The "Pelosi ETF": what NANC and KRUZ actually hold

Two ETFs track the disclosed stock holdings of Democratic and Republican members of Congress. Here's how NANC and KRUZ are built, what they can and can't do, and whether they beat doing it yourself.

2026-08-05 · 11 min read · By Insider Option

Search volume for "Nancy Pelosi ETF" is substantial and has been for years. The honest answer is that no such fund exists — you cannot buy a vehicle tracking one member of Congress. What exists, since February 2023, are two funds tracking Congressional disclosures split by party.

• NANC — the Unusual Whales Subversive Democratic Trading ETF. The ticker is a nod to Pelosi, which is why it gets called the Pelosi ETF.
• KRUZ — the Unusual Whales Subversive Republican Trading ETF, named with equivalent subtlety after Senator Ted Cruz.

Both are actively managed by Subversive Capital and built from the same public STOCK Act filings that any retail investor can read for free.

How they are constructed

The mechanism is straightforward and worth understanding because it determines the funds' limits.

1. Collect Periodic Transaction Reports and annual disclosures filed by members of Congress and their spouses.
2. Sort filers by party.
3. Hold the US-listed equities that appear, weighted by the manager's own rules rather than by the filings — because the filings only give ranges.
4. Rebalance as new disclosures arrive.

The critical consequence: these are not index funds tracking a mechanical rule, and they are not literal replications of any politician's portfolio. They are actively managed funds whose input is Congressional disclosure data. The manager decides sizing, liquidity screens, and turnover.

What they inherit — the good and the bad

They inherit the 45-day lag, plus their own

A fund cannot act on a trade before it is disclosed. Whatever informational content a Congressional trade had is subject to the same decay described in does copying Congressional trades work? — and the ETF adds its own rebalancing delay on top. If the underlying premise is weakened by the disclosure lag, buying it in fund form does not repair that.

They cannot replicate weights

A disclosure saying "$1,000,001–$5,000,000" spans a 5× range, and no filing reveals a member's total portfolio. There is no way to know whether a holding was 1% or 20% of a member's book, so "tracks Congressional holdings" necessarily means "holds the same names, weighted some other way."

They are structurally tech-tilted

Congressional equity disclosures have historically skewed toward large-cap technology. That means these funds tend to behave like a somewhat concentrated large-cap growth portfolio. When you evaluate performance, the relevant question is not "did it beat SPY" but "did it beat a comparable large-cap growth benchmark" — because the tech tilt alone can account for a lot of relative performance in either direction, and it says nothing about political information.

They do include spousal trades

Which is correct, because much of the most-watched activity — Pelosi's disclosures included — comes from spousal accounts. But it means "Congress is buying X" often means "a member's spouse, who is a professional investor, is buying X". Whether that is more or less interesting is a genuine question.

ETF vs doing it yourself

The trade-off is straightforwardly about effort versus control.

The ETF is better if

• You want the exposure and value your time.
• You want automatic diversification across many members rather than betting on one.
• You would otherwise make concentrated single-stock bets off individual filings, which is a materially riskier way to express the same idea.
• You want it inside a retirement account with minimal maintenance.

Doing it yourself is better if

• You want to follow specific members — say, only those on committees relevant to their trades — rather than an entire party.
• You want to filter for the higher-information subset (large purchases, committee-relevant names) instead of everything.
• You would rather not pay a management fee indefinitely.
• You want control over entry timing and position sizing, which the fund gives you none of.

Check current expense ratios, assets under management, and holdings on the issuer's own site before deciding — fund terms change, and any figure quoted in a blog post ages badly. The full holdings list is published daily, as it is for every US ETF, which incidentally makes these funds a free way to see a pre-parsed summary of Congressional equity exposure even if you never buy a share.

The party split is the interesting part

The most genuinely useful thing about having two funds is that it turns a political argument into an observable one. Anyone can now compare NANC and KRUZ over identical periods rather than trading anecdotes about which party trades better.

Two cautions on that comparison. The sample period since early 2023 is short — far too short to distinguish skill from sector composition, let alone from chance. And any difference between them is most likely explained by sector weights, since the two parties' disclosed holdings differ systematically in composition (energy and financials versus technology, broadly). A performance gap between the funds is probably a factor story, not an information story.

Bottom line

NANC and KRUZ are a legitimate, liquid, low-effort way to buy the "follow Congress" idea. They do not solve the idea's central problem — the disclosure lag — and they add a fee and remove your control in exchange for removing the work.

If your interest is in the underlying data rather than packaged exposure, the filings are free and our Congress tracker parses them, including per-member history and committee context the ETFs do not surface. For the specific case people search for most, see how to follow Nancy Pelosi's stock trades.

This post is for informational purposes only and is not investment advice. We have no affiliation with Subversive Capital or Unusual Whales. Fund details change — verify with the issuer. See our disclaimer.