This AI just exposed the BIGGEST legal insider trading operation in America.
A platform called GovGreed built a seven-layer machine learning system that cross-references every stock trade disclosed by every sitting politician against the bills their committees control, the receive, and the companies their votes directly impact.
It scored all 540 politicians currently in Congress. And the numbers are crazy:
56% of every stock purchase made by Congress in the last 16 months was on a stock directly affected by a bill the buyer later voted on. That is 6,170 out of 11,016 total purchases.
More than HALF of all congressional stock buys are on companies whose fate that same politician is about to decide.
343 of 540 Congress members actively trade stocks while holding access to nonpublic legislative information.
That is 63.8% of the entire legislature making market bets with an informational edge that would put any hedge fund manager in prison.
The AI identified 752 active "Triple Signals" in the current Congress. A Triple Signal fires when three conditions line up at once:
The politician sits on the committee controlling a bill, they traded stock in a company affected by that bill, AND they received campaign contributions from that same industry.
Bills carrying these insider indicators pass at 5.4 TIMES the normal rate.
Now look at the individual leaderboard:
Nancy Pelosi's estimated portfolio sits at $194 million with a Greediness score of 98.1 out of 100
Ro Khanna made 13,231 trades across 800+ different tickers
Michael McCaul made 32,302 trades and filed 6,670 of them late
Thomas Suozzi filed 86.4% of his trades late with an average delay of 396 days, meaning his disclosures landed over a YEAR after he made the trade
And then there is Lisa McClain, the fourth-ranking Republican in the House. She has made 1,443 trades in three years, more than 98% of all politicians tracked.
She violated the STOCK Act twice in a single year, disclosing up to $900,000 in trades months after the legal deadline. Her husband bought up to $250,000 in Elon Musk's xAI, which quietly converted into SpaceX equity before last Friday's $2 trillion IPO.
The penalty for all of this? A $200 fine.
The number of Congress members ever prosecuted under the STOCK Act since it passed in 2012? Zero.
And the cruelest part is this:
A bill to ban congressional stock trading was introduced in January 2026. It has bipartisan support. Over 80% of American voters want it passed.
But Congress is sitting on it, because the people who would have to vote yes are the same people making millions from the system staying exactly the way it is.
They write the insider trading laws, they exempt themselves from enforcement, they trade on the information those laws generate, and when they get caught, they pay a fine that is basically nothing.
The AI didn't discover anything Congress was hiding. It just organized what was already public into a pattern so obvious that nobody can pretend it isn't there anymore.
Between raising money , grifting stock money and fucking whatever they can get to stand still long enough , NO WONDER they don't have time to read the Corporate Lobbyists bills.
Not sure I want them effing up real estate further as an alternative.
They should just be allowed to only invest in special congressional index funds tied to things like median citizen income, etc, and which they pay into should be published and only modifiable in the September before the election. Would be worth Uncle Sam paying out a tiny bit more by running the index.
If we’re being honest and actually using the same GovGreed/AI data for a real leaderboard, President Trump would smoke everyone on it and take the top spot by a HUGE margin.
Pelosi’s $194 million portfolio with that 98.1 greediness score? Trump’s Q1 2026 trades alone were worth between $220 million and $750 million in transaction volume. That's more money moved in three months than a lot of these multiyear congressional portfolios.
Ro Khanna’s 13,231 trades across hundreds of tickers? Trump did around 3,600 to 3,711 individual trades in that same first quarter (like 40-60 trades every single market day).
McCaul with his 32k trades and thousands filed late, or Suozzi with the crazy delay percentages? Trump’s pace in just 90 days beats most of their highlights, and he had the usual late filing fines too (that classic $200 penalty).
And Lisa McClain’s 1,443 trades over three years putting her in the top 98%? Trump’s Q1 alone was 2.5 times her ENTIRE three year total.
This all comes straight from the public STOCK Act disclosures. Office of Government Ethics filings, Quiver Quantitative’s Trump tracker, etc...
But that's a different metric than the one being discussed.
The original claim wasn't about percentage wealth growth. It was about trading activity, potential conflicts of interest, and access to information.
If we're switching from "possible insider advantages" to "percentage increase in net worth," then we're talking about something different entirely.
You're moving the goalposts here.
The original post wasn't comparing percentages, it was implying guilt based on the sheer amount of trades. If we were comparing apples to apples, then Trump would definitely be implicated as guilty as everyone else in the OP was.
Whether someone is good at making money isn't really the issue being discussed.
The concern raised by the post is whether government officials are trading while possessing information unavailable to ordinary investors.
A person's business success doesn't answer that question one way or the other.
I'll also point out that other people are using the defense that Trump isn't personally making the trades himself. But you seem to be doubling down on him personally using the knowledge he has to make money. That's interesting.
Fair point; which brings up point is it accurately weighted. In other words what metrics go into determining what insider trading is? Based on what I'm seeing here has more to do with quantitative volume/transactions and less to do with qualitative "insider information" which is obviously more of a gray area metric.
Still, we would all agree much more oversight needed as clearly there are advantages for those privy to info. I will say this have a family member who is "restricted" on purchasing many different securities based on his role (quite frankly very limited as to what he can purchase). The same rules should apply to those in Congress and/or limit them to ETF's and boring mutual funds as opposed to individual stocks where manipulation can potentially occur.
Yes, I agree 100% that more oversight is needed. Anyone that has insider info that benefits them over the rest of the population when it comes to trades and such should definitely face much higher scrutiny and regulations.
That's why the Van Dyke case is interesting.
A Special Forces soldier was arrested for using nonpublic information about the Maduro operation to place bets before the public knew what was coming and made a ton of money.
The government's position was simple, if you use privileged information unavailable to the public to make money, that's insider trading.
The only question is whether we're applying that same principle consistently when the people involved are politicians instead of soldiers.
I firmly believe in having ONE set of standards that are applied consistently to EVERYONE. Politicians or Soldiers, Democrats or Republicans, Congress or the White House, etc. Otherwise it's just picking and choosing when to apply standards, and that's what hypocrites do.
People seem to think this govgreed site shows similar activity by the President, so I asked Grok:
"Separate Context on Trump:
Trump's own financial disclosures (via OGE) have drawn scrutiny in 2026 for high-volume trading in his trust accounts — thousands of transactions (e.g., 3,700+ in Q1) involving tech, defense, and policy-sensitive stocks. Critics (including in hearings with Elizabeth Warren) have raised conflict-of-interest questions, especially given timing with policy announcements.
pbs.org
However:The Trump Organization states these are discretionary accounts managed by independent third-party firms with no input from Trump or his family.
pbs.org
Presidents are not covered by the same STOCK Act enforcement mechanisms as Congress (though broader ethics rules apply).
Trump has publicly supported bans on congressional stock trading (e.g., in State of the Union remarks).
finance.yahoo.com
Bottom line: The post is strictly about congressional trading patterns. It does not reference or implicate Trump. Separate debates exist about presidential disclosures, but they're outside this specific GovGreed/congressional analysis."
I looked deeper, and the cleanest answer is that Trump’s accounts absolutely were actively trading in 2026. The filings show thousands of transactions in Q1 alone, worth hundreds of millions in disclosed value ranges.
But that does not automatically mean Trump personally picked the trades.
The Trump Organization’s defense is that the accounts were fully discretionary, managed by independent third party institutions, with no input or advance notice to Trump, his family, or the company.
That matters, because “Trump’s accounts traded” and “Trump personally directed trades” are not the same claim.
That said, the concern does NOT disappear. The assets still benefit Trump, and his trust is not a true blind trust. So the stronger argument is not “Trump was sitting there day-trading.” The stronger argument is “a sitting president retained beneficial ownership of actively traded individual securities while making policy decisions that could affect those securities.”
So if we are comparing him to Congress, we need to keep the mechanism straight:
Congress issue: lawmakers personally or family linked trading while voting on bills and sitting on committees.
Trump issue: presidential beneficial ownership of actively traded assets in a non blind trust, with policy power over markets.
Both can be conflict of jnterest problems, but they are not identical fact patterns.
But be honest, if it was Obama or Biden instead of Trump in this situation, would you still be fine with it?
I'll also point out that members of Congress aren't day trading themselves and have similar third parties that handle their trades amd use the exact same argument that third parties handle their trades. If they're able to influence their trades, such as implied by the OP, then obviously President Trump has the same opportunity since his concerns are not held in a blind trust, as is the norm when Presidents enter office.
Either the possibility of influence matters, or it doesn't. The same principle should be applied consistently. Congress or the President. Same standards should apply for everyone.
I'm not saying that there isn't a lot of insider trading going on in congress, because obviously there is.
But before anyone starts running off to try to redpill normies or anything using this info, might want to take a peek at what it says about President Trump's trades/investments.
Did Trump actually make any trades or investments at all? I thought all his stuff had been taken out of his personal control while serving as president.
White house is immune from prosecution by the executive, crazy old lady. The people kicking president out is the first way to go after a president, and the people made their choice. Impeachment followed by conviction is the second way, and it isn't happening.
What does the video have to do with the tweet though?
u/#chiefwarren
Copy Pasta Alfredo:
This AI just exposed the BIGGEST legal insider trading operation in America.
A platform called GovGreed built a seven-layer machine learning system that cross-references every stock trade disclosed by every sitting politician against the bills their committees control, the receive, and the companies their votes directly impact.
It scored all 540 politicians currently in Congress. And the numbers are crazy:
56% of every stock purchase made by Congress in the last 16 months was on a stock directly affected by a bill the buyer later voted on. That is 6,170 out of 11,016 total purchases.
More than HALF of all congressional stock buys are on companies whose fate that same politician is about to decide.
343 of 540 Congress members actively trade stocks while holding access to nonpublic legislative information.
That is 63.8% of the entire legislature making market bets with an informational edge that would put any hedge fund manager in prison.
The AI identified 752 active "Triple Signals" in the current Congress. A Triple Signal fires when three conditions line up at once:
The politician sits on the committee controlling a bill, they traded stock in a company affected by that bill, AND they received campaign contributions from that same industry.
Bills carrying these insider indicators pass at 5.4 TIMES the normal rate.
Now look at the individual leaderboard:
And then there is Lisa McClain, the fourth-ranking Republican in the House. She has made 1,443 trades in three years, more than 98% of all politicians tracked.
She violated the STOCK Act twice in a single year, disclosing up to $900,000 in trades months after the legal deadline. Her husband bought up to $250,000 in Elon Musk's xAI, which quietly converted into SpaceX equity before last Friday's $2 trillion IPO.
The penalty for all of this? A $200 fine.
The number of Congress members ever prosecuted under the STOCK Act since it passed in 2012? Zero.
And the cruelest part is this:
A bill to ban congressional stock trading was introduced in January 2026. It has bipartisan support. Over 80% of American voters want it passed.
But Congress is sitting on it, because the people who would have to vote yes are the same people making millions from the system staying exactly the way it is.
They write the insider trading laws, they exempt themselves from enforcement, they trade on the information those laws generate, and when they get caught, they pay a fine that is basically nothing.
The AI didn't discover anything Congress was hiding. It just organized what was already public into a pattern so obvious that nobody can pretend it isn't there anymore.
Between raising money , grifting stock money and fucking whatever they can get to stand still long enough , NO WONDER they don't have time to read the Corporate Lobbyists bills.
Okay, now do the executive.
Not sure I want them effing up real estate further as an alternative.
They should just be allowed to only invest in special congressional index funds tied to things like median citizen income, etc, and which they pay into should be published and only modifiable in the September before the election. Would be worth Uncle Sam paying out a tiny bit more by running the index.
They're already laundering money through real estate... just look at Schiffty
This kicks some butt. I'll ask the mods for a sticky.
Congress Trades on Inside Knowledge. We Have the Receipts. https://www.govgreed.com
If we’re being honest and actually using the same GovGreed/AI data for a real leaderboard, President Trump would smoke everyone on it and take the top spot by a HUGE margin.
Pelosi’s $194 million portfolio with that 98.1 greediness score? Trump’s Q1 2026 trades alone were worth between $220 million and $750 million in transaction volume. That's more money moved in three months than a lot of these multiyear congressional portfolios.
Ro Khanna’s 13,231 trades across hundreds of tickers? Trump did around 3,600 to 3,711 individual trades in that same first quarter (like 40-60 trades every single market day).
McCaul with his 32k trades and thousands filed late, or Suozzi with the crazy delay percentages? Trump’s pace in just 90 days beats most of their highlights, and he had the usual late filing fines too (that classic $200 penalty).
And Lisa McClain’s 1,443 trades over three years putting her in the top 98%? Trump’s Q1 alone was 2.5 times her ENTIRE three year total.
This all comes straight from the public STOCK Act disclosures. Office of Government Ethics filings, Quiver Quantitative’s Trump tracker, etc...
Do it as a percentage of wealth when he entered office, and I bet he drops off.
But that's a different metric than the one being discussed.
The original claim wasn't about percentage wealth growth. It was about trading activity, potential conflicts of interest, and access to information.
If we're switching from "possible insider advantages" to "percentage increase in net worth," then we're talking about something different entirely.
You're moving the goalposts here.
The original post wasn't comparing percentages, it was implying guilt based on the sheer amount of trades. If we were comparing apples to apples, then Trump would definitely be implicated as guilty as everyone else in the OP was.
Breaking News!
Billionaire knows how to make money!
In other news, same man makes Trillions for his country!
/s
Whether someone is good at making money isn't really the issue being discussed.
The concern raised by the post is whether government officials are trading while possessing information unavailable to ordinary investors.
A person's business success doesn't answer that question one way or the other.
I'll also point out that other people are using the defense that Trump isn't personally making the trades himself. But you seem to be doubling down on him personally using the knowledge he has to make money. That's interesting.
Fair point; which brings up point is it accurately weighted. In other words what metrics go into determining what insider trading is? Based on what I'm seeing here has more to do with quantitative volume/transactions and less to do with qualitative "insider information" which is obviously more of a gray area metric.
Still, we would all agree much more oversight needed as clearly there are advantages for those privy to info. I will say this have a family member who is "restricted" on purchasing many different securities based on his role (quite frankly very limited as to what he can purchase). The same rules should apply to those in Congress and/or limit them to ETF's and boring mutual funds as opposed to individual stocks where manipulation can potentially occur.
Yes, I agree 100% that more oversight is needed. Anyone that has insider info that benefits them over the rest of the population when it comes to trades and such should definitely face much higher scrutiny and regulations.
That's why the Van Dyke case is interesting.
A Special Forces soldier was arrested for using nonpublic information about the Maduro operation to place bets before the public knew what was coming and made a ton of money.
The government's position was simple, if you use privileged information unavailable to the public to make money, that's insider trading.
The only question is whether we're applying that same principle consistently when the people involved are politicians instead of soldiers.
I firmly believe in having ONE set of standards that are applied consistently to EVERYONE. Politicians or Soldiers, Democrats or Republicans, Congress or the White House, etc. Otherwise it's just picking and choosing when to apply standards, and that's what hypocrites do.
People seem to think this govgreed site shows similar activity by the President, so I asked Grok:
"Separate Context on Trump: Trump's own financial disclosures (via OGE) have drawn scrutiny in 2026 for high-volume trading in his trust accounts — thousands of transactions (e.g., 3,700+ in Q1) involving tech, defense, and policy-sensitive stocks. Critics (including in hearings with Elizabeth Warren) have raised conflict-of-interest questions, especially given timing with policy announcements.
pbs.org
However:The Trump Organization states these are discretionary accounts managed by independent third-party firms with no input from Trump or his family.
pbs.org
Presidents are not covered by the same STOCK Act enforcement mechanisms as Congress (though broader ethics rules apply). Trump has publicly supported bans on congressional stock trading (e.g., in State of the Union remarks).
finance.yahoo.com
Bottom line: The post is strictly about congressional trading patterns. It does not reference or implicate Trump. Separate debates exist about presidential disclosures, but they're outside this specific GovGreed/congressional analysis."
I looked deeper, and the cleanest answer is that Trump’s accounts absolutely were actively trading in 2026. The filings show thousands of transactions in Q1 alone, worth hundreds of millions in disclosed value ranges.
But that does not automatically mean Trump personally picked the trades.
The Trump Organization’s defense is that the accounts were fully discretionary, managed by independent third party institutions, with no input or advance notice to Trump, his family, or the company.
That matters, because “Trump’s accounts traded” and “Trump personally directed trades” are not the same claim.
That said, the concern does NOT disappear. The assets still benefit Trump, and his trust is not a true blind trust. So the stronger argument is not “Trump was sitting there day-trading.” The stronger argument is “a sitting president retained beneficial ownership of actively traded individual securities while making policy decisions that could affect those securities.”
So if we are comparing him to Congress, we need to keep the mechanism straight:
Congress issue: lawmakers personally or family linked trading while voting on bills and sitting on committees.
Trump issue: presidential beneficial ownership of actively traded assets in a non blind trust, with policy power over markets.
Both can be conflict of jnterest problems, but they are not identical fact patterns.
But be honest, if it was Obama or Biden instead of Trump in this situation, would you still be fine with it?
I'll also point out that members of Congress aren't day trading themselves and have similar third parties that handle their trades amd use the exact same argument that third parties handle their trades. If they're able to influence their trades, such as implied by the OP, then obviously President Trump has the same opportunity since his concerns are not held in a blind trust, as is the norm when Presidents enter office.
Either the possibility of influence matters, or it doesn't. The same principle should be applied consistently. Congress or the President. Same standards should apply for everyone.
I'm not saying that there isn't a lot of insider trading going on in congress, because obviously there is.
But before anyone starts running off to try to redpill normies or anything using this info, might want to take a peek at what it says about President Trump's trades/investments.
Did Trump actually make any trades or investments at all? I thought all his stuff had been taken out of his personal control while serving as president.
A true blind trust has never been set up for his business interests. His people claim that a third party is responsible for his trades.
But that's the same for many people in Congress. They're not sitting there day-trading themselves.
If they have the opportunity to speak to/influence the people doing their trading, then obviously so does Trump.
White house is immune from prosecution by the executive, crazy old lady. The people kicking president out is the first way to go after a president, and the people made their choice. Impeachment followed by conviction is the second way, and it isn't happening.
What does the video have to do with the tweet though?