• Melania Trump made a rare public appearance at the White House on Monday.
• Trump praised her for bringing together both sides on revenge porn and deepfakes.
• The reality, however, is more complicated.

Melania Trump has never been a traditional first lady. But to hear it from President Donald Trump at a White House event on Monday, she also has a rare ability to smash past entrenched partisan divides.

"I'm not even sure you realize, honey," Trump said to his wife in the Rose Garden at the White House. "You know, a lot of the Democrats and Republicans don't get along so well. You've made them get along."

The first lady's purported achievement: Supporting the passage of the "TAKE IT DOWN" Act, a bill to combat revenge porn, including deepfakes generated by artificial intelligence.

Trump signed that bill on Monday. Though most states already have revenge porn laws on the books, it's the first bill that Trump has signed in his second term that touches AI.

Melania Trump's appearance on Monday was a relative rarity. The New York Times reported earlier this month that she had spent less than 14 days at the White House since Trump's second inauguration, and the first lady has long taken a different approach to the role from prior presidential spouses.

She ultimately spoke for less than four minutes, thanking lawmakers and advocates as she decried the impact of new technologies on children.

"Artificial intelligence and social media are the digital candy for the next generation: sweet, addictive, and engineered to have an impact on the cognitive development of our children," she said.

The first lady has sought to put her stamp on the legislation, framing it as a continuation of the children's well-being and online safety initiatives that she undertook during her husband's first term. "Today, I'm proud to say that the values of 'Be Best' will be reflected in the law," she said.

The reality, however, is more complex.

The bill had been making its way through Congress last year, and it was originally supposed to be signed into law before the Trumps returned to the White House.

But after the bill passed the Senate for the first time in December, the legislation was slipped into an ill-fated government funding bill that Elon Musk and hardline conservatives tanked for unrelated reasons.

The spending bill that ultimately passed days later did not include the TAKE IT DOWN Act, requiring lawmakers to go through the whole exercise once again this year.

The bill was also never that controversial, at least on Capitol Hill. While some digital rights advocates raised free speech concerns, only two lawmakers voted against it when it came up for a vote in the House last month.

Meanwhile, it passed the Senate via a "voice vote" — meaning no one opposed it, so there was no need to hold a vote — in both December and February.

On Monday, none of that was mentioned. The first lady, according to Trump, had taken up an "amazing issue," tackling a problem that's "gone on at levels that nobody's ever seen before."

"Working with our first lady, though, we've shown that that bipartisanship is possible," Trump said. "I mean, it's the first time I've seen such a level of bipartisanship, and it's a beautiful thing to do."

• Senators have filed financial disclosures for 2024, revealing details about how they make money.
• Some of them continue to rake in significant amounts of income from book sales.
• Others have part-time jobs, like Sen. Raphael Warnock of Georgia.

Being a senator can be a demanding job. But many of them still find the time do things on the side that help earn them an extra buck.

From book sales to part-time jobs, it's all laid out in the financial disclosures that members of Congress are required to file every year. Roughly half of senators filed those documents by the May 15 deadline, while the rest have requested an extension until August.

Democratic Sen. John Fetterman of Pennsylvania nearly doubled his income in 2024, bringing in a $172,500 advance payment from Penguin Random House for a forthcoming book. According to Semafor, the book is called "Unfettered" and will be co-written with Buzz Bissinger, the author of Friday Night Lights.

Fetterman's not the only one with a forthcoming book. Republican Sen. Tim Scott of South Carolina is set to release his fifth book, entitled "One Nation Always Under God," in August, according to his disclosure. A description from HarperCollins says the book is about "how Christian values forged our legal system, educational institutions, healthcare, social services, and more." Scott received $85,000 from the publisher in 2024.

Democratic Sen. Raphael Warnock of Georgia, meanwhile, has a second job on the side: He's still serving as a senior pastor at Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta, drawing a $31,800 salary in 2024.

That second job has kept him busy. He took 15 different paid trips, including to London and the US Virgin Islands, as part of his role as a pastor in 2024. He also delivered eight paid speeches in connection with that, donating the combined $15,000 in compensation to charity.

He made over $150,700 in book royalties, which comes on top of a combined $1.1 million from books in 2023 and 2022.

Spokespeople for Fetterman, Scott, and Warnock did not respond to requests for comment.

All of this is ethically permissible. Lawmakers were permitted to make up to $32,000 in outside income in 2024, and there's no limit on how much they can earn from book sales.

Many of the US Senate's most prominent members have taken advantage of that, raking in hundreds of thousands of dollars year after year.

Among them are Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, who made $148,750 in book royalties in 2024, and Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, who has historically made lots of money from books but brought in just $27,900 last year.

In 2023, eight senators made more than $100,000 from books, while six of them made more than their annual salary of $174,000 in 2022.

Second jobs are less common, but Warnock's not the only one.

Last year, former Sen. Kyrsten Sinema made about $29,900 from teaching at Arizona State University, while now-Secretary of State Marco Rubio made about $20,800 as an adjunct professor at Florida International University.

• One of Trump's Cabinet secretaries made an especially well-timed trade of Trump Media stock.
• Attorney General Pam Bondi sold off her millions of dollars in shares on April 2.
• That's the same day Trump announced new tariffs, sending the market reeling.

A key member of President Donald Trump's administration made an especially well-timed stock trade last month, according to a disclosure made public this week.

Attorney General Pam Bondi sold off her shares of Trump Media Stock on April 2 — the same day as Trump's "Liberation Day" tariff announcement, which sent stock prices plunging in the days afterward.

The exact value of Bondi's shares at the time is unknown, but they were worth more than $3.9 million in December, according to documents obtained by Business Insider at the time.

The attorney general was required to divest from her shares in the company, which she earned through consulting work, within 90 days of her confirmation. Bondi most likely didn't profit significantly from the divestiture. Trump Media closed at $18.76 on April 2, while the stock was consistently trading for more than $30 per share in December.

But it was still well-timed — the stock price fell about 13% over the course of the following days, though it eventually bounced back after Trump announced a 90-day pause on "reciprocal" tariffs on April 9.

It's unclear whether Bondi had advance knowledge of Trump's tariff moves. The Justice Department didn't immediately respond to a request for comment.

Democrats have repeatedly suggested that Trump engaged in market manipulation with his tariff moves and that his allies may have known about it ahead of time.

No hard evidence of this has emerged, though Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia made a series of well-timed trades during the April dip.

Bondi's trades have already attracted Democratic scrutiny as well.

"We need an investigation into whether Attorney General Bondi engaged in insider trading," Democratic Rep. Greg Casar of Texas wrote on X on Thursday. "A culture of corruption has infected the Republican Party. Americans deserve answers."

• Republicans are trying to pass Trump's "One Big Beautiful Bill" in the coming weeks.
• It includes new tax cuts, changes to Medicaid, saving accounts for kids, and other provisions.
• Here's what you should know about the centerpiece of Trump's legislative agenda.

For months, President Donald Trump has pursued his sweeping agenda through executive actions. Now comes the hard part.

Republicans on Capitol Hill are finally putting pen to paper on what Trump has called the "One Big Beautiful Bill," a sweeping fiscal package that will serve as the centerpiece of the president's legislative agenda.

The bill includes GOP priorities like no taxes on tips or overtime, cuts to Medicaid, "MAGA accounts" for children and several other provisions.

It will take weeks for lawmakers in the House and Senate to work out the final details, and it's likely that some changes will be made along the way. Republicans hope to send the bill to Trump's desk by July 4.

Here's what you should know about what's in the "One Big Beautiful Bill."

The bill includes cuts to Medicaid, and millions could lose health coverage

As part of the plan approved by the House Energy and Commerce Committee, states would implement work requirements in 2029 for childless adults on Medicaid who do not have a disability, mandating they work for 80 hours a month.

A component of the plan would increase the price of doctors' visits, mandating beneficiaries making above the federal poverty limit to pay co-payments of up to $35. States would also be required to stop taxing hospitals and nursing homes in order to secure more federal funding.

Medicaid recipients in some states would have more paperwork to regularly confirm their residency status and income. And the plan would lower federal funding for some recipients in states that fund medical coverage for undocumented immigrants.

The Congress Budget Office estimated the legislation would save about $912 billion over the next decade in federal spending, about $715 billion of which would derive from Medicaid and Affordable Care Act cuts. The CBO said about 8.6 million people could lose their insurance coverage.

The plan came short of expectations among some ultraconservatives who wanted more Medicaid cuts at the federal level. Some GOP leaders wanted per-capita caps for those in Medicaid expansion states and a lower across-the-board rate at which the federal government supplements each state's funding for Medicaid programs.

Democrats have strongly opposed the bill, emphasizing that millions of Americans will potentially have their lives uprooted by Medicaid cuts.

No tax on tips or overtime, making Trump's 2017 tax cuts permanent, and more

Some of Trump's flashiest campaign promises were to remove taxes on tips, overtime, and Social Security. This bill largely gets those done, but only for the next four years — lawmakers will have to decide whether to renew the cuts in 2029.

The bill would allow workers in an "occupation that traditionally and customarily receives tips" to claim a tax deduction for the sum of all tips that they received in the previous year. It would also do the same for overtime wages. Neither deduction is available to anyone who is a "highly compensated employee."

To help accomplish Trump's "no taxes on Social Security" pledge, Republicans created a new $4,000 tax deduction for seniors making less than $75,000 per year. There's also a provision in the bill to fulfill Trump's promise of no taxes on car loan interest.

There's also an extension of the child tax credit, which is currently $2,000 but was set to decrease to $1,000 after this year. The bill would increase the credit to $2,500 through 2028, then it would drop to $2,000 permanently after that.

If you're thinking of buying an electric vehicle, you might want to do so before the end of the year. The bill would eliminate existing tax credits for new and used EVs, and it would impose an annual registration fee of $250 for EV owners.

The bill also makes permanent a slew of tax cuts that Trump and Republicans enacted in 2017. The average American won't feel much of a difference, since they've probably gotten used to the existing tax rates and brackets that have existed since 2018. But it's the most consequential part of the bill from a budgetary perspective, adding trillions to the deficit over the next several years.

MAGA savings accounts

The bill establishes "Money account for growth and advancement" accounts, or MAGA accounts, for children. The idea was originally proposed by Republican Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas.

The federal government would pay $1,000 to babies born from 2024 through 2028. After the cutoff, parents will still be able to put $5,000 per year into each account.

Cruz's proposal is similar to previous Democratic-led efforts for "baby bonds," but the biggest difference is that there is no income cutoff. Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey, a Democrat, envisioned a program primarily targeted at low-income families.

A repeal of Biden's student loan forgiveness plans

If enacted, the reconciliation bill would mean major changes for student-loan borrowers. The legislation proposes terminating all existing income-driven student-loan repayment plans, including Biden's SAVE income-driven repayment plan, which would have shortened the timeline for debt relief and provided cheaper monthly payments. While SAVE is currently paused due to litigation, Trump and Republican lawmakers have said they would not carry out the plan if it survives in court.

Under the bill, borrowers would have two repayment plan options: one, called the Repayment Assistance Plan, would allow for loan forgiveness after 360 qualifying payments, and the other option would be a standard repayment plan with a fixed monthly payment over a fixed time period set by the servicer.

Payments made under the Repayment Assistance Plan would be calculated based on the borrower's income and would count toward Public Service Loan Forgiveness.

A 10-year ban on state-level AI laws

House lawmakers handed a major win to Big Techby including a 10-year federal preemption on all state artificial intelligence laws in the larger bill. Congress has talked about a federal AI policy, but no serious legislative proposals have emerged.

In the meantime, states have tried to fill to void. Major tech companies have long fought state-level AI regulations. Last year, California lawmakers passed the nation's most sweeping AI legislation only for Gov. Gavin Newsom to veto it.

Meta, OpenAI, and Anthropic lobbied against California's bill. Meta recently wrote to the White House that state laws "could impede innovation and investment."

The issue isn't going away. In the 2024 legislative session, lawmakers in at least 45 states introduced AI-related bills, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

Unlike most of the other provisions on this list, the AI regulation ban faces major hurdles to making it into law. Republicans must adhere to strict parliamentary rules to pass Trump's bill without facing a Democratic filibuster in the Senate. One rule is that all provisions must be primarily fiscal in nature, and many expect that the AI provision will fail that test.

A debt ceiling hike, the end of IRS Direct file, money for a border wall, and more

Avoiding default: Republicans would raise the debt limit by $4 trillion, staving off a potential default that could come later this summer. One way or another, Congress will have to address the debt issue soon. The federal government is expected to exhaust its borrowing ability sometime in August.

Billions for missile defense: Trump wants the US to have a futuristic missile defense system inspired by Israel's vaunted "Iron Dome" air defenses, but the US shield would include space-based components and focus on longer-range missile threats rather than the smaller weapons Israel faces. House Republicans have allocated roughly $25 billion for overall missile defense, most of which will go to the "Golden Dome" project.

700 more miles of Trump's border wall: Republicans proposed spending roughly $47 billion on border barriers, which will cover 701 miles of "primary wall," 900 miles of river barriers, and 629 miles of secondary barriers. Trump repeatedly fought in his first term to build a massive border wall between the US and Mexico but struggled to get funding through Congress.

A big tax increase on large university endowments: Republicans would significantly increase Trump's 2017 groundbreaking tax on colleges and universities with large endowments. Under the bill, the tax rate would be tied to the size of their endowment, adjusted by student enrollment.At the low end, the rate would remain at 1.4%. At the highest level, universities would pay 21% tax if they have an endowment of $2 million or more per student.

IRS direct file: The big beautiful bill would officially kill off the IRS's Direct File program, a Biden-era initiative that has long been a subject of Republican ire. In April, a Treasury Department official told BI that it was a failed and disappointing program. The new legislation would instead allocate funding towards studying a public-private partnership to provide free filing for a majority of taxpayers.

• Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene was called out by a fellow Republican for recent stock trades.
• He said those trades were "just another reason why" lawmakers should be banned from trading stocks.
• Greene has attracted scrutiny for well-timed trades made around Trump's tariff moves.

First, it was Democrats who made a big deal out of Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene's stock trading habits. Now, a fellow Republican is joining in.

"Just another reason why stock trading by members of Congress or their spouses should be banned," Rep. Mike Lawler of New York wrote on X in response to a post showing that one of the Georgia congresswoman's recent stock purchases had paid off.

Lawler, who does not own any individual stocks, is a co-sponsor of the TRUST in Congress Act, a bill to require lawmakers and their spouses to divest from stocks or place them in a blind trust.

Greene has attracted scrutiny in recent weeks for a series of well-timed trades she made around President Donald Trump's tariff moves in early April.

When stock prices began to fall after the April 2 "Liberation Day" announcement, Greene began investing tens of thousands of dollars into a variety of stocks, continuing to do so right up until stock prices shot back up after Trump announced that most of those tariffs would be paused for 90 days.

The congresswoman has said that her stock portfolio is managed by an outside financial advisor.

"All of my investments are reported with full transparency. I refuse to hide my stock trades in a blind trust like many others do," the congressman said in a statement previously shared with BI. "Since my portfolio manager makes my trades for me, I usually find out about them when the media asks."

She's not the only lawmaker who bought the dip: Democratic Rep. Jared Moskowitz of Florida did as well.

But Democrats have suggested that Greene, a close Trump ally, may have been aware of Trump's tariff moves ahead of time. The congresswoman has denied that.

Lawler's post came on the heels of a feud between the two lawmakers that began on Wednesday, when Greene denounced the New York congressman for opposing Republicans' "Big Beautiful Bill" over a tax provision.

• House Speaker Mike Johnson said on Wednesday that he supports a ban on stock trading in Congress.
• But he said he has "sympathy" for arguments against it.
• Trump recently said he supported a stock trading ban and would sign it into law.

House Speaker Mike Johnson says he supports banning members of Congress from trading stocks — but has "sympathy" for arguments against it.

"I'm in favor of that, because I don't think we should have any appearance of impropriety," Johnson told reporters on Wednesday, before adding that there's an "other side" to the argument.

The speaker, whose own personal finances are relatively modest, noted that annual salaries for rank-and-file members of Congress have remained frozen at $174,000 since 2009 and that some lawmakers may find it hard to make the job work financially.

"If you stay on this trajectory, you're going to have less qualified people who are willing to make the extreme sacrifice to run for Congress," Johnson said. "So the counterargument is — and I have some sympathy — look, at least let them, like, engage in some stock trading, so that they can continue to, you know, take care of their family."

The speaker previously told NPR that he was "open to the conversation" about a stock trading ban, but declined at the time to take a position.

Johnson doesn't own or trade any stocks himself, according to his 2023 financial disclosure. The Louisiana congressman is far less wealthy than most members of Congress and once slept in his Capitol Hill office.

The speaker on Wednesday went on to say that blatant insider trading would not be tolerated.

"Look, we have no tolerance for anything even resembling insider trading, or any of this kind of advantage that anybody can take, zero tolerance for it," Johnson said. "And we'll stamp it out ourselves."

Stock trading by members of Congress has been controversial for years, and lawmakers have made multiple attempts to ban the practice.

The idea gained more momentum in recent weeks after President Donald Trump said he would sign a stock trading ban into law.

Democrats have also called attention to well-timed stock trades made by Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia during a dip in the stock market caused by Trump's April 2 tariff announcement.

She's not the only person who benefited. Democratic Rep. Jared Moskowitz of Florida also plunged tens of thousands of dollars into stocks during that same period, just days before Trump's announcement of a 90-day "reciprocal" tariff pause caused a rebound in the market.

• Republicans included a major victory for AI companies in Trump's sweeping "Big Beautiful Bill."
• One provision would prohibit states from regulating artificial intelligence for a decade.
• OpenAI and other companies have opposed state-level regulations.

Major tech companies could receive an unexpected victory in President Donald Trump's signature "Big Beautiful Bill" but they shouldn't start celebrating just yet.

House Republicans squeezed a provision into part of the sweeping tax, immigration, and defense legislation, which would prohibit states from regulating artificial intelligence for a decade.

"Except as provided in paragraph (2), no State or political subdivision thereof may enforce any law or regulation regulating artificial intelligence models, artificial intelligence systems, or automated decision systems during the 10-year period beginning on the date of the enactment this Act," the bill reads.

The text, first noticed by 404 Media, would be a godsend to major tech companies that have pushed the White House to oppose state-level AI regulations. Meta previously told the White House that such regulations "could impede innovation and investment."

OpenAI, Meta, and Alphabet have all opposed state-led efforts to regulate the rapidly growing industry. Last year, California Gov. Gavin Newsom vetoed what would have been one of the nation's furthest-reaching AI laws after it overwhelmingly passed the state legislature. OpenAI was among the leading tech companies to oppose that bill.

Congress has considered federal AI policies but those efforts have yet to go anywhere.

Big Tech CEOs have made substantial efforts to curry favor with the White House. Trump has welcomed their overtures and named venture capitalist David Sacks as artificial intelligence and crypto czar.

Republicans have mixed views on the proposal

There's no unanimity about the provision among congressional Republicans, even among those who are Big Tech critics.

Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri told BI that he opposed the proposed moratorium, saying he didn't "want to tamp down on people's efforts to address" issues posed by AI.

"I would think that, just as a matter of federalism, we'd want states to be able to try out different regimes that they think will work for their state," Hawley said. "And I think in general, on AI, I do think we need some sensible oversight that will protect people's liberties."

Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, meanwhile, told BI he was "very supportive of the principle," saying that AI should be regulated via national standards.

He also said he wanted to take an approach to AI similar to the one President Bill Clinton took on the internet in the 1990s — applying a "light touch regulatory approach" in order to win the AI race.

Silicon Valley shouldn't be celebrating yet.

The House Energy and Commerce Committee will debate the provision and the rest of its section of the sweeping proposal on Tuesday. Other top House committees will need to approve their own language before a final bill can be brought to the floor. House Republicans are still divided on other matters, including to what extent to cut Medicaid, a federal program that covers 72 million Americans, predominantly with low incomes or disabilities.

Even if the AI provision passes the House, it still needs to pass a special parliamentary review in the Senate. To ram Trump's bill through expected Democratic opposition, Republicans must use a special procedure known as reconciliation. The trade-off is that all provisions of reconciliation bills must be primarily fiscal in nature.

It's unlikely, as Bloomberg News reported, that the AI provision would meet that high bar. If it fails to, Republicans would be forced to strip it out of the bill or risk losing the special power that allows them to doge a likely Democratic-led filibuster that would effectively kill the entire bill.

"I don't know whether that provision will survive on reconciliation, but as a substantive matter, it's a policy I support," Cruz said.

• Republicans are officially planning to kill the IRS free direct tax-filing tool.
• Trump's "big beautiful bill" includes a provision to terminate the program.
• Republicans have described the tool as wasteful and an example of government overreach.

If Republicans on Capitol Hill get their way, the IRS's free direct tax-filing tool is going away for good.

A 389-page tax bill released by House Republicans on Tuesday includes a provision directing the Secretary of the Treasury to terminate IRS Direct File within 30 days of the bill's passage.

It's not a huge surprise. The program already seemed to be in trouble, with a Treasury official telling BI in April that it was a failed and disappointing program.

Republicans have argued that the tool, which was rolled out in 2024, is wasteful and an example of government overreach. Democrats, on the other hand, have contended that the program represents exactly the kind of government-efficiency project that DOGE should be interested in.

The bill, a key element of what President Donald Trump and congressional Republicans have deemed the "One Big Beautiful Bill," is set to be marked up in the House Ways and Means Committee on Tuesday.

The fiscal bill, the centerpiece of Trump's legislative agenda, could face tweaks as Republicans in both chambers hash out differences among themselves over the next several weeks.

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment. A spokesperson for Ways and Means Committee Chair Jason Smith referred BI to a June 2024 statement from the Missouri Republican that criticized the program.

"This latest attempt to circumvent Congress and establish a new tax program only serves to further undermine the fraying trust between the agency and the public," Smith said at the time.

The bill also allocates $15 million to study the creation of a new public-private partnership to provide free tax filing for up to 70% of taxpayers. That program would replace both IRS Direct File and other free tax filing services.

• For weeks, Marjorie Taylor Greene was the only lawmaker known to have traded on tariff turmoil.
• Now, she has company: Democratic Rep. Jared Moskowitz bought stocks just days before Trump's pause.
• Both lawmakers say that their stock trades are made by an outside financial advisor.

Rep. Jared Moskowitz hasn't been happy about how stocks have fared under President Donald Trump's new tariff regime. That didn't stop the Florida Democrat from profiting off of it.

According to a new disclosure, the congressman bought the dip, purchasing between $20,000 and $300,000 in 20 different companies on April 7, when the market was in turmoil and stock prices were low as a result of Trump's April 2 tariff announcement.

Lawmakers are only required to disclose the range of the value of stocks they purchase. Moskowitz disclosed 20 different purchases valued between $1,000 and $15,000.

The same day Moskowitz made those trades, he bemoaned the downturn, asking in a post on X whether it was possible to "bring back the old stock market" like a gene-editing startup brought back the long-extinct dire wolf.

It was a well-timed trade. Two days later, Trump announced a 90-day pause on his "reciprocal" tariffs, and stock prices shot back up.

Moskowitz is the second member of Congress to disclose purchasing a significant amount of stock during the tariff-induced early April dip in the market. Others could do so before the end of the month: Lawmakers have 30-45 days to report their stock trades.

For weeks, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene was the only member of Congress known to have bought the dip. She purchased tens of thousands of dollars in stock on April 2, April 8, and April 9.

Democrats have insinuated that the Georgia Republican may have known about Trump's April 9 announcement and engaged in a form of insider trading. Greene has denied any wrongdoing, saying that her stocks are managed by a financial advisor who made a smart trade.

As a Democrat, Moskowitz is unlikely to have had prior knowledge of Trump's planning around tariffs, but his colleagues have criticized the practice of trading off the tariff turmoil in general.

"We're here to be public servants," Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York told BI in April. "And frankly, I don't care if Democrats did it. I don't care if Republicans did it. We're not here to feed at the trough."

A spokesperson for Moskowitz told BI in an email on Monday that all of the congressman's trades are also "managed by an outside third-party financial advisor." The Florida Democrat recently signed onto the TRUST in Congress Act, a bipartisan bill that would require lawmakers to either divest from their stock holdings or place them into a blind trust.

The spokesperson also noted that Moskowitz has cosponsored legislation to reclaim congressional authority over tariffs.

Moskowitz's April 7 purchase included shares of companies like Amazon, Lockheed Martin, NVIDIA, and Oracle. The congressman also disclosed selling between $1,000 and $15,000 apiece in Lincoln Electric Holdings and NextEra Energy that same day.

The movement to ban lawmakers from trading stocks has picked up steam in recent weeks. Trump said he would sign a bill to ban stock trading on Capitol Hill, and Democratic leaders in particular have begun to lean into the issue.

House Speaker Mike Johnson recently said he was "open to the conversation," but declined to fully back the idea.

• Mike Johnson says he's "open to the conversation" about banning stock trading in Congress.
• That doesn't mean it's going to happen anytime soon.
• Here's where things currently stand.

You may have heard this story before: The Speaker of the House is open to the idea of banning members of Congress from trading stocks, but it's not exactly clear whether it will happen.

That's where we were three years ago, when then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi — after initially causing a firestorm by rejecting the idea — told reporters that she was "okay with that" if that's what her colleagues wanted to do.

That's where we are again, with Speaker Mike Johnson telling NPR earlier this month that he's "open to the conversation."

"It's been talked about for quite some time," Johnson observed. "But there's probably a reason that the bill hasn't moved in all those years because there's never been a consensus built around it."

Johnson is correct. Despite the broad popularity of banning members of Congress from trading stocks — along with renewed interest driven by scrutiny of recent trades made by lawmakers like Republican Reps. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia and Rob Bresnahan of Pennsylvania — the task of actually passing a bill to do it has never been straightforward.

As of now, there are several proposals in both chambers that would address the issue, and each one is a little bit different. There's the question of whether spouses should be included in a ban. There are differing views about the feasibility of using blind trusts. And if someone violates the rules, what should be the punishment?

These are all solvable questions, and during the last Congress, a group of senators with dueling bills managed to come together around a common proposal. But we're in a new Congress now, and lawmakers have largely returned to introducing their own bills.

It's also a matter of prioritization.

Sure, politicians ranging from President Donald Trump, to House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, to Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, to Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri all support the idea. But it's ultimately up to GOP leaders like Johnson and Senate Minority Leader John Thune — who told NPR that the current rules around stock trading disclosures are "pretty good" already — to decide it's an issue worth taking up.

In the meantime, they're spending most of their time trying to muscle through a sweeping fiscal bill that's set to include changes to the tax code and spending cuts.

Even if Johnson and Thune decide it's important, success isn't guaranteed.

In 2022, Pelosi and House Democratic leaders ultimately did move towards a vote on banning members of Congress from trading stocks, only to yank the bill due to internal opposition.

This year, it may take pressure from Johnson's right flank to spur Congress to action.

"It's been sitting out there for three or four years, we kind of keep dragging feet, and it's time to deal with it," Republican Rep. Chip Roy of Texas told BI in January.

• Trump said on Friday that the GOP "should probably not" raise taxes on the rich.
• He argued that if they did so, Democrats would use it against them.
• Democrats have long supported raising taxes on the wealthy.

President Donald Trump says he'd be fine raising taxes on rich people like him, but he's still warning his party not to do it.

In a Truth Social post on Friday morning, Trump said that Republicans "should probably not" increase taxes on the wealthy, but said he's "OK if they do!!!"

Trump's missive came one day after multiple outlets reported that he had urged House Speaker Mike Johnson to create a new tax bracket for those making more than $2.5 million per year, raising the rate they pay from 37% to 39.6%.

Republicans on Capitol Hill are currently working on a sweeping bill that will include changes to the tax code and cuts to government spending.

Trump suggested that Democrats would try to make Republicans pay politically for a tax hike on the rich, despite the fact that Democrats have generally long supported increasing taxes on the wealthy.

The president referenced President George H.W. Bush's 1988 pledge not to raise taxes, which he ultimately broke during a budget negotiation with Congress in 1990.

"The Radical Left Democrat Lunatics would go around screaming, 'Read my lips,' the fabled Quote by George Bush the Elder that is said to have cost him the Election," Trump said, adding: "NO, Ross Perot cost him the Election!"

• It's not just Elon Musk's planned step-back. DOGE-related initiatives are stalling in Congress, too.
• The DOGE caucus hasn't met in months, and the DOGE committee held an off-topic hearing.
• "The DOGE caucus in Congress is dead, it's defunct," one lawmaker said recently.

Everywhere you look in Washington, DOGE is beginning to slow down.

It's not just that Elon Musk is preparing to scale back his involvement in the project and devote more time to Tesla. Nor is it merely that Musk's estimated $2 trillion in cuts to the federal budget have shrunk to less than $200 billion. DOGE-related initiatives on Capitol Hill — where decisions about government spending are ultimately made — are also losing steam.

"That's one of my big frustrations right now," Republican Rep. Tim Burchett of Tennessee told BI. "The president's DOGE agenda is all through executive orders, and not through anything else."

A House caucus established to provide cost-cutting ideas to DOGE has had little interaction with the Trump administration. On Wednesday, a House panel created to support government efficiency efforts held a hearing on transgender athletes in fencing. And plans to vote on making DOGE cuts permanent have stalled as well.

Despite the shock and awe of Musk's first several weeks in government, time has shown that DOGE is still subject to the laws of political gravity. Musk has become unpopular, DOGE has faced massive blowback from the public, and Tesla — the source of most of Musk's wealth — has become the target of protests.

The substance of Musk's project is also at risk. Though Congress has largely taken a backseat to the executive branch in the initial months of President Donald Trump's term, the legislative branch will have to act to ensure that any changes made by DOGE aren't reversible by the next administration.

'We're not even going to call it the DOGE subcommittee anymore'

For months, the House Oversight Subcommittee on Delivering on Government Efficiency — aka, the DOGE subcommittee — has been the main forum for Republicans and Democrats to hash out DOGE-related topics in a public forum. It's held hearings on improper payments, USAID, funding for NPR and PBS, and whether the federal government should downsize its real estate portfolio.

On Wednesday, the subcommittee departed from that course, holding a hearing on transgender athletes participating in fencing competitions.

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia, the chairwoman of the subcommittee, said ahead of the hearing that the topic was tied to government efficiency because Trump signed an executive order aimed at barring transgender women from competing in women's sports.

During the hearing, several Democrats on the committee argued that the hearing was off-topic.

"We're not even going to call it the DOGE subcommittee anymore. This is called the fencing oversight committee," Rep. Melanie Stansbury of New Mexico, the top Democrat on the panel, said mockingly. "Welcome to the fencing oversight committee."

Republicans on the subcommittee largely demurred when asked about the apparent off-topic nature of the hearing. "Yeah, I don't know," Burchett said. "You know, people are concerned about it."

Meanwhile, the House DOGE caucus — a bipartisan group that boasts nearly 80 members — has been far less active than originally envisioned. Leaders told BI in January that the group planned to release a report at the end of the first quarter that compiled cost-saving suggestions for the White House and Musk.

But the group hasn't met in months, and Republican Rep. Blake Moore of Utah, one of the group's three co-chairs, told BI that the plans for a report had been delayed.

"There just hasn't been a lot of interaction with us and the administration," Moore said.

Rep. Jared Moskowitz of Florida, one of a handful of Democrats who had joined the group, went even further in a recent CNN interview. "The DOGE caucus in Congress is dead, it's defunct," Moskowitz said. "It met twice, I was there, it never met again. They weren't included in any conversations."

As of now, Moore said, members have been left waiting for the White House to submit a request asking Congress to withdraw funding that lawmakers had previously approved, known as a "rescission."

The administration had planned to ask lawmakers to cut funding for USAID, NPR, and PBS, according to various reports. But now that's also been put on hold, and the White House did not respond to a request for comment on when the recission request would be made.

"Our focus is just, at this point, going to be on what rescissions ultimately come," Moore said. "But there's been a major delay in that, so it's kind of waiting to see what legislative action happens."

• In a new interview, Bill Gates criticized both Elon Musk and DOGE.
• The Microsoft cofounder said that DOGE is "geographically illiterate."
• He said that Musk was "involved in the deaths of the world's poorest children" by cutting USAID.

Bill Gates sharply criticized Elon Musk in an interview with The New York Times published on Thursday, calling out the Tesla cofounder's role in cutting foreign aid as part of his Department of Government Efficiency initiative.

The Microsoft cofounder said that cuts made to foreign aid, particular programs administered by the now-shuttered US Agency for International Development, were "stunning."

"He's the one who cut the USAID budget. He put it in the wood chipper, because he didn't go to a party that weekend," Gates told the Times of Musk. "The world's richest man has been involved in the deaths of the world's poorest children."

Gates also referred to an instance early in President Donald Trump's term in which administration officials said that the US had been sending condoms to Gaza via foreign aid. In reality, the US had been providing contraceptives to a province in the African country of Mozambique.

"They cut the money to Gaza Province in Mozambique. That is really for drugs, so mothers don't give their babies HIV," Gates said. "But the people doing the cutting are so geographically illiterate, they think it's Gaza and condoms. Will they go meet those babies who got HIV because that money was cut? Probably not."

Gates made the remarks as he discussed his plans to give away the remainder of his wealth over the next 20 years before closing his foundation in 2045.

The Gates Foundation has invested heavily in public health initiatives around the world, often focusing on childhood diseases.

This isn't the first time Gates has been critical of Musk — or vice versa.

Gates has argued that Musk has destabilized the politics of foreign countries through his support for right-wing causes in the United Kingdom and Germany. He's also said that while he believes Tesla is having a positive environmental impact, he wishes Musk were more outspoken about the climate crisis.

Musk, in turn, has said that Gates has a "limited" understanding of artificial intelligence.

Musk, DOGE, Tesla, and the White House did not respond to requests for comment from Business Insider.

• In a hearing on Wednesday, Democrats suggested that Marjorie Taylor Greene engaged in insider trading.
• It caused the hearing to be suspended for 20 minutes.
• Greene's trades during the April tariff dip have drawn scrutiny from Democrats.

Democrats suggested that Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene engaged in insider trading at a House hearing on Wednesday, derailing the proceedings for roughly 20 minutes.

The DOGE subcommittee, which is chaired by the Georgia Republican, was holding a hearing on transgender athletes competing in fencing and other sports.

As Democrats on the panel criticized Greene, two of them — Reps. Greg Casar and Jasmine Crockett, both of Texas — brought up recent stock trades made by the congresswoman.

"We're here because Chairwoman Marjorie Taylor Greene thinks that if she picks on vulnerable people like trans folks, she can avoid having a discussion about the allegations of insider trading against her," Casar said.

Greene purchased tens of thousands of dollars in stock in an array of companies between April 2 and 9, when President Donald Trump's tariff announcement and subsequent pause led to large shifts in the stock market. The congresswoman has maintained that the trades were made by an independent financial advisor.

"That's something that my portfolio manager does for me, and he did a great job," the congresswoman told the Georgia Recorder last month. "Guess what he did? He bought the dip."

Democrats have argued that Greene and other Republicans close to Trump may have known about the president's tariff moves ahead of time, allowing them to profit from non-public information.

When Crockett brought up Greene's trades, she displayed a poster featuring the congresswoman's face.

"Let's look at fraud," Crockett said. "We could investigate whether the White House and members of this subcommittee engaged in insider trading and market manipulation. Maybe it's a coincidence that the chairwoman brought hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of stock the day before Trump announced a 90-day pause on tariffs, but I guess we'll never know."

Republican Rep. Nancy Mace of South Carolina then asked to take Crockett's words down, saying the Texas congresswoman was "alleging a criminal act." That led to the committee suspending its business to review Crockett's remarks.

Eventually, Greene called the meeting back to order.

The Georgia Republican asked Mace to withdraw her motion, saying the Texas Democrat's remarks were "borderline" and that it was important to move on "in the interest of making sure that we stay on track, instead of getting sidetracked by Democrats' non-stop fake accusations."

• Donald Trump is blaming Joe Biden for the state of the stock market.
• For now, his GOP allies on Capitol Hill are playing along.
• "That will work now," one Republican senator said. "It won't work six months from now."

Donald Trump says the state of the stock market, more than 100 days into his presidency, is his predecessor's fault. For now, his GOP allies on Capitol Hill are playing along.

"That will work now," Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina told reporters. "It won't work six months from now."

Stocks fell significantly on Wednesday following the news that for the first time in three years, the US economy is contracting. In the first three months of 2025, US real gross domestic product fell at an annualized rate of 0.3%, compared with 2.4% growth in the final quarter of 2024.

That led Trump to blame former President Joe Biden. "This is Biden's Stock Market, not Trump's," the president wrote on Truth Social. "Our Country will boom, but we have to get rid of the Biden 'Overhang.'"

It's not the first time that a president — rightly or wrongly — has blamed their predecessor for the state of the economy.

But it's particularly hard for Trump to blame Biden for the state of the stock market, given that the president's tariff policies have caused rapid fluctuations in the market in recent weeks.

Trump also sought credit when stocks were performing well under Biden in early 2024, arguing that investors were expecting him to win.

In the midst of a dip in the stock market at the beginning of April, Sen. John Kennedy of Louisiana vigorously agreed with a CNN interviewer that Trump is responsible for the economy.

"There's no question," Kennedy said on April 7. "I think once he decided to add the tariffs, clearly, I mean, he will be held responsible, as he should, whether it turns out good or it turns out badly."

On Wednesday, Kennedy stopped short of reaffirming his prior statement. But he did say that higher imports, driven in part by businesses trying to get ahead of Trump's tariffs, may have led to a lower GDP number.

"When you make the changes to our trading system that are this dramatic, you're not going to really know the impact on your economy for four to six months," Kennedy said.

That leads to the question of when, exactly, a president can no longer reasonably attribute the state of the economy to his predecessor.

For Trump, it may be another three months. "You could even say the next quarter is sort of Biden," the president said at a Cabinet meeting later on Wednesday.

Most GOP senators who spoke with BI declined to provide a specific timeframe for when Trump should assume full responsibility for the state of the economy, though Sen. Bernie Moreno of Ohio offered that it would take about two years for Trump's new policies to fully make their mark.

"You typically judge a president after about two years," Moreno said. "It takes time. It takes more than 100 days."

"I think Joe Biden and the Democrats did enormous damage to the economy for four years," Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas told BI. "It takes longer than a couple of months to turn that around."

• The Senate almost passed a resolution to block Trump's April 2 tariffs.
• It was a symbolic vote. The House isn't taking it up, and Trump would veto it.
• Still, the vote highlighted opposition to Trump's tariffs within the GOP.

The Senate barely defeated a resolution on Wednesday to block President Donald Trump's tariff policies, which would have been a symbolic blow to his sweeping tariffs on foreign imports.

If the resolution had become law, it would've terminated the national emergency that Trump declared on April 2 — dubbed "Liberation Day" by the president — which allowed him to enact a 10% tariff on most foreign imports and additional "reciprocal" tariffs on dozens of countries.

The additional tariffs have been paused for 90 days, and the administration has said that it's negotiating with various countries to change their trade policies.

The House wasn't expected to take up the resolution after Republicans passed a rule that specifically blocks this type of resolution until the end of September. Trump would've also likely vetoed the resolution if it reached his desk.

The 49-49 deadlocked vote nonetheless highlighted, for the second time in one month, that Trump's trade agenda does not have majority support in the upper chamber.

The resolution would likely have passed if not for the absences of Democratic Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island and Republican Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, both of whom oppose Trump's tariff policies.

Three GOP senators joined Democrats in voting for the resolution, including:

• Sen. Susan Collins of Maine
• Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska
• Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky

Those three GOP senators, along with McConnell, voted for a resolution earlier this month to block Trump from imposing tariffs on Canada.

Separately, seven GOP senators have signed onto a bill to limit Trump's tariff powers. The bill requires Congress to approve any new tariffs within 60 days of their enactment.

Several other Republicans who have not signed onto that bill have also been critical of Trump's tariffs, warning that they could lead to higher prices and significant economic damage in the long run.

Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas has warned that tariffs could make even domestically manufactured cars much more expensive, citing conversations with a Big Three auto manufacturer, while Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin told BI that the tariffs are bringing "a massive amount of disruption" for businesses.

• House Speaker Mike Johnson said he doesn't use Signal, an encrypted messaging app.
• "A lot of them text," Johnson said of his GOP colleagues. "That's our main means of communication."
• He jokes that his texts are "probably being monitored by the Russians."

House Speaker Mike Johnson said on Wednesday that he doesn't use Signal, telling an interviewer that he's in "zero" chats on the encrypted messaging app.

Instead, Johnson said, he primarily communicates via regular text messages.

"I get about 400 a day literally just from members," Johnson said at an Axios News Shapers event in Washington, DC. "A lot of them text. That's our main means of communication."

He added, jokingly: "Probably being monitored by the Russians, for all I know."

Signal is an popular messaging app that uses end-to-end encryption to keep text messages secure, preventing third parties — including foreign governments — from being able to read messages.

While Apple's iMessage also uses end-to-end encryption, regular SMS text messages are generally not encrypted, leaving them vulnerable to hacking.

Signal was at the center of a recent scandal in Washington, when Atlantic Editor-in-Chief Jeffrey Goldberg was mistakenly added to a chat on the platform in which Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, National Security Advisor Mike Waltz, Vice President JD Vance, and other Trump administration officials discussed upcoming strikes in Yemen.

Trump recently discouraged members of his administration from using the app following the incident.

"If you want to know the truth. I would frankly tell these people not to use Signal, although it's been used by a lot of people," Trump told The Atlantic. "But, whatever it is, whoever has it, whoever owns it, I wouldn't want to use it."

• Amazon is denying that it ever planned to display tariff costs on its website.
• That didn't stop it from becoming a political issue.
• The White House decried the idea, while Chuck Schumer called on other companies to do the same.

Amazon says it never planned to display how much tariffs are contributing to the price of goods on its main website, despite Punchbowl News reporting earlier on Tuesday that the e-commerce giant planned to do so.

But the company's denial didn't come quickly enough to prevent powerful political figures from trying to capitalize on the report.

The White House press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, called the idea a "hostile and political act," saying Amazon should have displayed cost increases caused by inflation during then-President Joe Biden's term.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, meanwhile, publicly called on other companies to do the same in remarks on the Senate floor.

"To the large businesses that sell to consumers, I say: Show your customers how much tariffs are hurting in their pocketbooks," he said. "People deserve to know the impact tariffs have on their finances."

Doing so, Schumer said, would generate public pressure that would give companies a "chance to get rid of these tariffs, which are so stultifying their ability to move forward."

Meanwhile, Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia, after initially decrying the reported move, said that it would at least help consumers more easily see which goods are imported from abroad and allow them to buy American-made goods.

CNN reported President Donald Trump called Amazon's founder, Jeff Bezos, to complain. The Amazon founder has become closer to Trump in recent months, including occasionally dining with the president.

Even if Amazon doesn't plan to display the cost of tariffs on its website, the prospect of an e-commerce giant doing so helped reignite what's become a fierce debate in Washington.

On Capitol Hill, Democrats are nearly unanimously opposed to Trump's tariffs. A handful of Republicans have also spoken out, and seven GOP senators have signed on to a bill to limit the president's tariff powers.

Earlier this month, the Senate passed a resolution to block Trump from imposing tariffs on goods from Canada, though the measure has no path to becoming law.

"I don't think I have advice for companies about whether they should show a tariff tax or anything like that," Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia told Business Insider on Tuesday.

But he said that companies "being candid about the effect" of tariffs could spur a change in policy, even as some companies fear retaliation or hope to secure exemptions.

"Nobody wants to be out there trashing the tariffs and then applying for an exception because they're so worried Trump will retaliate against them," Kaine said. "That speaks volumes about where we are in our politics right now."

Peter Cohan, associate professor of management at Babson College and a venture capitalist, told BI that the pricing transparency could help "customers understand why prices were going up."

"Now," Cohan said, "customers will have less information for deciding whether Amazon is more efficient than its rivals."

• The idea of banning members of Congress from trading stocks is popular in both parties.
• It doesn't hurt that each party has a villain in the other party that they can point toward.
• For Republicans, it's Nancy Pelosi. For Democrats, it's Marjorie Taylor Greene.

It's one of those issues that seems to have broad bipartisan appeal: banning members of Congress (and their spouses) from trading stocks.

Spurred by concerns that lawmakers might be trading on non-public information, polling has consistently shown that majorities of both Democrats and Republicans want to ban congressional stock trading. Though it's mostly Democratic members of Congress who have cosponsored bills to clamp down on the practice, it's not hard to find Republicans who agree, including President Donald Trump.

But it's not just about ethics. It's also about politics.

Good, old-fashioned partisanship has long helped grease the wheels of the effort to ban stock trading on Capitol Hill. It helps to identify an enemy on the other side of the aisle, and each party has done so.

For Republicans, it's long been Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi, whose husband, Paul, is a prolific stock trader. "I watched Nancy Pelosi get rich through insider information," Trump recently told TIME, saying he would "absolutely" sign a stock trading ban into law.

For Democrats, it's now Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia, who recently bought up stocks during a tariff-induced dip. "So many of these people are crooks, liars, and frauds, and Marjorie Taylor Greene is of course, Exhibit A," House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries said on MSNBC earlier this month. "We do need to change the law so that sitting members of Congress cannot trade stock."

Greene and Pelosi have long been boogeymen — or perhaps "boogeywomen" — for the other party. That both are now associated with controversial stock trading practices only makes it easy to each side to turn a more high-minded argument about ethics into cracking down on perceived malfeasance by the other side.

And in both cases, the reality is more complex than the messaging suggestions.

It's Pelosi's husband who owns and trades stock, and in a statement for this story, Pelosi spokesman Ian Krager said that the former speaker owns no stocks herself and "has no prior knowledge or subsequent involvement in any transactions." Still, it was her initial opposition to a stock trading ban that generated significant momentum for a stock trading ban years ago, leading her to change her position.

Greene, meanwhile, says she also isn't making stock trades herself. "That's something that my portfolio manager does for me, and he did a great job," the congresswoman told the Georgia Recorder recently. "Guess what he did? He bought the dip."

Nonetheless, Greene is now the one who's helped generate calls for a stock trading ban once more, with Democrats insisting that the prominent Trump ally may have been clued in to Trump's plans to pause tariffs, which she has denied.

Meanwhile, Pelosi has not disclosed any trades made by her husband since January, let alone during the recent stock market dip.

That doesn't mean Republicans are giving up the former speaker as a foil.

On Monday, Republican Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri told Fox News that he planned to reintroduce the "Preventing Elected Leaders from Owning Securities and Investments Act" — otherwise known as the PELOSI Act.

• Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene is one of the more frequent stock traders in Congress.
• Just before Trump's tariff pause sent markets soaring, she bought thousands of dollars in stock.
• Democrats have speculated that some Trump allies may have benefited from market manipulation.

In the hours before President Donald Trump announced a 90-day partial pause on a slew of new tariffs on foreign goods, he said on social media that it was a "great time to buy."

One of his loudest allies in Congress was already poised to benefit.

A disclosure made public on Monday said Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene poured between $21,000 and $315,000 into the stock market on Tuesday and Wednesday, investing in 17 companies, including Apple, Elon Musk's Tesla, Nvidia, and Palantir.

Members of Congress are only required to disclose the ranges of their purchases — Greene made 21 different stock purchases, each valued between $1,000 and $15,000.

Trump's tariff pause announcement sent markets soaring on Wednesday, and anyone who purchased stocks in the final hours or days before Trump's post would have seen significant gains on paper.

Greene has said that she doesn't control her trades, telling Business Insider in a statement on Friday that she signed a "fiduciary agreement to allow my financial advisor to control my investments."

"All of my investments are reported with full transparency," Greene added.

The congresswoman's office did not respond to a follow-up question on Monday about whether she had advanced knowledge of Trump's tariff pause. In the wake of the market rebound, Democrats have suggested that Trump and his allies may have benefited from market manipulation.

There is no evidence to suggest this took place, but more could emerge from disclosures in the coming weeks. Members of Congress and executive branch officials are required to file disclosures within 45 days of making a transaction.

So far, Greene is the only member of Congress known to have bought stocks after markets tanked following Trump's initial "Liberation Day" tariff announcements. On top of these latest trades, Greene invested up to $285,000 in 17 companies on April 3 and 4.