Follow us on social

Josh Gottheimer Nancy Pelosi Tommy Tuberville

Top defense stock traders in Congress in 2024

Data shows these lawmakers traded between $24M and $113M million worth, some while serving on committees making war policy

Analysis | Washington Politics

At least 37 members of Congress and their families traded defense stocks in 2024, using a list of the top 100 Pentagon contractors compiled annually by Defense Security Monitor.

A Responsible Statecraft analysis of data from investment research platform Quiver Quantitative shows that these lawmakers traded between $24 million and $113 million worth of Pentagon contractor stocks this year (lawmakers merely have to provide a range for stock trading disclosures).

Eight of these members even simultaneously held positions on the Armed Services and Foreign Affairs Committees, the committees overseeing defense policy and foreign relations. Members of Congress that oversee the annual defense bill and are privy to intelligence briefings have an upper hand in predicting future stock prices.

But who traded the most defense stock this year?

That distinction goes to Rep. Josh Gottheimer (D-N.J.). Gottheimer may have faked his Spotify Wrapped — fabricating an image to make him look like a Bruce Springsteen superfan — but he can’t fake his way out of being crowned the most avid trader in Congress.

Gottheimer traded at least $22 million worth of stock of the top 100 Pentagon contractors, including Microsoft, Northrop Grumman, and IBM. Microsoft — which received $414 million from the Department of Defense in 2023 for software and cloud computing services — accounted for the vast majority of his trades. Gottheimer simultaneously holds positions on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, and the National Security subcommittee in the Committee on Financial Services.

Gottheimer says his trades are made by a third-party financial firm; “I literally have no idea what they do,” he stated in a 2022 CNBC interview. Given Springsteen’s lifelong skepticism of the military-industrial complex, I’m not sure the Boss himself would approve.

The second most active defense stock trader was Speaker Emerita Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), who sold over $1 million worth of Microsoft stock in late July. The FTC opened a wide-ranging anti-trust investigation into Microsoft in November.

The timing of Pelosi’s Microsoft trades in the past have garnered attention, too; in March 2021, she bought Microsoft call options less than two weeks before the Army announced a $22 billion contract with the software company to supply augmented reality headsets.

Pelosi had the most profitable 2024 of any lawmaker, netting an estimated $38.6 million from all stock trading activity, according to Quiver Quantitative.

Rep. Tom Kean Jr., who comes in at number five for defense stock trading, traded between $106,000 and $365,000 worth of defense stock while sitting on the House Foreign Affairs Committee. Kean Jr. exchanged Jacobs stocks after a merger with Ammentum in September.

At number six, Rep. Jonathon Jackson (D-Ill) traded between $80,003 and $200,000 worth of Pentagon contractor stock, including snapping up as much as $50,000 worth of General Dynamics stock while sitting on the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala) was the seventh-most active defense stock trader. Despite his perch on the Senate Armed Services Committee, Tuberville disclosed between $63,007 and $245,000 worth of trading in defense stocks this year, selling stakes in IBM, Honeywell, and Accenture, among others. Last September, Tuberville— who owns up to 50,000 in Lockheed Martin stock — participated in an committee hearing on defense innovation headlined by Lockheed CEO James Taiclet.

Tuberville has said that limiting lawmakers’ ability to trade stocks would be “ridiculous” and that “it would really cut back on the amount of people that would want to come up here and serve.”

What about lawmakers who embrace the buy-and-hold strategy, rather than actively trading? In September, Sludge’s David Moore published an investigation that found that lawmakers may own as much as $10.9 million in defense company stock.

Moore also found that Honeywell — which provides sensors and guiding devices to assist the Israeli military in airstrikes in Gaza — is the most commonly-held defense company stock, followed by RTX (formerly known as Raytheon).

During a hearing in June of this year, Rep. Pat Fallon (R-Texas) held up to $250,000 worth of Boeing stock while questioning Navy officials during a hearing about repeated crashes of the V-22 Osprey, a tilt-rotor helicopter made by Bell and Boeing. Rep. Fallon left in the middle of the hearing, shaking hands with family members of Osprey crash victims on the way out.

If Congress wants to wash itself of conflicts of interest it can start by passing a stock trading ban. The Ending Trading and Holdings in Congressional Stocks Act, or ETHICS Act, would prohibit Members of Congress from trading individual stocks. “Lawmakers like me, we’re kind of like umpires in a baseball game, we call balls and strikes. And you definitely don’t let umpires bet on the outcome of the game,” said Sen. Jon Ossoff (D-GA), who introduced the bill alongside three other Senators. The ETHICS Act passed the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs in July but has not yet had a full Senate vote.

President Joe Biden announced his support of a stock trading ban this week.“I don’t know how you look your constituents in the eye and know, because the job they gave you, gave you an inside track to make more money,” said Biden.


Top photo credit: Rep. Josh Gottheimer (New Jersey National Guard photo by Mark C. Olsen ) ; Rep. Nancy Pelosi (Nancy Pelosi/Flickr/Creative Commons) and Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.)(U.S. Army photo/Dustin Senger)
Analysis | Washington Politics
Trump Zelensky
Top image credit: Handout - Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy meets with U.S. President Donald Trump on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly in New York, on Tuesday, September 23, 2025. Photo via Ukrainian Presidential Press Office/ABACAPRESS.COM via REUTERS

Trump's latest line on Ukraine isn't a 'shift,' it's a hand-off

Europe

U.S. President Donald Trump’s rhetorical shift on Ukraine isn’t a call to arms. But it’s a dangerous attempt to outsource escalation to Europe. And it’s a strategy that could easily reverse again.

Trump’s recent social media pronouncement on Ukraine, following his meeting with President Volodymyr Zelensky, appears to be a stunning about-face. Just days ago, the core of his “peace plans” was the grim realpolitik of forcing Kyiv to accept territorial losses. Now, he declares Russia a “paper tiger” and seems to endorse fighting to Ukraine’s “final victory”, including “winning back” all the territories it lost to Russia since 2014.

But a closer look reveals this isn’t a genuine shift toward a hawkish policy. Instead, it’s the unveiling of a profoundly dangerous strategy. To understand it, we must see it as the outcome of a successful influence campaign by Kyiv, its European partners and their allies within the U.S. administration, who, after Trump's meeting with Vladimir Putin in Alaska, faced a clear set of objectives.

Their minimum task was to prevent Trump from applying intense pressure on Zelensky to accept Putin’s terms for a peace settlement, most notably Russia’s territorial gains in Donbas and Ukraine’s permanent neutrality (i.e. no NATO membership). More ambitiously, they sought to convince Trump to return to a Biden-era policy of direct aid. And their maximum, albeit distant, task was to gain approval for high-risk actions like a no-fly zone over Ukraine.

Faced with these pressures, Trump had three broad options: pressure Zelensky (facing major resistance from Ukraine, Europe and powerful forces within the U.S.), pressure Putin (with limited leverage and high escalation risks), or essentially “wash his hands” of direct responsibility.

The latest events show that Kyiv and Europe have achieved their minimum goal. Trump is not pressuring Zelensky to accept Putin’s terms. Moreover, he has effectively taken the issue of a rapid ceasefire off the table, a major win for leaders who fear a negotiated compromise. They now have a “green light” from the American president himself to continue fighting.

However, this shift is almost entirely rhetorical. While the tone has swung from advocating a deal to cheering for victory, the underlying substantive policy — American disengagement — has remained remarkably consistent. Before, he argued that Ukraine should cede land because the U.S. should not be involved. Now, he argues Ukraine can win back its land because the U.S. should not be involved, except as a merchant. The core “America First” principle of avoiding costly entanglements is unchanged; only the public justification for it has flipped to accommodate political pressures.

This disengagement is articulated not just by Trump’s transactional arms-sales approach, but by his key officials. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent recently laid bare the doctrine’s stark logic, dismissing fears of Russian expansion by stating, “All I hear from you is that Putin wants to march into Warsaw. The one thing I'm sure of is that Putin isn't marching into Boston.”

This statement is a clear signal that the administration’s fundamental priority is insulating the American homeland, not defending the NATO frontier, much less a non-NATO country like Ukraine. This “re-orientation” was likely influenced by a combination of factors, including Trump’s genuine frustration with Putin’s refusal to accept a ceasefire without a broader political settlement, incidents with Russian drones and aircraft violating NATO’s airspace, and a concerted flow of information suggesting Ukrainian strength and Russian weakness.

Yet, this apparent victory for Ukraine and its allies comes with a massive catch. Trump has not chosen deeper U.S. involvement. Instead, he has chosen his third option: to “wash his hands.” While his rhetoric is bellicose, his policy is transactional. The U.S., he suggests, will be a weapons wholesaler to Europe, not a direct funder. For Kyiv, this is far from ideal, as it must now rely primarily on European aid, which may be insufficient.

Critically, we must remember Trump’s penchant for abrupt reversals. Not long ago, he claimed Zelensky had “no cards” and that Ukraine would lose to Russia, a more powerful nation. Then he threatened Putin with sanctions, only to later drop those ultimatums, meet with him, and hailed a breakthrough. Now, Russia is a “paper tiger.”

keep readingShow less
US pressure risks plunging Lebanon into violence
Top photo credit: Tyre city, Southern Lebanon, 8-23-2017: Lebanese army soldiers performing the military salute ceremony (Shutterstock/crop media)

US pressure risks plunging Lebanon into violence

Middle East

Recent remarks about the necessity of disarming Hezbollah by U.S. Ambassador to Turkey Tom Barrack have stunned Lebanese leaders, who are concerned that any forcible attempt to carry out Washington’s wishes risks plunging the country into renewed sectarian violence and possibly even civil war.

“We don’t want to arm [the Lebanese Armed Forces] so they can fight Israel? I don’t think so,” Barrack, who also serves as Special Envoy to Syria, said in a recent media interview. “So you’re arming them so they can fight their own people, Hezbollah. Hezbollah is our enemy. Iran is our enemy.”

keep readingShow less
Netanyahu Erdogan
Top image credti: miss.cabul / Shutterstock.com

After Israel's strike in Qatar, is Turkey next?

Middle East

Israel’s recent strike on Qatar, a major non-NATO ally of the United States, has given rise to the question of whether Turkey, a NATO ally of the United States, may be Israel’s next target. While several parallels between Qatar and Turkey suggest that an Israeli assault on Turkey is not entirely impossible, a number of factors, chiefly Israel’s own intimate reliance on Turkey, are likely to act as a strong deterrent against a future Israeli strike on Turkey.

Israel’s September 9 strike against Hamas leaders in Qatar’s capital, Doha, marked yet another escalation in Israel’s nearly two-year military campaign that has now extended its operations to Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, Iraq, Tunisia, and Qatar — all while perpetuating the ongoing humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza and aggressive settlement expansion on the West Bank.

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.