Leavitt: ban Congress stock trading Pelosi $174K $413M 70%; Trump & donors $200M build WH ballroom

Three distinct announcements from Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt’s briefing. On the congressional stock-trading ban: “The reason that this idea to put a ban on stock trading for members of Congress is even a thing is because of Nancy Pelosi. I mean she is rightfully criticized because she makes $174,000 a year, yet she has a net worth of approximately $413 million. Nancy Pelosi’s stock portfolio grew 70% in one year in 2024 and her portfolio outperformed every single large hedge fund in that same year and even more than doubled the returns of Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway.” Trump announced new members of the President’s Council on Sports, Fitness, and Nutrition — continuing the MAHA theme with “sports legends of all time.” And construction of a new $200 million White House State Ballroom begins September 2025 — 90,000 square feet, 650-person seated capacity, funded entirely by Trump and private donors with no taxpayer cost.

Pelosi’s Portfolio: “Outperformed Warren Buffett”

Leavitt’s framing of the congressional stock-trading ban. “The reason that this idea to put a ban on stock trading for members of Congress is even a thing is because of Nancy Pelosi.”

That is the political predicate. The stock-trading ban legislation exists because Pelosi’s portfolio performance has been so anomalous that it requires regulatory response. Other members of Congress engage in stock trading. None produce Pelosi’s returns.

“I mean she is is is rightfully criticized because she makes think a hundred and seventy four thousand dollars a year Yet she has a net worth of approximately 413 million in 2024.”

$174,000 annual salary. $413 million net worth. The math does not work without either inheritance (which Pelosi does not have at that scale) or investment returns that are orders of magnitude beyond reasonable expectations for passive investing.

“Nancy Pelosi’s stock portfolio This was a fascinating statistic to me grew 70 percent in one year in 2024 and her portfolio Outperformed every single large hedge fund in that same year and even more than doubled the returns of Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway.”

70% annual return. In a single year. That is an extraordinary performance by any professional-investor standard. Outperforming “every single large hedge fund” — many of which employ hundreds of analysts, proprietary data, and sophisticated quantitative models — is itself a data point requiring explanation.

The Buffett Comparison

“More than doubled the returns of Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway.” Berkshire Hathaway, under Buffett’s direction, has been the standard for long-term investment excellence. Over decades, Buffett has compounded capital at approximately 20% annually. Pelosi’s 70% in 2024 is 3.5 times Buffett’s typical return.

Pelosi is not Buffett. Pelosi does not have Buffett’s infrastructure, team, or analytical framework. Yet her single-year return is multiple times Buffett’s.

The implication: either Pelosi has identified a proprietary edge that sophisticated institutional investors have missed (extremely unlikely), or Pelosi is benefiting from non-public information accessible to her as a senior member of Congress (the political accusation).

“So I think the president stands with the American people on this He doesn’t want to see people like Nancy Pelosi Enriching themselves off of public service and ripping off their constituents in the process.”

“Enriching themselves off of public service” is the framing. Pelosi entered Congress decades ago with modest wealth. She is leaving with hundreds of millions. The gap was accumulated during public service. The suspicion: at least some portion was accumulated through information that should have been held in trust.

“As for the mechanics of the legislation How it will move forward the White House continues to be in discussions with our friends on Capitol Hill.”

Trump has endorsed the concept. The specific mechanism is in negotiation. Leavitt is signaling that legislation will advance.

President’s Council on Sports, Fitness, and Nutrition

Trump pivoted to the MAHA-adjacent announcement. “I’m delighted to be here with some of the truly great Sports legends of all time as we formally announced the newest members of the president’s council and sports fitness and nutrition.”

The President’s Council on Sports, Fitness, and Nutrition (PCSFN) has existed since the Eisenhower administration. It was created in 1956 and has been a vehicle for promoting physical fitness and healthy behaviors through presidential endorsement and public-private partnerships.

“This is an important step in our mission to make America healthy again It’s something that’s very important what we’re doing very important.”

MAHA — Make America Healthy Again. The broader framework that has included HHS Secretary RFK Jr.’s focus on food dyes, childhood disease patterns, and related public-health topics. Revitalizing the PCSFN extends MAHA into physical-fitness and athletic programming.

“Dating back to the administration of President Dwight D. Eisenhower This council has championed the vigor and strength and vitality of the American people.”

That historical framing matters. Eisenhower created the council in response to concerns about American physical-fitness levels compared to international peers during the Cold War era. The concerns that drove Eisenhower — soft American youth, declining military-readiness levels — echo specific MAHA concerns Rollins raised earlier (three out of four kids cannot pass military readiness tests).

White House State Ballroom

The third announcement is architecturally ambitious. “We are proud to announce that the construction of the new White House ballroom will begin for 150 years presidents Administrations and White House staff have longed for a large event space on the White House complex that can hold Substantially more guests than currently allowed.”

150 years of presidential administrations wanting a larger event space. The current East Room of the White House, the largest formal event space in the main building, seats approximately 200 people. Major state dinners require specially-erected tents on the South Lawn.

“President Trump has expressed his commitment to solving this problem on behalf of future Administrations and the American people.”

“Future administrations and the American people” is the framing. The ballroom will serve not just Trump’s administration but every subsequent president. The investment is permanent infrastructure.

”Large and Unsightly Tent”

“The White House is one of the most beautiful and historic buildings in the world Yet the White House is currently unable to host major functions Honoring world leaders in other countries without having to install a large and unsightly tent Approximately 100 yards away from the main buildings entrance.”

That is the operational reality. Every recent presidential administration has used tents on the South Lawn for large state dinners. The tents are practical but aesthetically incongruous with the architectural distinction of the White House itself.

“Large and unsightly” is direct. Trump as a real estate developer would find the tents particularly objectionable. They compromise the visual integrity of state events that are supposed to project American power and dignity.

90,000 Square Feet, 650 People

“The White House State ballroom will be a much needed an exquisite addition of approximately 90,000 total square feet of a neatly designed and carefully crafted space with a succeeded capacity of 650 people which is a significant increase from the 200 person seated capacity in the East Room of the White House.”

90,000 square feet. 650 person seated capacity. That is a significant expansion — roughly triple the East Room’s capacity.

For context: most state dinners host 150-200 guests. A 650-capacity ballroom would accommodate major multilateral summits, full cabinet/congressional events, and larger public receptions. It changes what the White House can host without external infrastructure.

McCreary Architects and Clark Construction

“In Recent weeks President Trump has held several meetings with members of the White House staff the National Park Park Service the White House Military Office and the United States Secret Service to discuss design features and planning.”

Multi-agency coordination. National Park Service (which administers White House grounds). White House Military Office (operations). Secret Service (security). Plus architectural and engineering firms. That is the standard stakeholder group for major White House construction.

“President Trump has chosen McCreary architects as the lead architect which is well known for their classical architectural design and based right here in our nation’s capital.”

McCrery Architects (the Whisper rendering “McCreary” may be a slight variation) is a Washington, D.C.-based firm specializing in classical architecture. The firm has designed numerous traditional buildings across the U.S. Their selection signals Trump’s preference for classical design consistent with the White House’s architectural heritage.

“The construction team will be headed by Clark Construction and the Engineering team will be led by a calm the project will begin in September 2025 and it is expected to be Can be completed long before the end of President Trump’s term.”

Clark Construction. AECOM for engineering. Project start September 2025. Completion “long before the end of President Trump’s term” — meaning before January 2029.

”$200 Million Structure”

The funding mechanism is the politically novel piece. “President Trump and other donors have generously committed to donating the funds necessary to build this approximately 200 million dollar structure.”

$200 million. Privately donated. Trump and other donors covering the full cost.

Federal government building projects usually require congressional appropriations. A new White House ballroom funded through appropriations would be politically contested, subject to budget-negotiation delays, and potentially subject to cost overruns that extend construction timelines.

Private funding bypasses those constraints. Trump is personally contributing. Other donors are covering the balance. The ballroom becomes a gift to the federal government rather than a taxpayer-funded project. That framing is politically elegant. It resolves the funding question without congressional involvement and without fiscal impact.

”Substantially Separated But … Architecturally Identical”

“The United States Secret Service will provide the necessary security enhancements and modifications the White House ballroom will be substantially separated from the main building of the White House But at the same time its theme and architectural heritage will be almost identical.”

The design approach. The new ballroom will be physically separate from the main White House (for security and construction reasons) but architecturally integrated (matching the White House’s neoclassical heritage). That is the architectural challenge — a new 90,000 sq ft structure that visually reads as belonging to the original complex without disrupting its distinctive character.

The East Wing Site

“The site of the new ballroom will be where the small heavily changed and reconstructed East Wing currently sits the East Wing was constructed in 1902 and has been renovated and changed many times with a second story added in 1942.”

That is significant. The East Wing — historically home to the First Lady’s offices and staff — will be replaced by the ballroom complex. The East Wing’s 1902 original construction and subsequent modifications (including the 1942 second-story addition) have produced a structure that Leavitt is characterizing as “heavily changed and reconstructed.” Its replacement, rather than preservation, is justified on that basis.

The First Lady’s office operations will presumably be relocated to other White House facilities or to new spaces integrated into the ballroom complex. The specific plan for that relocation is not detailed in the announcement.

The Cumulative Record

Three announcements in a single briefing:

1. Pelosi and stock-trading ban — accountability for congressional conduct.
2. President’s Council on Sports, Fitness, and Nutrition — MAHA extension.
3. White House State Ballroom — $200 million private-donor funded infrastructure.

Each announcement represents a different dimension of the administration’s work. Accountability. Public health. Physical infrastructure.

The ballroom announcement is particularly striking. $200 million in private donations to fund major White House construction without taxpayer cost. That is a unique funding mechanism that may set precedent for other presidential infrastructure projects.

Key Takeaways

• Leavitt framed congressional stock-trading ban around Pelosi: “She makes $174,000 a year, yet she has a net worth of approximately $413 million. In 2024, Nancy Pelosi’s stock portfolio … grew 70 percent in one year.”
• Pelosi’s 2024 portfolio “outperformed every single large hedge fund in that same year and even more than doubled the returns of Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway.”
• Trump announced new members of the President’s Council on Sports, Fitness, and Nutrition — the Eisenhower-era council being revitalized for the MAHA agenda.
• White House State Ballroom: 90,000 square feet, 650-person seated capacity, construction begins September 2025, completion before end of Trump’s term.
• “$200 million structure” privately funded: “President Trump and other donors have generously committed to donating the funds necessary to build” — no taxpayer cost.