he time. So, Elizabeth Warren.

Senator Josh Hawley has introduced legislation to ban members of Congress from owning or trading individual stocks. The problem is that they have inside information. So if they were to trade stocks, they would be tempted to cheat or we'd expect that they might cheat. So it's an ugly situation. And of course, people blame Nancy Pelosi for insider trading, which she denies even though it would be totally legal. Congress is the one entity that has legal right to do insider trading. And President Trump was asked about that and apparently even Republicans don't like the idea that Hawley is putting forward the idea of banning Congress members from owning stock. But Trump was asked about it and he said, "Well, I like it conceptually." He said, "I don't know about it, but I like it conceptually."

I'm going to surprise you probably by saying I'm opposed to Hawley's legislation because people in Congress are not exactly overpaid. You know, if anything, they're probably underpaid. And I understand that they have advantages, but I would handle it with transparency. Now there are already, I think there's already a website or a startup or something that reports whenever Congress makes a trade so that you can match it. Now, there might be a timing problem that Congress can get in a few days before you know about the trade or something like that, but you basically know what the trade is. And if you wanted, you could match your own investments to be the same as the politicians and then if they make money, you make money.

I don't like taking a basic right away from politicians who are trying to serve the country. That's best case scenario. Do you think we should deny them the right to do the most basic financial thing that anybody does? It's pretty basic. If the legislation says that they can own stocks, but only if they're in funds. So it's not about individual companies. It's about funds like the whole stock market. I definitely wouldn't have any problem with that because then they would have some skin in the game of America. But no, I don't like this. I would rather have transparency and if they have some insider information, you would have it too because you'd say, "Oh, that one always uses insider information," which is legal. And if you see the move, you just copy the move if it bothers you.

Nancy Pelosi agreed to go on CNN. She thought she was going to be asked questions about the 60th anniversary of Medicaid and that would give her an excuse to say bad things about Republicans and Trump. So she goes on and Jake Tapper asked her about the idea of insider trading and she had a bit of a meltdown over that and she said, "Why do you have to read that? That's not what I agreed to come and talk about." So she got mad at the question. Don't you think that getting mad at that question is sort of a tell? Because if you put me in that position, I would say something like, well, I leave all my investing to my husband and we don't talk about work, you know, which I'm sure is not true, but it'd be an easy way to defend yourself. And then you could say something like, well, you know, it's all public, it's all transparent. You can see exactly what stocks I buy and when. And if you wanted to copy it, you could. So I would say that her reaction that she wasn't being treated special by the news tells you something, doesn't it? She agreed to go on CNN and believed that she had successfully told them what they could and could not ask on a news program. And then to his credit, Jake Tapper asked her anyway. She got mad.

So Brown University is going to settle with the White House for $50 million that they're going to give to some workforce development organizations. So it's a settlement, but you know, the money doesn't go into the government's coffers. It goes into some things that the government wanted them to put it into, which is good. Newsmax is reporting on this. And so that is how many colleges that now have decided to fund something that Trump wanted them to fund? So he's got law firms giving him money or giving his campaign money or doing some kind of pro bono stuff. He's got universities lining up to give him millions of dollars or at least put it into things that the Trump administration wants. So that's working.

Newsmax is also saying that Elon Musk's America party that he threatened he would launch, a third party political party, appears stalled. Now, I don't think we can conclude that because there's no super hurry to form it. So he might still be asking around and doing some research. Maybe. We don't know. We don't know what he's thinking. But at least some people believe that he may have been threatening it to blow off steam and that he's now just fully committed to working on his companies and probably has no particular interest driving him to do that third party. I don't know. I feel like that could go either way. But if I were to predict, which I will, I predict he will not form the third party. I think he would prefer having it out there as maybe a risk in case people go after him, but probably he'll hold back. That's just my guess. Don't really know.

Julie, Julie, don't be a piece of Julie. Too late.

Well, China has unveiled a humanoid robot. Another company I haven't mentioned yet with a brain that runs 275 trillion operations per second. Right? What do you think you could do with a robot whose brain could do 275 trillion operations per second? Well, so far all it can do is move boxes from one place to another. That's all it does. It just moves boxes. But they're very proud of the fact that it can tell the difference b