Biden being interviewed by special counsel Robert Hur, that was protected through the 2024 election by executive privilege."
Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough has begun hacking away at President Donald Trump's Big, Beautiful Bill as Republicans seek to shore up support, The Hill reported. The finalized bill could pass budget reconciliation before the Independence Day holiday.
The parliamentarian took issue with key provisions of the bill, which will need to be tweaked to pass the legislation. MacDonough claimed some parts of the bill violated the Byrd Rule, which would preclude it from passing the Senate with a simple majority vote.
Some of the provisions on the chopping block include allowing states to enforce immigration and border security, cutting funding to or eliminating some agencies. MacDonough's involvement in this process has caused a stir on social media, with one user on X, formerly Twitter, calling her one of the "deep state plants."
🚨 BREAKING:
Unelected Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough is TRYING TO KILL THE BIG BEAUTIFUL BILL.@JDVance Reject This!
Only 9 years in the last 90 have Republicans had the House, Senate and Presidency. We have NO time to waste on deep state plants. pic.twitter.com/hk7jNbfAbm
— Chad Prather (@WatchChad) June 23, 2025
The Byrd Rule enables a budget reconciliation to pass with fewer votes while streamlining the process and preventing a filibuster. However, there are some stopgap exceptions to the rule, for which MacDonough and others have flagged Trump's bill.
One of the provisions MacDonough took exception to was a deal for newly hired civil servants to face a higher contribution rate in the Federal Employees Retirement System if they don't sign on to become at-will employees. This is a cost-saving measure, but one that the MacDonough felt would not pass muster.
Predictably, Democratic Oregon Sen. Jeff Merkley was an outspoken opponent of this particular provision. "There is no better way to define this Big Beautiful Betrayal of a bill than families lose, and billionaires win," Merkley claimed in a statement.
Democrats are on the side of families and workers and are scrutinizing this bill piece by piece to ensure Republicans can’t use the reconciliation process to force their anti-worker policies on the American people. The Byrd Rule is enshrined in law for a reason, and Democrats are making sure it is enforced," he added.
Meanwhile, a Republican source told Fox News that the cuts are detrimental to the bill's passage. "There still must be some conservative wins coming out of the Senate. Those conservative wins were cut by the parliamentarian," the unnamed source noted.
While many object to McDonough's cuts, they are a necessary part of trying to pass this massive bill in the Senate under the current rules. Republicans have a narrow 53-seat majority compared to Democrats' 47 seats.
If they get too many downvotes, the bill would have to go back to the drawing board, or at least face substantial changes. The Senate will recess for the Independence Day holiday next week, and lawmakers are rushing to get this through before then.
With budget reconciliation, the bill could fly through the Senate, requiring only 51 votes instead of the usual 60, which would work to Republicans' advantage. However, that might not be as simple as it sounds, even with a GOP majority.
"They’re a long way away from the finish line right now," a source close to the matter told Fox News. It's possible the fight goes through the weekend with an early morning vote on Monday, but it's still anyone's guess whether it's passed before the break.
The legislation is already being picked apart, but significant changes could compromise the entire bill's passage. This could be the make-or-break time for Trump's signature legislation.
President Trump hinted that a truce is forthcoming in his war against Harvard, teasing a deal within "the next week or so."
The nation's oldest and richest university has spent months resisting Trump's efforts to reshape higher education, but Trump suggested that change is coming.
“Many people have been asking what is going on with Harvard University and their largescale improprieties that we have been addressing, looking for a solution. We have been working closely with Harvard, and it is very possible that a Deal will be announced over the next week or so,” Trump said in a post on Truth Social.
For months, Trump has been pressuring Harvard to change its policies, citing its response to anti-Semitism on campus and its use of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) in admissions and hiring. But Harvard has pushed back in court, decrying the Trump administration's crackdown as an attack on the school's autonomy.
On the same day that Trump hinted at a settlement, a federal judge in Boston blocked Trump indefinitely from revoking Harvard's ability to host international students. Foreign students are an important source of income for many universities, and at Harvard, they account for roughly a quarter of the student population.
"The Court order allows Harvard to continue enrolling international students and scholars while the case moves forward. Harvard will continue to defend its rights—and the rights of its students and scholars," the university said.
The Trump administration has argued that hosting international students is a privilege that Harvard lost by failing to control anti-Semitic unrest.
"It is a privilege, not a right, for universities to enroll foreign students and benefit from their higher tuition payments to help pad their multibillion-dollar endowments. The Trump administration is committed to restoring common sense to our student visa system; no lawsuit, this or any other, is going to change that," Department of Homeland Security Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin said.
The university's refusal to cooperate with the administration led Trump to yank over $2 billion in research grants, and Trump followed that by revoking Harvard's Student and Exchange Visitor Program certification.
Trump's moves sparked two lawsuits from Harvard, but the university is apparently moving toward a settlement of some kind with the federal government.
The school has taken some measures to appease Trump, replacing leaders at the Center for Middle Eastern Studies and renaming its DEI office.
In his triumphant post, Trump hinted that Harvard is ready to make further concessions.
“They have acted extremely appropriately during these negotiations, and appear to be committed to doing what is right. If a Settlement is made on the basis that is currently being discussed, it will be ‘mindbogglingly’ HISTORIC, and very good for our Country,” he added.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
CNN was forced to make a major correction to its story originally claiming Democrats in Congress were not informed in advance of the U.S. military strikes Saturday against Iran's nuclear sites.
White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said the left-leaning network had to retract its report she called "Fake News," saying Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., was spoken to "before the strike," and that U.S. Rep. Hakeem Jeffries "didn't pick up the phone."
Appearing on Fox News Monday morning, Leavitt said congressional members of both parties were informed prior to the military action.
"First of all, we did make bipartisan calls. Thomas Massie and the Democrats – he should be a Democrat because he is more aligned with them than with the Republican Party – were given notice," she began.
"The White House made calls to congressional leadership; they were bipartisan calls. In fact, Hakeem Jeffries couldn't be reached. We tried him before the strike and he didn't pick up the phone, but he was briefed after, as well as Chuck Schumer was briefed prior to the strike.
"So this notion that CNN ran with that the White House did not give a heads-up to Democrats is just completely false. In fact, both Sen. Schumer's office and CNN had to retract that story last night because it was a blatant lie, and we showed them the time stamps from those phone calls."
CNN posted a correction to its online story by Sarah Ferris and Morgan Rimmer, stating: "Correction: This story has been updated to make clear Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer was called before the strike, not after as initially reported."
The network noted: "People familiar with the matter initially told CNN that Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries received notifications shortly before the public announcement – and after the attack itself.
"But after White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt disputed that account, a source conceded that Schumer had been called around 6 p.m. – a little less than an hour before the strikes began – with little detail. He was told of imminent military action without naming the country in which the action was to take place, the source said."
As WorldNetDaily reported, U.S. Rep. Jasmine Crockett, D-Texas, also fumed that President Trump didn't "holla" at her to ask her permission to strike Iran.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A plan is being developed by a Senate advocate for the Department of Government Efficiency to sell off multiple federal buildings in Washington, D.C., worth an estimated $500 million.
The buildings are underutilized now, and they just are costing taxpayers a pile of money to keep open and maintained.
The new "For Sale Ace" targets six buildings, including the James Forrestal Federal Building that holds the Department of Energy.
Workers still occupying offices in those buildings will be relocated.
It's part of the DOGE campaign to address the nation's $36 trillion national debt.
The Forrestal Federal Building, known also as the "Little Pentagon," and other buildings were listed following reports from the Office of Management and Budget and the Government Accountability Office about the millions of dollars in costs in keeping and maintaining buildings where only a few of the offices are occupied.
Across the nation, maintenance for federal buildings costs more than $10 billion a year and ridding the government of some of them offers considerable cast savings.
A report at Fox News explained Sen. Joni Ernst, R-Iowa, points out in her planning that no layoffs would be part of the sales, as the workers would move.
Also on the list would be outbuildings for the Agriculture Department, one of which is at 25% capacity and needs nearly $2 billion in upgrades.
The Hubert H. Humphrey Jr. building also is listed. It houses the Department of Health and Human Services. Also the headquarters of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the Theodore Roosevelt Building and Frances Perkins Federal Building.
The report notes that safeguards have been written into the legislation so that no unfriendly entities, like China, would be allowed to purchase. Nor would any group in which a foreign national is a "beneficial owner."
The OMB previously reported that taxpayers are charged $81 million to maintain underused federal offices.
"About 7,700 federal office spaces are vacant and 2,200 are majority-empty, according to a Congressional Research Service report," Fox reported.
DOGE already has addressed the sale of the Wilbur J. Cohen Building, with 1.2 million square feet of offices and only 72 people.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A constitutional expert publicly is calling for full support for a review ordered by President Donald Trump of the coverup of Joe Biden's "obvious deterioration."
It is Jonathan Turley, a George Washington University professor who not only has counseled Congress on constitutional issues but represented members in those fights, who said there are "ample reasons" for Americans to get answers "as we continue to struggle with the problem of presidential incapacity."
He pinpointed the moment that should have been a "wake-up call" regarding the "obvious deterioration" seen in Joe Biden as his presidency progressed from a campaign built on videos filmed in his basement to his long history of verbal gaffes, blunders and mental failures on exhibit from his White House term.
"'Jackie, are you here? Where's Jackie?' When then-President Joe Biden asked in September 2022 if House Rep. Jackie Walorski, an Indiana Republican who had died weeks earlier in a car accident, was in a meeting, observers were shocked. Biden had not only issued a statement of condolence; he had attended the congresswoman's memorial service to lower the flags at the White House in her honor," Turley explained.
"As Washington Post media critic Erik Wemple noted last week, that moment should have been a wake-up call. In Washington parlance, it left no room for 'plausible deniability' about whether Biden was still fit to hold the office of president. And it wasn't just Democratic politicians who were willfully blind to Biden's obvious deterioration; it was the media, too."
He pointed out that's why all the nation should "fully support President Donald Trump's June 4 order for his administration to investigate Biden's competence and answer some of these questions, including the possible abuse of an autopen to sign legislation, pardons and other documents while he was president, instead of looking for political motivations."
Turley noted the House Oversight Committee also is conducting an investigating.
He cited the New York Times' claim the investigation was Trump's "campaign of retribution against his perceived enemies" but pointed out that was "a weird dissonance when journalists blame Biden's White House for a coverup, but then criticize efforts to investigate that coverup."
He conceded criminal charges are not likely to result, but investigation could end up with "forgery, obstruction of justice, fraud or other serious crimes" if the autopen was used without Biden's express authorization.
He cited the stroke sustained by President Woodrow Wilson a century back, and said Americans must have "accountability and greater transparency on matters of presidential health and competence."
While the 25th Amendment allows for a specific response to the incapacity of a president, it does not work when "staff have an interest in maintain the illusion to keep the president and themselves in power."
The worst thing, he said, for America "would be a collective shrug and a resumption of business as usual."
He said, "Biden was kept on a reduced schedule, allowing him to rally for single events. That is the difference between a major stroke and creeping cognitive decline. The 25th Amendment was designed for catastrophic medical events, not the slow slide to senility."
However, "The result for the office can be largely the same."
Michelle Obama made headlines recently with her candid comments about being a mother on her podcast, "IMO," saying she's glad she didn't have a son, the Daily Mail reported.
As speculation mounts over the state of the Obama marriage, Michelle has prompted further interest with a solo trip to Spain.
Michelle spurred conversations by expressing relief over not having a son, humorously noting he might have turned out like former President Barack Obama. Her remarks came amid ongoing gossip about the solidity of their marriage, a topic Michelle has consistently addressed over time.
The whisperings of discord began circulating when Barack attended a series of prominent events without Michelle by his side. This absence led observers to question the couple's personal life, a subject both Barack and Michelle have tackled head-on through supportive public statements.
Michelle fueled speculation by embarking on a trip to Mallorca, Spain, accompanied by her daughters and friends, but notably not her husband. This decision added fuel to whispers of marital difficulties, despite her ongoing reassurances about their relationship's resilience.
The former first lady remains open about marriage's inherent challenges, consistently emphasizing its demands. She has often been heard highlighting her and Barack's commitment to working through difficulties, painting him as an exceptional father and partner.
Beyond discussions about marriage, Michelle has shared lighthearted insights on parenting. Comparing it to fly fishing, she humorously explains it’s not about rushing but rather about engaging with care and precision.
The former first lady also addressed her discomfort with being labeled primarily through her husband's identity. She expressed a preference for being addressed by her first name, underscoring her individuality outside her role as the spouse of a former president.
Michelle similarly supports her daughter, Malia, in doing the same. Advocating for independence, she praised Malia's choice to adopt her first name professionally, allowing her to cultivate her unique identity.
Despite the persistent rumors, the Obamas have appeared together publicly, signaling an intact unity. They have been seen enjoying each other’s company during outings like a date night in New York City and various dinners around Washington, D.C.
The couple's presence at these outings disputes the ongoing narrative of discord, presenting a contrasting picture to some speculation. Michelle underlines this through her casual remarks that if their marriage were, indeed, troubled, it would be evident to all.
Moreover, Michelle assures that, despite the tough times, she cherishes her relationship with Barack and regards it with great value. Acknowledging the rumors, she repeats that their connection, nurtured over years of partnership, would not be easily dismissed.
Yet, the speculation has not been an entirely welcome aspect of public life for Michelle. Her comments reveal the tension between maintaining a personal identity and meeting public expectations, a balance she believes many women strive to achieve.
The surprise over the Obamas' absence from events like the NBA All-Star Game has only intensified curiosity about their relationship status. However, recent public outings demonstrate an apparent continuity in their partnership.
In closing, Michelle Obama remains consistent in her message of unity and resilience. Her statements not only clarify her stance on family but also illuminate broader themes of identity and partnership. Though the rumors persist, the Obamas appear steadfast in their shared journey, characterized by mutual support and understanding.
The Pelosis aren't just rich, they're filthy rich, and somehow, they keep getting astonishingly more richer by the year as Nancy continues to hold office and pulls in record returns on her market trading.
According to the New York Post, Pelosi added millions to her net worth last year and pulled in better returns on her portfolio than some of the largest and most experienced hedge funds in the United States.
Her net worth with venture capitalist husband Paul Pelosi skyrocketed to nearly $413 million in 2024. Her defenders will call it a coincidence, while many reasonable people are calling shenanigans.
Pelosi has long been accused of using her high-powered, knowledge-heavy position in Congress to make an amazing run on Wall Street for several decades now.
While it's a continuation of the magical ability of Pelosi's stock-picking prowess, many are paying extra attention this time around as the new net worth of the California couple has skyrocketed since 2023.
In 2023, they topped out at $370 million, which isn't too shabby. But in 2024 that total went to $413 million. Even crazier is that their true net worth isn't even known, as only Nancy is required by law to disclose her finances.
The Pelosis could -- and probably are -- worth substantially more than that, as in addition to their stock market game, they're also involved in several business ventures.
Tbe NY Post noted:
But the value of their various other ventures — which include but are not limited to a Napa Valley winery, ownership in a political data and consulting firm and a stake in a Bay area Italian restaurant — mean Pelosi’s worth could be far higher in the estimated range.
Notably, virtually all of the Pelosi's stock trading activity is done under Paul Pelosi's name.
Their stock trading "luck" is off the charts, as the Post noted:
The former House Speaker, who’s so infamous for trading Missouri Rep. Josh Hawley named a bill after her, and her husband dumped 5,000 shares of Microsoft stock worth an estimated $2.2 million in July — one of their largest sales in three years — a few short months before the FTC announced an antitrust investigation into the tech giant.
Plenty of social media users reacted to the news of Pelosi's windfall in 2024.
Pelosi raked millions last year — and her portfolio out-performed every large hedge fund with stunning returns https://t.co/uqBtKDnetn pic.twitter.com/5ONwA4mmYb
— New York Post (@nypost) June 21, 2025
"Because she inside trades. She’s a con artist," one X user claimed
Another X user wrote, "It's called insider trading in the real world. Congress cheats and gets away with it."