But the rules aren’t uniform. The forms are different. The deadlines are different. What counts as a reportable asset is different. And the gaps — what officials are not required to disclose — are significant and often misunderstood.

Here’s how it actually works.

The Executive Branch

Senior executive branch officials file under the Ethics in Government Act of 1978, using forms administered by the U.S. Office of Government Ethics. The president, vice president and most Senate-confirmed appointees are required to file publicly.

Two forms drive most of what you’ll read about here.

OGE Form 278e — The Annual Report

The OGE Form 278e is the primary public financial disclosure document. It covers assets, income, liabilities, positions held outside the government and agreements. Filers must disclose:

• Assets and investment income — Securities, real estate held for investment, business interests and other income-producing property. Values are reported in ranges, not exact figures — for example, $1,001 - $15,000 or $15,001 - $50,000, up to $50,000,001 or more for the filer.

• Non-investment income — Salaries, speaking fees, book royalties and other earned income from outside government.

• Liabilities — Outstanding loans and debts above $10,000, with limited exceptions.

• Positions — Outside board memberships, partnerships or advisory roles held in the prior two years.

One important nuance: the 278e does not exclude mutual funds or U.S. Treasury securities — those exclusions apply only to the 278-T. The annual report can be quite detailed for officials with complex portfolios.

Value ranges have a ceiling. For assets held by the filer, the top reportable bracket is “Over $50,000,000.” For assets held by a spouse or dependent child, the top bracket is “Over $1,000,000” — meaning spousal holdings can be substantially understated by the form’s own structure.

Annual 278e reports are due May 15 for the prior calendar year. Extensions of up to 45 days — with a possible second 45-day extension for good cause — are available through the employing agency.

OGE Form 278-T — The Periodic Transaction Report

The OGE Form 278-T is a separate form that captures securities transactions — purchases, sales and exchanges — above $1,000. Executive branch filers must report these within 30 days of receiving notification of a transaction, and no later than 45 days after the transaction itself.

The 278-T excludes several common transaction types:

• Mutual funds and other excepted investment funds

• Certificates of deposit, savings accounts, checking accounts and money market accounts

• U.S. Treasury bills, notes and bonds

• Thrift Savings Plan accounts

• Real property

• Bond or note maturity

• Transactions solely between the filer, their spouse and dependent children

That means an official with a portfolio concentrated in individual stocks and municipal bonds will generate far more 278-T reports than one whose assets sit primarily in index funds or Treasuries — even if the two portfolios are similar in size.

Late 278-T reports — more than 30 days past the statutory deadline — trigger a $200 fee. OGE notes on the cover page when the fee has been paid.

Congress

Members of Congress file under a separate but parallel system established by the Ethics in Government Act and reinforced by the STOCK Act of 2012. Each chamber’s ethics committee manages the process, and reports are made available via the House Clerk and the Secretary of the Senate’s Office of Public Records.

Hunter Index covers both chambers, including congressional candidates who are required to file.

Annual Financial Disclosure Reports

Congressional annual reports require disclosure of assets, income, liabilities, positions and certain agreements — structurally similar to the executive branch 278e. Members must disclose assets and income sources above $1,000 in value or generating more than $200 in income from a single asset during the year. Personal property not held for investment such as primary residences, personal vehicles, or vacation homes with no rental income is excluded.

Annual reports also require disclosure of gifts and reimbursements for travel — including trips, meals and lodging paid for by outside sources — above applicable thresholds.

Annual reports are due May 15 for the prior calendar year.

Periodic Transaction Reports (PTRs)

The STOCK Act requires members of Congress, their spouses and dependent children to report securities transactions above $1,000. PTRs must be filed within 30 days of receiving written notification of a transaction, and in no case later than 45 days after the transaction — regardless of whether the member knew it occurred.

The penalty for a late PTR — filed more than 30 days after the due date — is $200 per report. The House and Senate ethics committees have discretion to waive it. Critics have noted the fee is low enough that it provides little real deterrence.

The Federal Judiciary

Federal judges — including Supreme Court justices — file annual financial disclosure reports under the same Ethics in Government Act framework, administered by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. Judges are also subject to periodic transaction reporting for securities transactions above $1,000.

Access to those reports improved significantly in 2022, when President Biden signed the Courthouse Ethics and Transparency Act. Before that law, judicial disclosure reports were available primarily via paper copies. The Federal Judicial Financial Disclosure Reports database now provides free electronic access.

One meaningful structural difference: judges are not subject to OGE oversight. Reports go to the Judicial Conference’s Committee on Financial Disclosure, an internal body created in 1990, which reviews reports for compliance.

Supreme Court justices have historically treated compliance with rules as voluntary. Justice Clarence Thomas and Justice Samuel Alito both faced documented allegations of undisclosed gifts, and the Code of Conduct the Court adopted in 2023 includes no mechanism to investigate or penalize violations.

What Disclosures Can and Can’t Tell You

Financial disclosure is a powerful accountability tool — but it has real limits.

What you can know:

• Whether an official holds assets in industries they regulate

• The approximate scale of an official’s wealth, within ranges

• Sources of outside income beyond a government salary

• Transaction history for securities above the reporting threshold

• Outside positions, board memberships and potential institutional conflicts

What you can’t know:

• Exact dollar values — only ranges are required

• The value of a primary residence or personal property not held for investment

• Holdings below the reporting threshold

• The full value of spousal assets once they exceed $1 million

• Income from any individual asset generating less than $200 annually

• The identities of private equity partners, LLC co-investors or minority interest holders

• Assets held in excepted investment funds, which are excluded from transaction reporting

A note on value ranges: Because exact figures aren’t disclosed, any analysis of official wealth requires assumptions. Hunter Index uses median values for all reported ranges — the midpoint between the floor and ceiling of each bracket. For the top executive branch bracket (”Over $50 million”), we apply a floor value of $50,000,000 rather than estimating above it. If public officials decide to disclose more information than is required, we note that too. For example, President Trump lists exact income figures for some of his assets, so we use that figure.

We flag this methodology whenever aggregate figures appear in our reporting.

What Hunter Index Covers

Hunter Index focuses primarily on annual financial disclosures of federal officials and nominees, members of Congress and congressional candidates and select justices and judges. Our flagship project, Trump’s Wallet, contains more than 11,000 asset records drawn from Donald Trump’s OGE reports — spanning from January 2015 through the end of 2024.

Every figure in our database traces directly to the original report. We don't interpret or alter the values officials report. We take each filer’s report as accurate since that’s what they are required to certify by law when filing. That said, officials sometimes make errors that require amended reports once identified. When our fact-checking process surfaces a likely error, Hunter Index reaches out to the relevant office privately.

Questions about our methodology? Reach us at hunterindex.org.

Managing Hunter Index and its exclusive database which makes reporting like this article possible is extremely expensive and labor intensive.

Subscribe now

Please consider becoming a paid subscriber to help fund this nonprofit news organization or help grow our readership by sharing this publication with others.

Share Hunter's Political Wealth Index

The short version: Hunter Index has built the first public — and free — database that tracks Donald Trump’s personal finances across five federal financial disclosure filings, from his 2016 campaign through the 2025 annual form. 11,868 asset records. Every one traced directly to a source document.

The Roll Call piece tells you what that data reveals — a portfolio that has undergone a fundamental transformation over a decade. Golf clubs and hotel licensing fees gave way to crypto token sales, Saudi licensing payments, and more than 3,600 individual securities trades in the first quarter of 2026 alone. World Liberty Financial reported $57.4 million in token sales. A Saudi licensing entity that didn’t exist in any prior filing disclosed $15.9 million in income. Foreign licensing income hit a five-year record — $35.1 million annualized — driven by new deals in Saudi Arabia, Dubai and Vietnam.

None of that was visible from any single filing. That’s the point.

The database is open and public. You can search it, filter by year, browse by asset type, and track individual assets across filing years.

hunterindex.org/trumps-wallet

This is the first release. More filings are coming. More stories are coming. And we’re actively looking for collaborators — data journalists, researchers, and accountability-minded people who want to dig into this data with us. If that’s you, contact us.

If you want to support the work, you can donate at hunterindex.org.

Why Does It Matter?

Please be informed of your politicians’ personal finances.

That’s our goal at the Hunter Index. We believe it is important for constituents to understand how their government officials’ personal finances may affect their policy-making decisions, as well as being aware of the potential income and wealth gap between many politicians and their constituents.

Remember our favorite questions: Would you make a decision that costs your family money for the public good? Isn’t that what we ask of our government officials?

Managing Hunter Index and its exclusive database, which makes reporting like this article possible, requires significant time and resources to maintain.

Subscribe now

Become a paid subscriber to help fund this nonprofit newsroom or help grow our readership by sharing this publication with others.

Share Hunter's Political Wealth Index

We’ve been quiet lately. Here’s why.

For the past two years, we’ve been building something we’ve never attempted before — and something no one else has built: a single, searchable database of every asset, every income source, and every liability Donald Trump has disclosed to the federal government across five public financial filings, from his first presidential campaign in 2016 through his current term in office.

Today, that database is live. It’s free. It’s open. And it’s yours to use.

Browse Trump’s Wallet →

Here’s what we built.

Trump has filed OGE Form 278 financial disclosures since entering public life. We’ve processed five — covering 2016, 2020, 2022, 2024, and 2025. Each one lists his assets, his income, and his debts in broad ranges. The government publishes them. Nobody puts them together. We’ll add more filings as resources allow.

11,868 asset records. Five filing years. One searchable database.

You can search for a specific property, a specific business, or a specific creditor and see how it appears — or disappears — across his filings. You can filter by year, by asset type, by who owns what. You can pull up the raw disclosure detail behind any single record. And you can see, in one place, how his total reported assets, income, and net worth have shifted from candidate to president to candidate to president again.

We also built a trends view — charts that map his portfolio mix over time, benchmark his income year over year, and let you track individual assets across filings. It’s all driven by the same data, all drawn directly from the original OGE filings with no inference and no gap-filling.

View Trends Over Time →

A few things worth knowing about how we did this.

OGE disclosures don’t report exact figures. They report ranges — “$1 million to $5 million,” “$50,001 to $100,000.” We calculated median estimates for every record in the database. Those estimates are approximations. We say so everywhere. We’ve tried to be precise about what the data shows and honest about what it can’t.

We transcribed the records directly from the original filings. What’s blank in the original is blank in our database. We didn’t normalize, infer, or extrapolate. If it’s in the database, it came from a filing. If it didn’t come from a filing, it’s not in the database.

The only field that took some judgment is the asset type field that we based off of asset categories used by the House of Representatives for their disclosures.

The 2023 annual form isn’t in there — there was an OGE lawsuit note attached and overlapping time periods with other forms, so we decided to leave it out for now. Three more filings are coming: 2017, 2018, and the 2021 termination report. We’ll add them when they’re ready.

More is coming.

We’re working on a series of investigative pieces built from this data — starting with a comprehensive overview of what the five filings reveal about how Trump’s financial life has changed over a decade in public office, and an investigation into his cryptocurrency holdings and what the disclosures reveal about potential conflicts of interest.

We’ll share more as those pieces are ready to publish.

For now: go look at the database. Search for something. See what you find.

What does a president’s financial portfolio look like when you lay ten years of it out side-by-side?

Trump’s Wallet is a project of Hunter Index, a nonprofit accountability publication covering the personal finances of politicians. EIN: 33-3157569. If this work matters to you, support us here.

Subscribe now

Please consider becoming a paid subscriber to help fund this nonprofit news or help grow our readership by sharing this publication with others.

Share Hunter's Political Wealth Index

At Hunter Index, our job isn’t to protect politicians — it’s to hold them accountable with accurate data. That cuts both ways. When misinformation about a politician’s personal finances spreads in public discourse, we’ll call that out too.

A claim has been circulating in partisan circles that Rep. Ro Khanna’s family trusts have “beaten the market” — implying his household is profiting from inside information despite his vocal support for a congressional stock trading ban. The data says otherwise.

As Hunter Index reported in March 2025, the Khanna family wealth flows almost entirely from trusts that Monte Ahuja — Ritu’s father and founder of Transtar Industries — created in the 1990s, well before Ro and Ritu married in 2015. Neither Ro nor Ritu directs the trades. An independent, third-party trustee manages the assets in compliance with ethics rules.

Hunter Index can confirm that based on our independent analysis of the Khanna portfolio, it has not outperformed the market according to publicly available disclosure reports and the industry standard of using the S&P 500 as a stand-in for “the market.”

The California Democrat put the performance numbers on the record himself this month writing:

“According to Unusual Whales, the trust has consistently underperformed the broader market:

2025: 12.6% vs. S&P 500 (SPY) at 16.8%

2024: 19.1% vs. SPY at 24.9%

2023: 12.7% vs. SPY at 24.8%

Three years running, it has trailed a basic index fund, not the trade record of someone using a congressional seat for personal gain.”

We’d also like to remind readers that we did an exclusive analysis of how many members of Congress “beat the market” over a prolonged period last year. Spoiler alert: not many.

Why Does It Matter?

A fact-check is a fact-check. The trusts underperformed the market. They were established before the marriage and independently managed by a third-party trustee, not the Khanna family. The record is publicly verifiable.

There is plenty of legitimate debate to be had about whether trusts are sufficient reform, whether the STOCK Act goes far enough, and whether family wealth of this scale creates any appearance problems regardless of who manages it. Those are fair questions, and Hunter Index will keep asking them.

But the specific claim that the Khanna family trusts — benefiting Ritu and the Khanna children — are “beating” the market? The numbers don’t support it.

Please be informed of your politicians’ personal financial information. That’s our mission.

Managing Hunter Index and its exclusive database which makes reporting like this article possible is extremely expensive and labor intensive.

Subscribe now

Please consider becoming a paid subscriber to help fund this nonprofit news organization or help grow our readership by sharing this publication with others.

Share Hunter's Political Wealth Index

As campaign season ramps up, let’s start looking into the wallets of some candidates who are likely to win a ticket to the U.S. House of Representatives this fall.

Ten percent (58) of the 541 members have already announced their retirements, and one incumbent, Dan Crenshaw of Texas, lost his reelection bid in the Republican primary to Steve Toth, so we can start there with our next likely new member of Congress for 2027 in the heavily Republican district in the Houston suburbs.

Steve Toth

The current Texas state legislator has a reputation for pushing his Republican colleagues and leadership to adopt even more conservative policies in his two stints in the state house. He ran as a more conservative option than Crenshaw and told the Texas Tribune that he plans on joining the far-right Freedom Caucus if elected.

Toth lives in Conroe, a northern suburb of Houston.

A self-professed ordained minister, Toth’s primary source of income is his swimming pool company - Acclaim Pools, LLC, which he founded in 2003, according to state filings.

Current Net Worth: $550k

• $2.43 million in assets — three jointly-owned Texas rental properties that generated a combined $97k annually in rental income, his pool contractor business (where Toth received an $89k salary in 2024) and his AllianzLife fixed annuity.

• $1.88 million in liabilities — three mortgages with Chase, Loan Depot and Woodforest National Bank.

Toth reported earning $96.2k in 2024 — an $89k salary from the pool business and $7k from his state legislature job.

As of September 2025, he had earned $115k for the year — $72k from the pool work, $37k from the Texas legislature and $4k from ERC Specialists.

Hunter Index obtained Toth’s state-level statements detailing his personal finances since 2012. They are all available for our readers to view below.

His primary income source has been his Magnolia, Texas-based pool businesses (Acclaim Pools and My Pool Xpert). He did not disclose any stock or trust holdings most years.

In 2012, he owned an Allianz “ennuity” sic worth at least $25k; two rental properties in The Woodlands and Magnolia that generated between $15k and $35k in rental income; two mortgages and another debt all worth at least $25k (highest range on the Texas forms); and three plots of land each worth at least $25k.

That year in his candidate form, he disclosed that he was an elder at WoodsEdge Community Church in Spring, Texas. The nondenominational Christian church does not believe in transgender or nonbinary people and thinks homosexual acts are sinful, according to its publicly available beliefs and “Statement on Marriage, Gender and Sexuality” that they require all elders to agree to and abide by.

He has also been a board member of Mighty Oaks, a faith-based nonprofit supporting veterans through peer-to-peer “Resiliency and Recovery programs” to treat PTSD and other challenges.

What Are We Missing?

• We’ve sought comment from Toth’s campaign, but did not receive a response as of publication time.

• We were unable to verify any information about Toth’s earned income from ERC Specialists in 2025, including contacting the company directly. Our team at Hunter Index doubts that it was actually a salary or earned income payment, as Toth reported. We assume — but cannot confirm as of publication time — that it was more likely a payment received based on the company’s core business, helping companies get payroll tax refunds or credits as part of the flawed pandemic-era relief program: Employee Retention Credit (ERC).

• The program was created as part of Republican President Trump’s pandemic relief efforts in 2020, expanded by Democratic President Joe Biden briefly until he closed the program due to widespread suspected fraud. The IRS was investigating the 400,000 claims seeking over $10 billion in tax refunds or credits. Even President Trump’s “One Big, Beautiful Bill Act”, passed during his second term in 2025, formally closed the program to new claims. For more about the flawed program, we recommend reading this Associated Press article from April 2024.

• Toth has filed three candidate forms already. The original form and the first amendment failed to disclose any assets and incorrectly listed his liabilities as all individually worth over $50 million. We’ll chalk that up to sloppiness rather than intentional omission — though not inexperience, given that Toth filed this same form in 2016.

Document Dump

Here are all the files we have obtained and used in reporting on Toth’s personal finances.

• Toth’s 2025 Most Recently Amended Candidate Form

• Toth’s 2025 First Amended Candidate Form

• Toth’s 2025 Candidate Form

• Toth’s State Level Forms & Other Relevant Documents

Why Does It Matter?

Please be informed of your politicians’ personal finances.

That’s our goal at the Hunter Index. We believe it is important for constituents to understand how their government officials’ personal finances may affect their policy-making decisions, as well as being aware of the potential income and wealth gap between many politicians and their constituents.

Remember our favorite questions: Would you make a decision that costs your family money for the public good? Isn’t that what we ask of our government officials?

Managing Hunter Index and its exclusive database, which makes reporting like this article possible, is extremely expensive and labor-intensive.

Subscribe now

Please consider becoming a paid subscriber to help fund this nonprofit news organization led by a disabled journalist, or help grow our readership by sharing this publication with others.

Share Hunter's Political Wealth Index

Kevin Warsh was nominated by President Donald Trump in January 2026 to serve as board chair of the Federal Reserve.

As he finally comes up for a vote in the Senate’s banking panel today, we wanted to offer a look into his personal finances.

Most of the coverage focused on his monetary policy views and his time as a Fed governor — a role he held from 2006 to 2011, spanning the administrations of both George W. Bush and Barack Obama.

We looked at his wallet instead.

And it is a George-Costanza-esque wallet.

According to a Hunter Index analysis of Warsh’s OGE Form 278e — the public financial disclosure form he filed on Feb. 25 — Warsh and his spouse reported a combined estimated net worth of $249.68 million. That figure is based on the median value of each disclosed range in his filing, as calculated by Hunter Index.

The Basics

Warsh’s filing lists 670 individual asset line items — a number that reflects the extraordinary complexity of a portfolio built over decades in finance, consulting, and private markets.

That puts Warsh comfortably among the wealthiest individuals ever nominated to lead the central bank.

The Juggernaut in the Room

If there is one number that defines Kevin Warsh’s financial disclosure, it is this: $50 million — listed not once, but twice.

Both entries refer to the same entity: Juggernaut Fund, LP, a private investment fund associated with the Duquesne Family Office of investor Stanley Druckenmiller, whose underlying holdings are confidential under pre-existing investor agreements. Warsh holds it directly, and also indirectly through his personal advisory firm, Vicarage Corporation. Together, the two positions carry an estimated value of at least $100 million — the single largest component of his self-reported portfolio by a significant margin, accounting for roughly 55% of his personally-held assets.

Warsh has publicly said he worked on a venture-capital fund for Druckenmiller. His disclosure also separately lists Duquesne Family Office as a source of consulting income, with Politico reporting indicating he earned $10 million in income from that advisory relationship.

Warsh’s disclosure points to an SEC 13F filing for partial transparency into the Juggernaut Fund’s holdings, but notes that some holdings — specifically Neptune Insurance Holding — are excluded even from that. He has committed to divesting the Juggernaut Fund if confirmed.

It’s All Druckenmiller

Here is what makes that question even larger.

Warsh’s ethics agreement, signed April 10, confirms that every THSDFS LLC series — 85 separate fund series worth an estimated $48.24 million — along with DCM Investments 9 LLC and DCM Investments 10 LLC, are all Duquesne Family Office, LLC entities.

That means Warsh’s combined Juggernaut Fund and THSDFS holdings — roughly 82% of his personally-held assets, estimated at $148.24 million — all flow through a single relationship: Stanley Druckenmiller.

That is not a diversified portfolio. That is a bet on one billionaire.

Warsh has committed to divesting all Duquesne-connected entities within 90 days of confirmation. The question of how one man unwinds $148.24 million in private fund interests tied to one of the most prominent investors in the world — and at what price, and to whom — is one worth asking.

Would you make a decision that costs your family $148.24 million for the public good? That is what we are asking of Kevin Warsh.

Public Markets: UPS, Coupang, and a Stanford Salary

Beyond the private markets, Warsh holds meaningful positions in two public companies where he has served on the board of directors.

His United Parcel Service holdings, in the form of vested phantom stock and restricted stock units, are each estimated at $3 million. He also holds Coupang Inc. — a U.S.-listed company, headquartered in Seattle, that operates as the largest online retailer in South Korea — in two separate entries, each also estimated at $3 milllion.

Both UPS and Coupang paid Warsh director fees. He has committed to resigning his board seats and divesting these positions upon confirmation.

His income sources also include salaries from Stanford University’s Hoover Institution and Graduate School of Business, where he holds a visiting fellowship, and consulting fees from GoldenTree Asset Management, Heitman LLC, Cerberus Capital Management, and Duquesne Family Office — all disclosed as sources of compensation exceeding the $5k threshold for reporting.

The Venture Capital Rabbit Hole

If the 85 THSDFS series wasn’t enough, Warsh also holds interests in a sprawling set of venture capital funds through an entity called Abstract Holdings LLC inside his DCM Investments 10 LLC position — estimated at $375k.

Combined, these funds hold stakes in more than 200 individual startups spanning artificial intelligence, crypto infrastructure, defense technology, biotech, fintech, consumer apps, and beyond. Companies include: Replit, Solana, SpaceX (via xAI acquisition), Databricks, Crusoe, Hebbia, Polymarket, and dozens of others at various stages of development. The individual startup positions are listed as not readily ascertainable in value.

He also holds Bessemer Venture Associates XI LP, worth about $3 million.

A Last-Minute Addition to the Ethics Agreement

On April 17, 2026 — one week after his original ethics agreement was signed — Warsh filed an amended supplement. Ethics officials at the Board of Governors had identified a holding that required an additional divestiture commitment.

The asset: iShares S&P/TSX 60 Index $XIU a Canadian equity index ETF held in the household portfolio. Under the amendment, Warsh committed to divesting it before assuming duties as Fed chair.

The original ethics agreement was signed on April 10. The supplement was filed on April 17. It is a small asset. It is not a small detail.

What’s in the Wife’s Wallet?

Warsh’s wife is Jane Lauder — granddaughter of Estée Lauder, co-founder of The Estée Lauder Companies. Ms. Lauder is currently Global Brand President of Clinique and a member of The Estée Lauder Companies’ board of directors, a position she has held since 2009. She also serves on the board of Eventbrite.

What the disclosure alone does not capture: Ms. Lauder is the managing director of TAW Fund I (d/b/a TAW Ventures) — an active venture fund, not a passive investment. Warsh has committed in his ethics agreement to recusing himself from any Fed matter that has a direct and predictable effect on TAW Ventures or its underlying holdings.

Her largest single asset: undeveloped land in Suffolk County, N.Y., worth an estimated $15 million.

Her next largest holdings include significant positions in Estée Lauder Companies stock across multiple share classes and trusts, a family art partnership worth at least $1 million, and a promissory note from a family member also worth at least $1 million.

Her portfolio also includes a robust collection of municipal bonds — more than 80 individual positions spread across New York, Texas, Connecticut, Alabama, Florida, Michigan, and other states — held primarily through a family trust. Ms. Lauder also holds positions through Lansing Management Onshore LP, a fund with disclosed holdings in public companies including: Interactive Brokers, APi Group, HEICO, TransUnion, Ashtead Group, Moody’s, Ferrari, Hilton, and others.

Her only liability: an outstanding capital commitment to Searchlight Capital LP of $175k, made in 2012.

The Speakers Fee Hangover

Section 10 of the ethics agreement lists five entities from which Warsh received speaking honoraria. For one year after his confirmation, he has committed to not participating in any Fed matter in which these entities are a party:

• Warburg Pincus

• State Street Bank and Trust Company

• Eli Lilly and Company

• Centerview Partners LLC

• Brevan Howard

State Street is one of the largest custody banks in the United States with an ongoing relationship with the Federal Reserve. That one-year recusal is a meaningful constraint on the incoming chairman from day one.

Her Bonds, His Problem

Attachment B of the ethics agreement lists more than 35 individual municipal bond positions — held primarily in Jane Lauder’s family trusts — that must be divested within 90 days of confirmation.

The bonds span issuers in Alabama, New York, Texas, Connecticut, Florida, Michigan, New Jersey, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, and the District of Columbia.

The Federal Reserve’s interest rate decisions affect the borrowing costs of every state and municipality on that list. The ethics agreement requires divestiture. The breadth of the list is its own kind of disclosure.

The Liabilities: Modest, All Things Considered

Against a $257.32 million asset base, Warsh’s liabilities are relatively contained — an estimated $7.63 million in total.

The two largest are a JPMorgan Chase mortgage on his personal residence (estimated at $3 million) and a PNC Bank revolving line of credit (estimated at $3 million) taken out in 2025. The remainder are the unfunded capital commitments to various THSDFS fund series, ranging from $32k to $375k each.

Document Dump

Here are all the files we have obtained and used in reporting on Warsh’s personal finances.

• Kevin Warsh’s 278e nominee personal financial disclosure form filed on Feb. 25, 2026.

• Warsh’s ethics agreement dated April 17, 2026.

Why Does It Matter?

The Federal Reserve sets interest rates that affect mortgages, car loans, credit cards, and business loans in the United States. Its chairman has enormous influence over the cost of money itself.

Kevin Warsh has committed to divesting a long list of assets within 90 days — including both Juggernaut Fund positions, his Bessemer Venture stakes, and all 85 THSDFS series. The question of how a man divests $148.24 million in private fund interests tied to one billionaire — and at what price, and to whom — deserves more scrutiny than it has received.

Also, will Warsh go to the secondary market and sell his assets for below market value to comply with the 90-days divestment period?

Please be informed of your politicians’ personal finances.

That’s our goal at the Hunter Index. We believe it is important for constituents to understand how their government officials’ personal finances may affect their policy-making decisions, as well as being aware of the potential income and wealth gap between many politicians and their constituents.

Remember our favorite questions: Would you make a decision that costs your family money for the public good? Isn’t that what we ask of our government officials?

Note: the largest range for an asset on the financial disclosure forms is open-ended at over $50 million for Warsh’s individually owned assets. It is over $1 million for any assets held solely by a spouse or dependent child.

Managing Hunter Index and its exclusive database, which makes reporting like this article possible, is extremely expensive and labor-intensive.

Subscribe now

Please consider becoming a paid subscriber to help fund this nonprofit news organization led by a disabled journalist, or help grow our readership by sharing this publication with others.

Share Hunter's Political Wealth Index

Special government employees (SGE) have been a prominent feature of President Donald Trump’s second term in office.

From Elon Musk during the DOGE-era to Corey Lewandoski in the Kristi Noem DHS-epic, Trump has filled various departments with high-level aides in temporary SGE roles that allow them to avoid most laws mandating public financial disclosures by government officials.

SGEs are temporary government officials who are limited to working (paid or unpaid) for 130 days or fewer in a 365-day period. Historically, they have been used mainly for various advisory board positions.

SGEs have been around since Congress passed legislation approving the role in 1962 with a main purpose of letting outside experts help the federal government on a temporary, usually advisory basis.

Even then, legislators were worried about the ethical risks and potential conflicts of interest according to the CBPP.

Unfortunately, SGEs are not required to file the personal financial disclosure forms that fuel our work here at Hunter Index. Financial disclosure information is also exempt from the main transparency tool available to the public and media — Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests.

Since our founding in 2024, our team has always used official data when reporting on the personal finances of government officials to build trust with our readers.

We strive to provide you with accurate and verifiable information provided by the government and the officials that we cover.

Unfortunately, that means efforts to accurately detail the personal wealth of many notable Trump administration officials is unavailable at this time.

The White House annual report to Congress for 2025 lists a few unpaid advisors on Trump’s staff.

In 2025, Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts introduced legislation to require that SGE officials be held to the ethics standards of other federal employees like public personal finances disclosures and conflict of interest waivers. The Senate bill is cosponsored by 13 other Democrats; the House version has four sponsors — all Democrats. Neither bill has any real chance of passage — let alone being signed into law by Trump — in the Republican-controlled 119th Congress.

However, here’s what we know about the personal finances of three senior SGEs in Trump’s second term.

Elon Musk

Probably the most well-known SGE, Musk served in Trump’s administration in 2025 during the peak of the Department of Government Efficiency’s (DOGE) influence.

Musk has been named as the world’s richest person by numerous outlets. However, the billionaire’s personal finances are largely tied to stock holdings in the various companies that he has worked for or started like Tesla, SpaceX, and X, the company formerly known as Twitter. Bloomberg’s Billionaire Index is a source to track his comically high and fluid net worth of $600 to $800 billion.

Musk ran into potential conflicts of interest due to Tesla & SpaceX’s heavy reliance on government contracts. The two companies have received over $38 billion in government contacts since their creation according to The Washington Post.

Corey Lewandowski

The Republican political operative and former campaign manager for Trump has served as an acting or unofficial chief of staff to Kristi Noem during her time as Homeland Security secretary that ended earlier this year.

Lewandowski has skirted the 130-day limit for SGE’s with creative timekeeping according to Axios.

He has never held public office (although he unsuccessfully ran two campaigns in Massachusetts) but reportedly earned $500k in 2016 working for the Trump campaign.

Due to his career mainly for private companies like Fox News or political organizations like the Republican National Committee that don’t require salary disclosures, any public reporting on Lewandowski is purely speculative and should be ignored.

David Sacks

A venture capitalist and former PayPal executive, Sacks worked as an unpaid advisor on A.I. and crypto to President Trump from January 2025 until March 2026. He still serves as chair of the president’s science and technology advisory council.

Sacks was tasked with helping propose regulations and guidance over the digital asset industry.

He actually received two conflict of interest waivers from the White House counsel’s office — one on March 5, 2025 and the other is undated.

According to Sacks’ waiver, 1.9% of his portfolio’s value is held in AI-related assets “that would be directly and predictably affected” by his government work.

He also claimed to be in the process of divesting from some assets at the time of receiving the waiver like Amazon, Meta and X.AI Corp - a subsidiary of Musk’s SpaceX.

Sacks’ waiver lists other potentially conflicting investments in tech companies like: Palantir; Adobe; Reddit; Salesforce; Snowflake; Tesla; & Quora. White House Counsel David Warrington provided approval for Sacks to retain those investments while advising the president on technology policy.

Sacks also holds a large stake (5.07% of his total portfolio value) in Beldore Capital Fund - a private equity buyout fund that usually requires people to invest at least $1 million in the fund.

To Sacks’ credit, he did divest over $85 million in crypto (Bitcoin, Ethereum and Solana) and other assets before Trump was sworn into office in January 2025. He also divested from his directly-held positions in crypto trading platforms Robinhood and Coinbase. He held onto some investments in other crypto startups.

The New York Times reported on how Sacks’ work as an SGE is benefiting his professional career and personal portfolio.

Unfortunately, even though Sacks has complied with ethics disclosure requirements, they are so limited for SGEs that it’s impossible to get a true sense of the true value of Sacks’ portfolio or how the millionaire has increased his wealth through his government advisory work.

Sacks is one of only four senior Trump officials to have conflict of interest waivers as published by The White House at time of publication.

Why Does It Matter?

Please be informed of your politicians’ personal finances.

That’s our goal at the Hunter Index. We believe it is important for constituents to understand how their government officials’ personal finances may affect their policy making decisions as well as understanding the potential wide disparity between their wealth and that of the people in their home state or district.

Remember our favorite questions: Would you make a decision that costs your family money for the public good? Isn’t that what we ask of our government officials?

Managing Hunter Index and its exclusive database which makes reporting like this article possible is extremely expensive and labor intensive.

Subscribe now

Please consider becoming a paid subscriber to help fund this nonprofit news organization led by a disabled journalist or help grow our readership by sharing this publication with others.

Share Hunter's Political Wealth Index

In 2025, we filed a 990-N (e-Postcard) return in compliance with the Internal Revenue Service requirements as our revenue was below the reporting income threshold.

In 2025, we received revenue via individual subscribers to our content via Substack and direct donations through our website donor portal. We did not take any corporate donations nor any advertising revenue nor received more than $5,000 from one individual donor.

In 2026, we are working with the following budget to reflect the current landscape for nonprofit, nonpartisan news outlets.

Why Does It Matter?

Please be informed of your politicians’ personal finances and our organization’s money too.

That’s our goal at the Hunter Index. We believe it is important for constituents to understand how their government officials’ personal finances may affect their policy-making decisions, as well as understanding the potential wide disparity between their wealth and that of the people in their home state or district.

Remember our favorite questions: Would you make a decision that costs your family money for the public good? Isn’t that what we ask of our government officials?

If our coverage is focused on what’s in your government officials’ wallets, then you should know about our organization’s purse too.

Managing Hunter Index and its exclusive database, which makes reporting like this article possible, is extremely expensive and labor-intensive.

Subscribe now

Please consider becoming a paid subscriber to help fund this nonprofit news organization led by a disabled journalist or help grow our readership by sharing this publication with others.

Share Hunter's Political Wealth Index

Kristi Noem was only 35 when she entered public life as a member of South Dakota’s House of Representatives.

At the time, her personal financial situation was relatively uncomplicated as could be expected for a part-time legislator and self-described “rancher/media relations/children’s ministries” professional.

Noem’s husband Bryon “worked” for her as an employee on the ranch owned by Noem according to her state-level disclosure forms from 2006 onwards. Bryon also worked as an insurance agent with Bryant State Bank. Later, Bryon bought out the insurance agency portion of the bank and spun it off as his own independent company — Noem Insurance.

After Hunter Index’s comprehensive efforts obtaining both state and federal personal financial reports filed by Noem, we can track their household’s financial growth over the last 20 years.

In 2010 when she first ran for Congress, Noem held $89k in personal assets — investments in two ethanol plant companies, a pasture and two retirement accounts. She also held about $25k in revolving debt on two credit cards.

In 2009, the Noems earned income from Kristi’s state house seat ($6k salary and $4,129.19 in per diem); $7.5k of hunting fees; $27k salary from Family Worship Center; and an undisclosed amount from Bryon’s job at the bank.

In 2012, Noem was ranked as the 456th wealthiest member of Congress (out 541 members) with at least $522k in assets but $750k in liabilities including a mortgage according to my reporting at the time with my Roll Call colleagues.

Today, the Noem household owns assets worth roughly $5.7 million. Kristi holds an estimated $672k in assets, and her husband owns roughly $4.5 million in assets. They also own about $500k jointly in assets like the pasture land. They also owe at least $2.6 million in debts mainly loans tied to Bryon’s business ventures and a mortgage on their personal residence.

So, how does a public official’s and an insurance agency owner’s wealth grow so much in a little over a decade? Let’s try to find out….

Noem Insurance

Kristi Noem’s government salaries and her husband Bryon’s decision to start his own insurance business fueled their portfolio growth.

When Byron started his independent agency selling crop and other policies in January 2010, the Noem’s valued the agency at $550k. The agency generated $175k in profits for them in the first year. However, they did take out at least $500k in loans with Dacotah Bank in Aberdeen, S.D. to finance the acquisition of the business from Bryant Street Bank, Bryon’s former employer. Kristi reported equal 50% ownership stakes of the agency with her husband until she was sworn into Congress in January 2011.

Their other assets at the time were investments in the two ethanol plants in Granite Falls, Minn. and Watertown, S.D. worth about $65k; the Florence Township pasture that generated about $10k in rental income annually; and some investment accounts like Roth IRAs and money market accounts worth roughly $40k.

Kristi Noem served in Congress for eight years, earning $174k annually.

In 2018, she decided to run successfully for governor of South Dakota.

In 2019, when she transitioned into her gubernatorial role, the family’s portfolio was essentially the same as when she entered Congress. They still owned the investments in the ethanol plants, their rental pasture and IRA’s and also owed money on the 2010 business loan for Noem Insurance.

However, Noem Insurance had become very successful and was worth about $2.5 million and generated roughly $500k in annual income for the family excluding Bryon’s individual compensation — over $1 million annually by 2025. Bryon also worked as a basketball coach for Hamlin High School in Bryant for an undisclosed amount - but presumably not much.

Kristi served as South Dakota governor until President Donald Trump appointed her to his Cabinet as Homeland Security secretary in 2025.

During her gubernatorial stint, Bryon added ownership of a car wash business and Kristi received royalties for her two books published in 2022 & 2024.

When Kristi joined President Trump’s administration, her portfolio was essentially unchanged except for her gubernatorial compensation. Her IRA had grown steadily to be worth about $400k invested in mutual funds and S&P 500 index funds managed by Fidelity, Schwab, T. Rowe Price and Vanguard. She also held about $175k in a bank account and livestock and equipment worth about $75k.

Her annual gubernatorial salary was $241,519 and her state pension was worth $75k. She also received $180k in advances for her books.

Bryon had grown his business to include commercial real estate worth at least $1 million including a car wash business in the state capital of Pierre. He reported earning $1.1 million in annual compensation from his solely-owned agency. However, the business was leveraged with mortgages and other loans — mostly with their original lender Dacotah Bank.

Their rental pasture land’s value had increased to about $375k by 2025.

They still jointly held a mortgage on their private residence, but the debt was between $100k and $250k.

What Are We Missing?

According to reports by ProPublica, Noem likely received undisclosed income totaling $80k through her personal consulting business that she started while serving as governor. ProPublica also reported that a company with close personal ties to her received $220 million in DHS contracts (with no competitive bidding process) for an ad campaign featuring Noem while she was secretary.

In March 2026, a U.S. Senate committee held a hearing with then-Secretary Noem where she was asked about the contracts. “I did not have anything to do with picking those contractors,” she said according to The Hill.

Why Does It Matter?

Please be informed of your politicians’ personal finances.

That’s our goal at the Hunter Index. We believe it is important for constituents to understand how their government officials’ personal finances may affect their policy making decisions as well as understanding the potential wide disparity between their wealth and that of the people in their home state or district.

Remember our favorite questions: Would you make a decision that costs your family money for the public good? Isn’t that what we ask of our government officials?

Managing Hunter Index and its exclusive database which makes reporting like this article possible is extremely expensive and labor intensive.

Subscribe now

Please consider becoming a paid subscriber to help fund this nonprofit news organization led by a disabled journalist or help grow our readership by sharing this publication with others.

Share Hunter's Political Wealth Index

Rep. Scott Franklin (R-Fla.) is the latest member of Congress to violate a federal law designed to curb conflicts of interest, stop insider trading and enhance public transparency, a Hunter Index review of congressional financial records indicates.

Franklin failed to disclose — until last week — 31 stock trades made between January 2024 and September 2024 for himself and his wife. The federal Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge (STOCK) Act mandates that lawmakers disclose such trades no later than 45 days after they’re made.

Franklin’s late disclosures include shares of a variety of blue-chip stocks, including several large government contractors such as General Dynamics, Microsoft and Lockheed Martin, according to congressional records. Others include Google parent Alphabet, Apple, Berkshire Hathaway, Comcast, Home Depot, Johnson & Johnson, McDonald’s, Starbucks, United Parcel Service and Walmart.

In all, Franklin’s trades — mostly stock purchases — are valued at between $35k and $525k. (Lawmakers are only required to disclose the value of their trades in broad ranges.)

In a memo to the Clerk of the House of Representatives, Franklin wrote that most of the stock trades were made by a stock broker for his wife’s Roth IRA account “in order to rebalance the portfolio in accordance with the firm’s investment strategy.” Franklin added that the broker “failed to notify me of these transactions and it wasn’t discovered until I was attempting to reconcile our investment holdings” ahead of filing an annual congressional disclosure report covering all of 2024.

“Apparently, there was some turnover this past year in the people who work on our accounts and someone didn’t get the word about the absolute necessity to advise me on every transaction as soon as possible,” Franklin wrote Monday in an email to the Hunter Index. “I’ve addressed the seriousness of this with my broker and advised that I will terminate our business relationship if it ever happens again.”

More than a dozen members of Congress have this year alone violated the STOCK Act’s disclosure provisions to one extent or another according to various media reports, including those from the Hunter Index. Dozens more have violated the STOCK Act this decade.

The standard fine for a first-time STOCK Act violator is $200, with fines increasing for subsequent violations.

But the House Committee on Ethics, which administers the STOCK Act for House members, does not publicly disclose how much it fines violators — if it fines them at all, given its leeway to waive fines at its discretion.

Franklin’s congressional office said Monday that it doesn’t yet know if Franklin will be required to pay a late penalty. Tom Rust, the chief counsel for the House Committee on Ethics, declined to comment.

This year, congressional Republicans and Democrats have introduced several similar bills that would ban or otherwise limit lawmakers and their immediate family members from trading individual stocks, and in some cases, cryptocurrency.

A congressional stock-trade ban received a significant boost in recent weeks as President Donald Trump, House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) have all endorsed the idea, in principle. But none of the bills have yet received a vote.

One government reform advocate says a ban can’t arrive too soon.

“It’s beyond frustrating that members of Congress continue to fall short of the disclosure requirements when they simply refuse to impose any commonsense anticorruption rule that bars stock trading,” said Walter Shaub, the former director of the U.S. Office of Government Ethics under presidents Barack Obama and Donald Trump. “This is just another reminder that we need the congressional stock ban.”

Franklin is serving his third congressional term, and his 18th congressional district includes a large swath of south central Florida immediately south of Orlando, east of Tampa and northwest of Miami.

He is one of Congress’ more wealthy members, with an estimated net worth of $23.4 million, according to a Hunter Index analysis.

Franklin’s explanation for his STOCK Act violation is atypically candid for a member of Congress, most of whom have declined to comment or issued terse statements through their congressional staff over the years. His email to the Hunter Index is printed here in its entirety, lightly edited for style:

In Franklin’s first report filed as a congressional candidate, he detailed the sale of the insurance agency where he served as an executive. Founded in 1941, Lanier Upshaw Inc. was acquired by BKS Partners, which is now known as The Baldwin Group, a publicly traded company listed on NASDAQ.

As part of the acquisition, Franklin received 312,231 shares of BKS Partners stock worth between $5 million and $25 million on his candidate form filed on July 14, 2020. The form was amended after he was sworn into Congress in January 2021.

According to his latest annual report, Franklin still owned Baldwin Group stock worth between $5 million and $25 million, which was the largest asset in his family’s portfolio. Franklin is slated to file an updated personal financial disclosure, covering his finances during 2024, in August.

On his candidate form, Franklin reported receiving over $1 million in income from his employer Lanier Upshaw for the 2019 calendar year. He received $632,898 in income and $470,853 in shareholder distribution income. In 2020, he reported earning $360k from BRP Colleagues, Inc., when he was also running for Congress.

Dave Levinthal is a Washington, D.C.-based investigative reporter.

Why Does It Matter?

Please be informed of your politicians’ personal finances.

That’s our mission at the Hunter Index. We believe it is important for constituents to understand how their government officials’ personal finances may affect their policy making decisions as well as understanding the potential wide disparity between their wealth and that of the people in their home state or district.

Remember our favorite questions: Would you make a decision that costs your family money for the public good? Isn’t that what we ask of our government officials?

Managing Hunter Index and its exclusive database which makes reporting like this article possible is extremely expensive and labor intensive.

Subscribe now

Please consider becoming a paid subscriber to help fund this nonprofit news organization led by a disabled journalist or help grow our readership by sharing this publication with others.

Share Hunter's Political Wealth Index

When Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer (R-Mo.) entered Congress in 2009, he was already a low-level millionaire.

By the time he left Congress in January, he was a multi- multi-millionaire, with an estimated personal net worth of more than $15.91 million.

And he seemed poised to call it quits on public life and enjoy life’s bounty.

Luetkemeyer’s retirement plan didn’t last two months.

In March, the former lawmaker became a member of the University of Missouri Board of Curators, and he’s also poised to cash in on his 16 years of congressional experience, having become chief executive officer of the American Consumer and Investor Institute. The upstart nonprofit organization says it advocates “on behalf of the new generation of American consumers and investors for more choice and access to U.S. financial markets, products and services, including in the areas of consumer banking, securities and cryptocurrencies — all accompanied by robust financial education.”

Although the American Consumer and Investor Institute has yet to reveal Luetkemeyer’s salary in an annual public tax filing, it’s likely he’ll command far more than the $174k he earned as a member of Congress.

It’s a shrewd move for a long-time politician and House Financial Services Committee member who also worked in farming and community banking.

When Luetkemeyer entered Congress in 2009, most of his wealth — estimated value of $3.66 million — was concentrated in four places: the Luetkemeyer family-run Bank of St. Elizabeth community bank in Missouri, where he was vice president; a small insurance company; a farm-related company and a living trust fund.

Luetkemeyer’s overall wealth would have been greater but for two significant liabilities: a farm mortgage and “personal guarantee” of a bank stock loan, which together were worth at least $1.25 million.

A lot changed during the next 16 years, most notably, Luetkemeyer’s overall wealth.

Gone were the Luetkemeyer-led family bank holdings, acquired in 2021 by another bank. But Luetkemeyer in 2025 reported a slew of assets not present in 2009, such as seven-figure real estate investments, including condo, apartment and hotel holdings.

In a handwritten congressional disclosure, he also reported a large U.S. Treasury security holding and several dozen stock holdings that, taken together, are worth well into the millions of dollars — mostly in banks and other financial institutions. He no longer had any debt, either.

One kind of asset Luetkemeyer didn’t report holding at the time of his departure from Congress: cryptocurrency, which is a focal point of the American Consumer and Investor Institute that he now leads.

Luetkemeyer and the American Consumer and Investor Institute did not respond to messages this week from the Hunter Index.

Jeff Hauser, executive director of the Revolving Door Project, a government watchdog group, questioned Luetkemeyer’s decision to accept his new job, saying former members of Congress with Luetkemeyer’s wealth — and now, publicly funded congressional pension — are “under no duress that would require them to privatize their influence from years in government on behalf of a corporate funded advocacy organization."

Hauser added: “"If Luetkemeyer wanted to be involved on an unpaid, volunteer basis with an ideological organization of his choosing, that would make sense — one's rights and responsibilities as a citizen do not end with retirement from any job, let alone politician. But cashing in on public service like this is completely at odds with the Cincinnatus model our founding fathers venerated of statesmen returning home to civilian life."

At present, the American Consumer and Investor Institute, founded in 2023 by another former Republican lawmaker, Rep. Barbara Comstock (R-Va.), doesn’t engage in traditional federal-level lobbying activities as defined by law, such as attempting to directly influence lawmakers and regulators. Luetkemeyer has not formally registered as a federal lobbyist, either.

But the group regularly writes letters to public officials and files comments with regulatory agencies, such as when it petitioned the Security and Exchange Commission in May to “develop rules or provide Commission-level guidance” that specifically addresses custody requirements for crypto assets.

“A practical and clear regulatory framework will provide certainty in this space and will ensure that consumers are protected,” the institute wrote.

In March, Luetkemeyer wrote to President Donald Trump and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, praising them for the Trump administration’s “pioneering efforts in growing and protecting the American economy through the embrace of digital assets.”

Meanwhile, Katie Boyd, a longtime aide to Republican members of Congress who now serves as the group’s president and policy director, also wrote a recent opinion piece for RealClearMarkets advocating for a “more inclusive, modern, and efficient financial system.”

Dave Levinthal is a Washington, D.C.-based investigative reporter.

Why Does It Matter?

Please be informed of your politicians’ personal finances.

That’s our mission at the Hunter Index. We believe it is important for constituents to understand how their government officials’ personal finances may affect their policy making decisions as well as understanding the potential wide disparity between their wealth and that of the people in their home state or district.

Remember our favorite questions: Would you make a decision that costs your family money for the public good? Isn’t that what we ask of our government officials?

Managing Hunter Index and its exclusive database which makes reporting like this article possible is extremely expensive and labor intensive.

Subscribe now

Please consider becoming a paid subscriber to help fund this nonprofit news organization led by a disabled journalist or help grow our readership by sharing this publication with others.

Share Hunter's Political Wealth Index

Every year, members of Congress are required to file personal financial disclosure reports as required by law under the STOCK Act.

This year, nine members of the House of Representatives failed to meet the May 15 deadline to file or request an extension.

Three Republicans have failed to file at all — Randy Feenstra of Iowa, Lance Gooden of Texas and Bill Huizenga of Michigan as time of publication.

They have all served in the House for multiple terms and have filed these forms in the past aka they should know the rules by now. Huizenga joined in 2011, Gooden in 2019, and Feenstra in 2021.

Based on last year’s reports, Huizenga’s net worth is an estimated of $1.56 million. Gooden’s is $553k, and Feenstra’s is $146k.

Six others missed the deadline but have since filed their forms.

New Jersey Democrat LaMonica McIver filed her form late on May 27 and has an estimated net worth of $672k. Earlier this month, she was indicted by a grand jury in a federal case after an altercation with officials at an ICE detention facility in her home state.

Colorado Republican Lauren Boebert (estimated net worth of $0) filed her form late on May 28. She disclosed holding zero reportable assets and no liabilities as her gun-themed restaurant closed in 2022, and her divorce finalized in 2023.

Last year, she disclosed a mortgage on residence that was held by her now-ex husband as well as book royalties that earned her $15k and $50k in income and a jointly-held checking account worth between $1k and $15k.

Wisconsin Republican Tom Tiffany (estimated net worth of $294k) filed his form late on May 29.

When asked why Rep. Tiffany failed to file on time, his Communications Director Caroline Briscoe stated: “After being notified, Rep. Tiffany promptly submitted his disclosure report. Congressman Tiffany has not traded stocks while in Congress.”

Illinois Democrat Danny Davis (estimated net worth of $488k) filed his form late on June 9. The long-serving member from Chicago joined the House in 1997.

Pennsylvania Democrat Summer Lee (estimated net worth of -$375k) filed her form late on June 10. She owes between $265k and $550k in students loans and reported only one asset — a state pension earned during her time as a state legislator.

Georgia Republican Mike Collins filed his form late on June 15. The trucking company owner actively trades in cryptocurrencies like Ethereum, Velodrome, Aerodrome and Ski Mask Dog coin. He has an estimated net worth of $17.1 million.

A House Ethics Committee’s spokesman declined to comment when asked for an explanation on why the members missed the deadline and if any have been fined.

All members’ offices besides Rep. Tiffany’s failed to respond to Hunter Index’s request for comment as of time of publication.

So What?

$250. That’s the amount a member is fined if they miss the deadline by more than 30 days. Considering their base annual salary of $174k, a $250 fine lacks any real impact.

Also, if members don’t follow the current rules, how can their constituents expect them to support the passage of popular legislation like a stock trading ban?

Why Does It Matter?

Please be informed of your politicians’ personal finances.

That’s our goal at the Hunter Index. We believe it is important for constituents to understand how their government officials’ personal finances may affect their policy making decisions as well as understanding the potential wide disparity between their wealth and that of the people in their home state or district.

Remember our favorite questions: Would you make a decision that costs your family money for the public good? Isn’t that what we ask of our government officials?

Managing Hunter Index and its exclusive database which makes reporting like this article possible is extremely expensive and labor intensive.

Subscribe now

Please consider becoming a paid subscriber to help fund this nonprofit news organization led by a disabled journalist or help grow our readership by sharing this publication with others.

Share Hunter's Political Wealth Index

President Donald Trump’s aircraft obsession is legion.

As president, he flies in a Boeing 747 designated as Air Force One, and has accepted a newer Boeing 747 from the government of Qatar — amid the howling of ethics wags — that he hopes to use later in his term.

As a private citizen, Trump flew in a 34-year-old Boeing 757-200 he dubbed “Trump Force One.” For three years between 1989 and 1992, Trump even owned an airline, Trump Shuttle, that flew Boeing 727s between Boston, New York and Washington, D.C.

All told, Trump controls millions, if not tens of millions of dollars worth of private aviation assets while serving as commander-in-chief, according to a Hunter Index analysis of federal financial disclosures and business records. Trump is joined by a small, but wealthy contingent of federal lawmakers who also own their own airplanes, and in one case, an aircraft hanger.

Trump’s latest personal financial disclosure, from 2024, indicates he owns six corporate aviation entities together valued at between $5.5 million and $26 million.

The most valuable — DJT Operations I LLC — is valued at between $5 million and $25 million, according to Trump’s disclosure.

DJT Operations I LLC owns Trump’s “Trump Force One” Boeing 757, according to the Federal Aviation Administration’s aircraft registry database.

Trump’s DJT Connect II LLC holding is valued at between $500k and $1 million, with four other aviation-related entities valued at smaller amounts.

Trump has not yet filed a personal financial disclosure for 2025 but is legally required to do so later this year.

Trump’s grandest airplane play may also lie in the future. While the U.S. government, not Trump personally, took ownership of the Boeing 747-8 from Qatar, Trump has indicated he wants to fly the jumbo jet to his yet-to-be-built presidential library after he leaves office.

In May, three initial Trump library foundation trustees — first son Eric Trump, Trump’s son-in-law Michael Boulos (husband of Tiffany Trump) and attorney James D. Kiley, who has represented the Trump Organization — filed articles of incorporation with Florida regulators. Such an entity will ostensibly negotiate any future agreement with the government involving the Qatari — now American — jet.

As for members of Congress, Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.), one of the wealthiest members of Congress, disclosed owning airplanes collectively valued at between $25.1 million and $50.3 million, according to federal records.

They include a “light-sport airplane” — valued at between $100k and $250k — and a much pricier, unidentified “airplanes” valued at up to $50 million, according to Scott’s personal financial disclosures.

Scott disclosed owning a limited liability company, Columbia Collier Properties LLC, as his “company set up for purpose of ownership of airplanes.” FAA aircraft registry records list two planes owned by Columbia Collier Properties LLC: An Embraer SA EMB-500 and a 2018 Bombardier BD-100-1A10.

As Florida’s governor last decade, Scott eschewed the use of state government airplanes and traveled in his own private Cessna Citation Excel jet instead — allowing him to avoid public scrutiny, the Tampa Bay Times reported. He previously owned a smaller Hawker 400XP, which he put on the market in 2013, per the Miami Herald.

Now, as federal lawmaker, Scott personally involves himself in aviation matters. For example, he introduced the Frequent Logistics Information for Grounded and Held Travelers (FLIGHT) Act, which aims to require airlines to provide more information to passengers experiencing a flight delay.

Scott has also openly questioned the merit of Trump accepting the Boeing 747-8 from Qatar.

“I’m not flying on a Qatari plane. They support Hamas,” Scott told The Hill in May. “I don’t know how you make it safe … I don’t want the president of the United States flying on an unsafe plane.”

Rep. Vern Buchanan, a fellow Republican from Florida, reports owning Aircraft Holding & Leasing LLC — a limited liability company he values at between $25 million and $50 million.

FAA records indicate Buchanan’s LLC owns two Embraer-500 jets, an Embraer-505 jet and a Cirrus SR22 single-engine propeller plane.

Meanwhile, Rep. Kevin Hern (R-Okla.), reported that his wife purchased a plane in 2022 valued at between $1 million and $5 million. The same year, she reportedly sold another plane — a Beechcraft Bonanza — for between $1 million and $5 million.

Hern’s wife also owns an airplane hangar in Tulsa, Okla., valued at between $500k and $1 million.

Sen. Tim Sheehy (R-Mont.) disclosed a seven-figure “ownership interest” — between $1 million and $5 million — in Element Aviation Services LLC, a Montana company that specializes in airplane leasing and sales.

Rep. Diana Harshbarger (R-Tenn.), has an “ownership interest” in Alma Air LLC of Tennessee, which rents airplanes. Reported value: $250k to $500k.

Rep. Matt Cartwright (D-Pa.), reports an “ownership interest” in a Piper Archer II single-engine propeller plane owned by Archer Partners LLC. Reported value: $100k to $250k.

Dave Levinthal is a Washington, D.C.-based investigative reporter.

Why Does It Matter?

Please be informed of your politicians’ personal finances.

That’s our mission at the Hunter Index. We believe it is important for constituents to understand how their government officials’ personal finances may affect their policy making decisions as well as understanding the potential wide disparity between their wealth and that of the people in their home state or district.

Remember our favorite questions: Would you make a decision that costs your family money for the public good? Isn’t that what we ask of our government officials?

Managing Hunter Index and its exclusive database which makes reporting like this article possible is extremely expensive and labor intensive.

Subscribe now

Please consider becoming a paid subscriber to help fund this nonprofit news organization led by a disabled journalist or help grow our readership by sharing this publication with others.

Share Hunter's Political Wealth Index

For Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), it also meant a notable shift in her financial fortunes, rocketing her from one of Congress’ least wealthy members during the early Obama administration to millionaire status in the age of Donald Trump, according to a Hunter Index analysis of U.S. Senate financial disclosure records.

Collins’ minimum net worth in 2024 was $3.35 million, according to federal disclosures.

What a difference a dozen years makes. Entering 2012, Collins — now chair of the Senate appropriations panel — was decidedly in the red, her estimated net worth languishing around -$255k.

In 2012, Collins had two bank accounts valued at between $15k and $50k each, a deferred compensation plan valued at between $15k and $50k and two individual retirement accounts — one worth between $15k and $50k and the other worth between $50k and $100k.

But debt associated with two home mortgages — combined value of $350k to $750k — plus a home equity line of credit worth up to $50k easily eclipsed her assets.

Federal lawmakers are only required to disclose the values of most assets and debts in broad ranges.

Enter policy and political consultant Thomas Daffron, whom Collins wed in August 2012.

Upon marrying their money together, Collins enjoyed an instant jolt of wealth beyond her annual salary of $174k.

She filled her 2013 annual personal financial disclosure, which members of Congress must file by law, with dozens of stock holdings, bonds and other financial assets absent from her disclosure just the year before.

By 2024, Collins lived as a solid millionaire, her portfolio filled with dozens of different investments, most attributed to Daffron.

Collins’ reported stock holdings through Daffron include shares of Google parent Alphabet, Amazon, Apple, Berkshire Hathaway, oil company ConocoPhillips, pharmaceutical giant Johnson & Johnson, pharmaceutical company Merck, Microsoft, Pepsico, UnitedHealth Group, Visa, The Walt Disney Company and defense contractors Boeing and RTX.

Some of those shares are in companies that ostensibly fall under the jurisdiction of other Senate committees on which Collins sits, including the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.

Collins still reported a mortgage in 2024, but its value had shrunk to somewhere between $250k and $500k.

Kernen did not address questions about whether Collins, in principle, supports bipartisan legislation that aims to ban members of Congress and their spouses from buying and selling individual stock.

After graduating from St. Lawrence University in 1975, Collins started her long career in public service working for her home state Senator William S. Cohen of Maine.

Dave Levinthal is a Washington, D.C.-based investigative reporter.

Why Does It Matter?

Please be informed of your politicians’ personal finances.

That’s our goal at the Hunter Index. We believe it is important for constituents to understand how their government officials’ personal finances may affect their policy making decisions as well as understanding the potential wide disparity between their wealth and that of the people in their home state or district.

Remember our favorite questions: Would you make a decision that costs your family money for the public good? Isn’t that what we ask of our government officials?

Managing Hunter Index and its exclusive database which makes reporting like this article possible is extremely expensive and labor intensive.

Subscribe now

Please consider becoming a paid subscriber to help fund this nonprofit news organization led by a disabled journalist or help grow our readership by sharing this publication with others.

Share Hunter's Political Wealth Index

But Guthrie ranks among Congress’ most prolific wealth builders of the past dozen years, according to a Hunter Index analysis of congressional financial disclosure records.

Guthrie’s minimum net worth in 2023 topped $7.24 million — exponentially greater than his $208k minimum net worth in 2011.

The congressman’s annual congressional salary of $174k hasn’t changed a penny since 2011.

So what accounts for Guthrie’s dramatic percent increase in wealth — more than almost every member of Congress who’s served since the early 2010s?

Most notably, family trust arrangements.

In 2011, Guthrie reported himself as one of four children who shared in a single “Guthrie Family Irrevocable Trust” with a disclosed value of between $100k and $250k.

But by 2023, his family trust holdings had burgeoned.

That year, Guthrie reported that his 25 percent share of the “Lowell Guthrie Irrevocable Trust” was worth between $5 million and $25 million.

The congressman, who now serves as chair of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, indicated that the trust’s assets are fully invested in the stock of Trace Die Cast Inc., a private automotive parts company that his father, Lowell Guthrie, helped create in the 1980s.

In 2023, Guthrie also listed a separate “Brett Guthrie Gift Trust” worth between $1 million and $5 million that is “100% invested in Trace Die Cast stock” among his assets.

As for Guthrie’s direct role in Trace Die Cast, he noted in his 2023 financial disclosure that he remains an “uncompensated” company board member, although he has taken a leave of absence from working at the company — with the “right to return after government service.”

Trace Die Cast Inc. has benefited from the federal government in recent years, having received a COVID-era Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loan of $4.36 million in 2020 from the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA), according to federal data compiled by ProPublica. The federal government forgave $4.41 million of the PPP loan, including accrued interest.

Trace Die Cast also received two smaller SBA loans in 2010 and 2011 “to aid small businesses which are unable to obtain financing in the private credit marketplace,” according to loan data on USASpending.gov.

Guthrie has represented Kentucky’s 2nd congressional district since 2009 and won his most recent election by more than 46 percentage points over a Democratic challenger.

Other personal assets Guthrie lists: two smaller, irrevocable family trusts among his assets, both valued at between $250k and $500k, and a 401(k) retirement account worth the same.

He also owns several four- or five-figure mutual fund, whole life insurance and bank accounts.

Guthrie’s only reported liability is a loan — between $100k and $250k — for his “daughter’s primary residence” on which he is a co-signer.

Guthrie doesn’t make parsing his personal finances easy: For example, his 14-page congressional disclosure from 2023 is handwritten, with some line items straining the boundaries of legibility.

One thing that is clear: Guthrie doesn’t own individual common stocks, which have been a source of trouble for dozens of members of Congress who’ve violated the Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge Act’s disclosure and transparency provisions in recent years, including three in the past several weeks: Reps. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), Dwight Evans (D-Pa.) and Neal Dunn (R-Fla.).

Other lawmakers have made curiously timed stock trades that have led to public scrutiny, and in rare cases, Securities and Exchange Commission and FBI investigations — although the feds have never charged any member of Congress for a stock-related crime, such as illegal insider trading.

Guthrie’s congressional office acknowledged phone calls from Hunter Index but did not otherwise respond to messages left by phone and email.

Dave Levinthal is a Washington, D.C.-based investigative reporter.

Why Does It Matter?

Please be informed of your politicians’ personal finances.

That’s our goal at the Hunter Index. We believe it is important for constituents to understand how their government officials’ personal finances may affect their policy making decisions as well as understanding the potential wide disparity between their wealth and that of the people in their home state or district.

Remember our favorite questions: Would you make a decision that costs your family money for the public good? Isn’t that what we ask of our government officials?

Managing Hunter Index and its exclusive database which makes reporting like this article possible is extremely expensive and labor intensive.

Subscribe now

Please consider becoming a paid subscriber to help fund this nonprofit news organization led by a disabled journalist or help grow our readership by sharing this publication with others.

Share Hunter's Political Wealth Index

For generations, everyone’s “drunk uncle” has been parroting these types of claims. And maybe you’ve never been able to challenge him because how can you prove him wrong?! Plus, politicians on both sides of the aisle have perpetuated this idea, whether to champion stock trading bans as a bipartisan issue or pillory their opponents for perceived corruption.

Well, we have good news for you ahead of that next family gathering. Courtesy of Hunter Index’s exclusive database, we can offer you a look at the data that might back up some nuanced challenges to your drunk uncle’s uninformed tropes about insider trading.

So, what is in this new series? Since Hunter Index is the most complete and robust database of U.S. politicians’ personal finances, we can offer you an exclusive look at how the personal wealth of politicians has changed over the last decade or so. We’ve analyzed the financial disclosure forms of the 172 members of Congress who were in office in 2011 and 2023 — the most current year for which this data is available. (That includes a handful of members who moved from the House to the Senate during this time period.)

While the average politician is certainly far wealthier than the average American — meaning many of them did gain hundreds of thousands, or even millions, over that time span — the data also suggests that politicians aren’t that different from us when it comes to how their wealth has fared over time. That is to say, people’s wallets expand or shrink based on life situations like marriages, divorces, inheritances, and market changes affecting the value of assets ranging from real estate to stocks.

A few members grew their portfolios significantly, with nine seeing at least a tenfold increase in value. But most gained modestly, while others lost money, seeing their portfolios shrink by up to around 90% of their 2011 values.

Note: the biggest outlier was Rep. Doris Matsui, whose sizable gains came as a result of her marriage to AES Corporation co-founder Roger Sant in 2020.

Uber-wealthy members like Pelosi and McConnell are outliers here when it comes to their overall portfolio values ($66 million and $15 million, respectively), but not when it comes to how their portfolios have grown: On that metric, they come in below average.

Zooming in to exclude outliers both in wealth and growth, we get a more varied picture of how members as a whole fared:

What’s Next?

In coming editions of this series, we will dive into specific members who beat the market or lost their shirts.

Quick Hits

• The winners and losers: Around 73% of members saw their portfolios gain value, while around 27% saw their portfolios shrink.

• But while most members saw gains, just 17% of them beat “the market,” meaning the value of their financial portfolios performed better than the S&P 500 Index. In this case, that meant growth of over 279% — the amount the S&P 500 Index grew from the close of 2011 to the close of 2023.

• When it comes to liabilities — which we’ll analyze separately from assets — 70% paid off or reduced their debts.

A reminder: The base salary of members of Congress is $174k per year. So, in this analysis over a 13-year time period, each politician would have earned at least $2.2 million in congressional pay — more than the average American makes in their lifetime according to the Social Security Administration.

So while this data doesn’t suggest that serving in Congress has allowed members to inflate their wealth through nefarious means like insider trading, that’s not to say their sizable assets don’t influence their actions as lawmakers.

A Note on Methodology

Why did we only go back to 2011 data? That’s when our editor Jay Hunter first started covering this data for Roll Call. We encourage you to check out their daily coverage of all things “Washington.”

Also, personal financial disclosure reports are only stored for a limited amount of time by Congress, so it’s essentially impossible to track changes for members who have held office for decades.

Lastly, the values used in this analysis are minimum estimates of the value of each member’s assets. That’s because these reports disclose the values of each asset held by a member in broad ranges, and we estimated the value of each asset at the minimum value of its reported value range. For example, our estimate considers an asset reported as being worth $15,001 - $50,000 to be worth $15,001. Assets reported in the maximum reported value range (over $50 million) are valued at $50,000,001.

Also, we will be using percent change figures, which is pretty standard when tracking portfolio changes over time.

Why Does It Matter?

Please be informed of your politicians’ personal finances.

That’s our mission at the Hunter Index. We believe it is important for constituents to understand how their government officials’ personal finances may affect their policy making decisions as well as understanding the potential wide disparity between their wealth and that of the people in their home state or district.

Remember our favorite questions: Would you make a decision that costs your family money for the public good? Isn’t that what we ask of our government officials?

Managing Hunter Index and its exclusive database which makes reporting like this article possible is extremely expensive and labor intensive.

Subscribe now

Please consider becoming a paid subscriber to help fund this nonprofit news organization led by a disabled journalist or help grow our readership by sharing this publication with others.

Share Hunter's Political Wealth Index

In 2024, Republican Rep. John J. McGuire III won his Piedmont Virginia-based district stretching from Charlottesville down south through Lynchburg and spreading east into the outer Richmond suburbs. He defeated incumbent Rep. Bob Good in the Republican party primary on McGuire’s third attempt for a seat in Congress.

McGuire won his primary with support of now-President Donald Trump who endorsed him after Good, then-chair of the far-right House Freedom Caucus, initially supported Ron DeSantis in the 2024 Republican presidential primary.

A former Navy SEAL, McGuire had been a state legislator since 2018, serving for six years in the Virginia House of Delegates and one year in the state Senate. That means he’s no stranger to financial disclosure requirements in politics, including as a U.S. House candidate in both 2020 and 2022.

However, according to an exclusive investigation by Hunter Index, Rep. McGuire never filed a candidate financial disclosure form in 2022 or 2024 as required by law for a wide range of government officials and candidates.

According to our reporting, McGuire was the only new member of Congress who failed to file a candidate form last year.

Since April 15, we have sent numerous emails, made multiple phone calls and even visited Rep. McGuire’s congressional office in Washington. On April 22, we finally spoke to Rep. McGuire’s communications director Elizabeth-Burton Jones on the phone who declined to comment on the record beyond stating that this was a campaign-side issue and promised to have the campaign contact us immediately.

When asked directly if Rep. McGuire intended to file his financial disclosure form this year as required by law as a member of Congress, Jones once again stated that we need to speak to the campaign side first.

Representatives from McGuire’s 2024 congressional campaign did not respond to our requests for comment when contacted directly by the Hunter Index.

As of time of publication, we have yet to receive a response or explanation from any of McGuire’s representatives — campaign or official congressional staff — explaining his failure to file the required candidate disclosure forms in 2022 or 2024.

The House Ethics Committee, which manages the disclosure process for candidates and representatives, declined to comment on the missing forms or whether Rep. McGuire is under investigation. Press representatives for the committee’s chair Michael Guest did not respond to request for comment. Ranking member Mark DeSaulnier’s press staff declined to comment on the record by due to the committee’s confidentiality rules.

As codified in the Ethics in Government Act of 1978, failure to file these reports could subject McGuire to fines of up to $10,000:

The Department of Justice also declined to comment.

Hunter Index reporters also stopped by the Legislative Resource Center inside the Capitol building earlier this month to talk with the staff in charge of hosting and making these documents available to the public. The staff stated that every form they received is available online in the public database — i.e. if it’s not online in the database, it doesn’t exist — and that the Ethics Committee handles all press inquiries.

Rep. McGuire’s Portfolio

While we don’t have Rep. McGuire’s most recent [2022 & 2024] candidate disclosures, here’s what we know about his portfolio based on 2019 and 2020 congressional candidate disclosure forms as well as more recent state-level reports filed in 2023 and 2024 — all obtained by the Hunter Index this month.

Those reports covered January 1, 2018 until May 31, 2020 and January 1, 2022 until December 31, 2023.

Depending on the year, McGuire earned between $158k and $190k in income from his small physical training business and at least $29.6k from his salary and session earnings as a member of the Virginia House of Delegates.

His spouse Tracy McGuire earned between $60k and $85k per year through her real estate business.

McGuire also reported ten other income sources that each paid him at least $5k —the threshold required for disclosure. These payments were for nine motivational speaking engagements and team training sessions for various organizations across the country, including personal injury firm Allen & Allen.

Collectively, McGuire was worth at least $365k, held assets worth between $675k and $1.6 million and received between $30k and $102k in asset-driven income annually — almost entirely from two rental properties he and his wife owned in Henrico and Richmond, Va. He also disclosed owning small stakes in Facebook ($META) and Zoom Technologies ($ZOOM) worth between $1 - $1k and $1k - $15k, respectively.

McGuire also reported receiving $1,300.61 total in gifts valued above Virginia’s reporting threshold (more than $50) since 2022, including two Virginia Tech football games paid for by the Virginia Tech Foundation; a Toyota 400 race at the Richmond Raceway; two events paid for by Virginia Agribusiness Council — who are registered lobbyists in Virginia; and the Virginia Automobile Dealers Association’s annual conference in 2023, which was held at Greenbrier Resort in West Virginia, owned by Sen. Jim Justice, the wealthiest member of Congress.

Editorial Note: Virginia Tech lost both games that Rep. McGuire reported attending at their foundation’s expense.

For more information about Rep. McGuire’s (or other’s) Virginia state politics background, please visit his profile on the Virginia Public Access Project’s website.

So What?

In 2023, now-former Rep. George Santos was the last member of Congress to not file a financial disclosure report, which we covered at the time. Santos also misled the public by inflating his income and assets in his previous report.

Unlike Santos, though, McGuire’s previously reported net worth and assets don’t necessarily raise eyebrows — they’d place him in the bottom third of members ranked by net worth — or suggest that he has something to hide in failing to file his disclosures.

Numerous sources who interacted with the McGuire campaign suggested that he likely did not file out of incompetence rather than negligence, as his campaign seemed disorganized at times.

McGuire clearly understands the process as he submitted candidate forms in the 2020 cycle with his signature as required. Also, his state-level forms overlapped with some of the time period that would have been covered in the 2022 and 2024 cycle congressional candidate forms.

So, beyond being a thorn in the side of journalists seeking to cover politicians’ finances (that’s us), why does this omission matter?

For one, banning members of Congress from trading stocks has become a trendy take among pundits and politicians alike.

However, a ban could be rendered ineffectual in a flawed system with little transparency and accountability with respect to the filing of financial disclosures. If a politician can decide to simply not file their annual disclosures, how would anyone know if they adhered to a theoretical ban on trading stock?

If the committee tasked with enforcing the penalties for not filing will not comment publicly on any potential fines, how can the public trust the process?

Why Does It Matter?

Please be informed of your politicians’ personal finances.

That’s our goal at the Hunter Index. We believe it is important for constituents to understand how their government officials’ personal finances may affect their policy making decisions as well as understanding the potential wide disparity between their wealth and that of the people in their home state or district.

Remember our favorite questions: Would you make a decision that costs your family money for the public good? Isn’t that what we ask of our government officials?

Managing Hunter Index and its exclusive database which makes reporting like this article possible is extremely expensive and labor intensive.

Subscribe now

Please consider becoming a paid subscriber to help fund this nonprofit news organization led by a disabled journalist or help grow our readership by sharing this publication with others.

Share Hunter's Political Wealth Index

Meta Platform Inc.’s (Facebook) antitrust case started this week in Washington, D.C., and is expected to last weeks.

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is seeking to breakup Meta and force the divestiture of assets like Instagram and WhatsApp. The outcome of this case will have major effects on the tech and social media landscapes, and numerous Meta competitors like Snap, Pinterest, TikTok, etc. are expected to testify in the trial.

Judge “Jeb” Boasberg will oversee and rule on the “bench” case — no jury.

President Donald Trump met recently with defendant — Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, who reportedly sought the president’s help in settling the case.

As for the plaintiffs, the FTC currently only has three members out of its usual five — all Republicans: chair Andrew N. Ferguson and Melissa Holyoak were both initially appointed in 2023 under the Biden administration, while Trump’s newest appointee, Mark Meador, was confirmed just last week.

Trump last month fired the only two Democratic commissioners, Rebecca Slaughter and Alvaro Bedoya, who have since sued the Trump administration over the potentially illegal move. In 1935, the Supreme Court ruled that President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s firing of an FTC Commissioner on policy grounds was unjustified.

So, what is in this edition? Since Hunter Index is the most complete and robust database of U.S. politicians’ personal finances, we can offer you a look into the players in the case and any financial stakes they have in companies that could be affected by the decision.

Judge Boasberg’s Washington Background

Chief Judge James E. “Jeb” Boasberg of the U.S. District Court of the District of Columbia will preside and rule over the trial which has no jury. Boasberg has a long career of various court appointments. He was first nominated by President George W. Bush in 2002 to a D.C.-based Superior Court position and was confirmed by a voice vote by the Senate.

In 2011, President Barack Obama nominated Boasberg to his current federal bench position, and the Senate voted to confirm his nomination 96-0.

The native Washingtonian and St. Albans, Yale and Oxford alumnus previously served as an assistant U.S. attorney and had a brief stint in a private firm in San Francisco.

Boasberg recently considered holding Trump administration officials in contempt of court over their policies deporting hundreds of people to El Salvador.

Texas Republican Rep. Brandon Gill — son-in-law of conservative commentator Dinesh D'Souza — introduced a resolution to impeach Judge Boasberg last month after President Trump expressed disdain for the judge’s efforts to block his deportation efforts.

Boasberg’s Assets

In his annual report submitted in May 2024, Judge Boasberg did not report owning any Meta, Inc. assets. However, he does own stakes in several other tech companies who could benefit from a potential breakup of Meta.

In his various trusts and brokerage accounts, Boasberg reported owning between $2.1 million - $4.2 million in Microsoft assets that generated $10k to $23k in income in one year. His Microsoft holdings make up about 18% of his total portfolio’s value. When you remove his two rental properties in D.C. and Maine, the judge’s Microsoft holdings are worth about 30% of his remaining assets.

The judge also owned between $250k to $600k of Google assets.

Judge Boasberg’s annual salary is roughly $247k, according to the Federal Judicial Center.

In his annual report, the D.C.-based judge reported between $84k and $238k in income derived from his portfolio, which was worth between $11.1 million and $22.9 million.

Judge Boasberg did not report owning any liabilities or any assets held or income earned by his wife.

President Trump’s Financial Ties with Meta

Based on his latest financial disclosure, President Trump directly owns at least one Meta asset worth between $15k and $50k.

In January, Meta agreed to pay President Trump $25 million in as settlement over his past suspensions on their Facebook and Instagram platforms.

Last year, Meta CEO Zuckerberg donated $1 million to Trump’s inauguration fund — an early signal of the growing relationship between the two that’s raised concerns about whether Trump might intervene in the antitrust case on Meta’s behalf.

Other Notables’ Assets

FTC chair Ferguson did not report any direct ownership of any corporate assets like company stocks. Most of Ferguson’s reported assets were held in Vanguard or BlackRock target-date funds within his defined contribution plan retirement accounts.

FTC commissioner Holyoak did not report directly owning any corporate investments. Like Ferguson’s, most of Holyoak’s reported assets were held in index or target-date funds.

Representatives of President Trump and Judge Boasberg have not responded to requests for comment as of time of publication.

Why Does It Matter?

Please be informed of your politicians’ personal finances.

That’s our goal at the Hunter Index. We believe it is important for constituents to understand how their government officials’ personal finances may affect their policy making decisions as well as understanding the potential wide disparity between their wealth and that of the people in their home state or district.

Remember our favorite questions: Would you make a decision that costs your family money for the public good? Isn’t that what we ask of our government officials?

Managing Hunter Index and its exclusive database which makes reporting like this article possible is extremely expensive and labor intensive. Hunter Index reviewed the judge’s financial disclosure information for the past five years during the reporting of this article.

Subscribe now

Please consider becoming a paid subscriber to help fund this nonprofit news organization led by a disabled journalist or help grow our readership by sharing this publication with others.

Share Hunter's Political Wealth Index

Last year, the Department of Justice notified federal courts that Boeing was in breach of its obligations from a 2021 settlement agreement to pay more than $2.5 billion in various government penalties and compensation to beneficiaries of the 346 individuals who died in two Boeing 737 MAX crashes in 2017 and 2018.

Boeing now faces a federal criminal fraud and conspiracy case in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas before Judge Reed O’Connor, who rejected an initial plea agreement in December. While the company is reportedly working on a revised plea deal, O’Connor set a trial date of June 23, 2025, if no deal is reached.

In the meantime though, President Donald Trump announced on March 21 that Boeing won a $20 billion government contract to build a new fighter jet dubbed “F-47” for the United States Air Force.

Based on their most recent available financial disclosures, Trump held stock in Boeing, as did two senators who currently sit on the Senate panel overseeing Boeing’s safety efforts.

Long-serving Sen. Jerry Moran of Kansas and freshman Sen. Tim Sheehy of Montana both serve on the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation which held a hearing last week with Boeing’s president & CEO Robert K. “Kelly” Ortberg to discuss the company’s efforts to address safety issues.

So, what is in this edition? Since Hunter Index is the most complete and robust database of U.S. politicians’ personal finances, we wanted to give you a look into each of these politicians’ most recent disclosures, as well as how Moran and Sheehy acted in the committee hearing with the Boeing’s top executive.

Subscribe now

Governing While Investing?

President Donald Trump owns between $2k and $30k in Boeing stock according to his latest candidate financial disclosure report, which was updated on Feb. 9, 2024, and obtained by the Hunter Index on December 17, 2024 from the Office of Government Ethics.

President Trump also reported between $50k and $100k in interest and capital gains income from a third Boeing asset that was likely sold in full.

Sen. Moran owns between $15k and $50k in Boeing stock in his $1 million asset portfolio.

Sen. Sheehy and his spouse each own between $1k and $15k in Boeing stock in their Merrill Lynch IRA accounts. Collectively, the Sheehy family asset portfolio is worth a minimum of $107 million.

Yes, these two senators’ stakes in Boeing are worth a small percentage of their overall portfolios, but let’s see what they asked Mr. Ortberg about safety concerns of Boeing’s manufacturing process.

Moran — who has served in the Senate since 2011 and also chairs the Senate subcommittee on aviation — spent eight minutes questioning Ortberg and largely focused on the potential economic impacts of Boeing’s safety improvement efforts on his state.

The Kansas Republican specifically asked Ortberg about the impacts on his constituents in a potential Boeing acquisition of Spirit AeroSystems, a Wichita-based aerostructure manufacturing company that Moran pointed out is among the largest private employers in Kansas.

Moran also briefly congratulated Ortberg on winning the new $20 billion defense contract, saying he looks forward to hearing if any of the work to fulfill the contract will be done in Kansas.

Sheehy left the hearing before he had an opportunity to question Ortberg, according to his press team. Due to Senate seniority rules, Sheehy would have been the last in the majority party to be able to ask questions.

The Hunter Index also reviewed recent financial disclosures from Judge O’Connor, who was nominated by President George W. Bush and confirmed by the United States Senate in 2007. In reports since 2021, the judge did not report any direct ownership of Boeing in his asset portfolio.

However, in his most recent annual report, Judge O’Connor disclosed owning between $100k and $250k in a BlackRock fund (MAHQX). As of Dec. 2024, BlackRock owned 7% of Boeing stock making it one of the largest institutional investors in the company. However, Boeing assets are roughly only 0.01% of the fund, meaning the judge “owns” $10 to $25 in Boeing indirectly through the fund.

President Trump and Sen. Sheehy also reported owning BlackRock assets in their most recent disclosures.

The largest institutional stockholder in Boeing, Vanguard, owned 8% of Boeing stock as of Dec. 2023. All four officials, Judge O’Connor, President Trump, and Sens. Moran and Sheehy owned Vanguard assets, as did numerous other politicians in our Index database.

Press representatives for President Trump, Judge O’Connor and Sen. Moran have not responded to our multiple requests for comment as of time of publication.

Why Does It Matter?

Please be informed of your politicians’ personal finances.

That’s our goal at the Hunter Index. We believe it is important for constituents to understand how their government officials’ personal finances may affect their policy making decisions as well as understanding the potential wide disparity between their wealth and that of the people in their home state or district.

Remember our favorite questions: Would you make a decision that costs your family money for the public good? Isn’t that what we ask of our government officials? Do politicians or do you even know where your money is being invested?

Managing Hunter Index and its exclusive database which makes reporting like this article possible is extremely expensive and labor intensive.

Please consider becoming a paid subscriber to help fund this nonprofit news organization led by a disabled journalist or help grow our readership by sharing this publication with others.

Subscribe now

Share Hunter's Political Wealth Index

As yinz all know, we will all die at some point in our lives.

As yinz probably do not know, members of Congress have a financial incentive to pass away while still holding their seat.

Earlier this month, two House Democrats — Reps. Raúl Grijalva and Sylvester Turner — passed away. We recommend reading this stunning obituary of Rep. Grijalva by our peer and former colleague Pablo Manríquez of Migrant Insider.

Migrant Insider

The Dishwasher’s Congressman

WASHINGTON—Raúl Grijalva’s gone, and the world’s a smaller, meaner place without him. I met him back when I was scrubbing plates at the Tune Inn, that Cap…

Read more

a year ago · 42 likes · Pablo Manríquez

Dianne Feinstein of California was the most recent senator to die in office back in 2023.

So, what is in this edition?

Hunter Index takes a look at the compensation plan and some of the other benefits for members of Congress beyond their base $174k salary and personal finances normally covered by our reporting.

So, read on to learn about some perks of holding a seat in Congress like their pensions as well as death gratuity gifts to their spouses if they die before retiring or resigning their seat.

Perks for Members of Congress

Members are entitled to certain benefits due to their employment in Congress — just like other employees in various public and private industries.

Death Gratuity Gifts to Widows

Since 2000, 44 members of Congress have died in office.

Congress has a tradition of using public funds i.e. taxpayer dollars to pay out a death gratuity to the deceased member’s family according to the Congressional Research Service:

In the next appropriations bill, an item is typically inserted for a gratuity to be paid to the widow(er) or other next-of-kin, in the amount of one year’s compensation. By statute, a death gratuity is considered a gift.

Hunter Index estimates death gratuities have cost $7.3 million in the last 25 years.

Member Pensions & Retirement Accounts

Employer-provided pensions may be something of the past for most private sector employees who aren’t baby boomers.

However, pensions are still a vital component of the compensation package of and financial incentive for public service workers from your town’s local bureaucrats all the way up to the federal workforce and elected officials at the highest levels of government.

In attempt to keep things concise and simple, we will focus on the laws since 1984.

Specifically, members of Congress are entitled to the following benefits with some stipulations:

1. Social Security retirement like any other eligible United States citizen.

2. Federal Employee Retirement Services (FERS) benefits including a employer-provided basic retirement annuity (think pension) and Thrift Savings Plan (think 401(k)).

3. Additional perks while holding office like death gratuities to surviving heirs; government exchange health insurance options as established by the Affordable Care Act; office budget for staff and official travel expenses; franked mail rights; etc.

Members pay into these systems via:

• a 6.2% Social Security payroll tax on their adjusted base salary of $162k, as of 2023;

• anywhere from 1.3% to 4.4% tax into the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund (CSRDF) depending on when they joined Congress; and

• any voluntary contributions — usually maxing out annually at $22k — to their Thrift Savings Plan through which they receive a 5% match from their employer — the federal government.

After serving five years in Congress, members are normally eligible for a FERS pension starting at age 62. If eligible, they can receive their pension earlier if they have enough years of service — like other public sector jobs like civil servants, teachers, judges, police officers and other first responders.

Their congressional pensions max out at 80% of their final salary.

Keep in mind, these congressional pensions are in addition to any other retirement accounts including Social Security and past employer or private plans which are covered by the Hunter Index and its exclusive database.

“There were 619 retired members of Congress receiving federal pensions based fully or in part on their congressional service as of October 1, 2022. Of this number, 261 had retired under CSRS and were receiving an average annual pension of $84,504. A total of 358 Members had retired with service under FERS and were receiving an average annual pension of $45,276 in 2023.” - according to a 2023 CRS report.

So What?

Historically, a few members of Congress try to end the policy of death gratuities to surviving heirs, but the legislation rarely receives any consideration in a committee, let alone an actual vote.

The most recent effort was by Florida Republican Bill Posey in 2021.

The legislation did not receive any cosponsors. Rep. Posey has a modest (for Index members) minimum net worth of $450k and received roughly $10k from his three Rockledge rental properties in his Space Coast, Florida district.

Why Does It Matter?

Please be informed of your politicians’ personal financial information.

That’s our mission at the Hunter Index. We believe it is important for constituents to understand how their government officials’ personal finances may affect their policy making decisions as well as understanding the potential wide disparity between their wealth and that of the people in their home state or district.

Remember our favorite questions: Would you make a decision that costs your family money for the public good? Isn’t that what we ask of our government officials?

Managing the Hunter Index and its exclusive database which makes reporting like this possible is extremely expensive and labor intensive.

Please consider becoming a paid subscriber to help fund this nonprofit led by a disabled journalist or share this article with friends.

Subscribe now

Share