California Democratic Sen. Adam Schiff is once again playing political games, this time demanding financial disclosures from senior White House officials, and it didn’t take long for the Trump team to call out the hypocrisy.

Instead of aiming his outrage where it belongs, Schiff sent a letter to White House counsel David Warrington and Chief of Staff Susie Wiles, voicing “continued and growing concern regarding… failure to submit any financial disclosure reports for senior White House officials to the Office of Government Ethics within the statutorily mandated period,” Fox News reported.

But as usual, Schiff ignored the real elephant in the room — California colleague Nancy Pelosi’s shady financial history.

White House spokesman Kush Desai wasn’t having it, telling ABC News, “The American people remain highly concerned about Nancy Pelosi’s long, documented history of insider trading and eagerly await Adam Schiff refocusing his political stunt on serious issues, like Pelosi’s portfolio.”

Schiff demanded a list of officials required to file “new entrant” reports, a reason for the alleged “failure to transmit” them, and any late filing penalties. He also pointed out that he had joined an earlier letter in April with a group of fellow Democrats, including Rep. Mike Levin and Rep. Jerry Nadler.

But the White House quickly pushed back again, with spokeswoman Taylor Rogers saying officials are fully compliant with ethics laws, “including the obligation to file periodic transaction reports disclosing the purchase or sale of certain securities.”

Still, Schiff kept up the grandstanding. “For decades, administrations of both parties, including the first Trump Administration, have fulfilled this obligation, recognizing that public trust in government depends on robust, enforceable transparency standards,” he claimed.

He accused the Trump White House of ethics failures, saying that “senior officials in this administration have repeatedly failed to disclose assets and business entanglements, as well as potentially misused their official positions for personal gain. Transparency and compliance with ethics laws are essential.”

If Schiff actually cared about ethics, he might want to take a closer look at his longtime ally.

Pelosi, whose personal wealth reportedly tops $120 million, has faced accusations of insider trading for years. She didn’t answer when a Fox News Digital reporter asked her about it on Capitol Hill last month. Her spokesman, Ian Krager, later claimed “she does not own any stocks, and she has no prior knowledge or subsequent involvement in any transactions.”

That didn’t stop Republicans from pushing back. Missouri Sen. Josh Hawley introduced the PELOSI Act, the Preventing Elected Leaders from Owning Securities and Investments Act, in 2023. Congressman Mark Alford followed up with a House version. Both bills were inspired by the long-standing questions around Pelosi’s trades.

“Members of Congress should be fighting for the people they were elected to serve—not day trading at the expense of their constituents,” Sen. Hawley said. “Americans have seen politician after politician turn a profit using information not available to the general public. It’s time we ban all members of Congress from trading and holding stocks and restore Americans’ trust in our nation’s legislative body.”

Missouri Republican Rep. Mark Alford introduced his bill in the House to ban congressional stock trading, which he said is “complementary” to Missouri Republican Sen. Josh Hawley’s legislation in the Senate.

“As public servants, we should hold ourselves to a higher standard and avoid the mere appearance of corruption,” Rep. Alford said in a press release. “Unfortunately, too many members of Congress are engaging in suspicious stock trades based on non-public information to enrich themselves. These gross violations of the public trust make clear: we must finally take action to ban members and their spouses from owning or selling individual stocks.”

When asked in May if she’d support a ban on congressional stock trading, Pelosi shrugged it off, “if they do, they do,” and gave a half-hearted “sure” when pressed if she’d vote for it.