In the halls of the U.S. Capitol, where lawmakers craft policies that shape the nation’s economy, a persistent ethical dilemma looms: the ability of members of Congress to trade stocks while possessing privileged, non-public information. This practice raises serious concerns about insider trading, where legislators can leverage insights from committee briefings, closed-door meetings, or upcoming legislation to achieve returns that often outpace the broader market. Studies have shown that congressional portfolios frequently beat benchmarks like the S&P 500, with average returns for Democrats at 31% and Republicans at 26.1% in 2024, compared to the index’s 24.9% gain.
Such advantages not only fuel (correct) perceptions of corruption but also undermine public confidence in government institutions, where trust is already at historic lows. The core issue stems from the inherent conflicts of interest. Lawmakers on committees overseeing sectors like finance, defense, or technology often trade stocks in those very industries. For instance, a New York Times investigation found that from 2019 to 2021, nearly one in five members of Congress reported trades in assets overlapping with their committee work.
While ordinary citizens face severe penalties for insider trading under federal securities laws, the framework for Congress has long been lax, allowing members to accumulate wealth in ways that ahem appear suspiciously timed.
The primary safeguard against congressional insider trading is the Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge (STOCK) Act, signed into law by President Barack Obama in 2012. The legislation explicitly applies insider trading prohibitions to members of Congress, their staff, and other federal employees, barring them from using non-public information for personal profit. It also mandates disclosure of stock trades exceeding $1,000 within forty-five days (reduced from annual reporting), with filings made public through the Clerk of the House or Secretary of the Senate.
However, enforcement remains weak. Violations of disclosure rules carry a mere $200 fine for first offenses, a negligible sum for the overwhelming number of multimillionaire lawmakers. Not that it matters; literally no member has ever been prosecuted under the STOCK Act, despite numerous suspicious trades.
Further, routine non-compliance is rampant. For example, during the COVID-19 pandemic, lawmakers traded over $150 million in stocks amid private briefings on the crisis, yet faced no repercussions. Then there is the fact that the act’s requirements apply to spouses and dependent children, but loopholes persist, such as delayed reporting that allows trades to go unnoticed for weeks.
Beyond the STOCK Act, the Ethics in Government Act (EIGA) requires annual financial disclosures, but these are often incomplete or filed late without meaningful consequences. House and Senate ethics committees, too, provide guidance on conflicts, but they lack the teeth for aggressive oversight. As a result, the system relies on self-policing, which has proven totally inadequate in deterring abuses.
Beyond high-profile cases, everyone is familiar with the all-too-true jest about former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) being a better investor than Warren Buffett, lesser-known members have demonstrated remarkable stock market success.
On Twitter/X, @QuiverQuant tracks such activities, highlighting active traders like Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NC), who bought Ellington Financial stock in 2026 before it took off—the only congressional trade in that company. Then there was Senator Thomas Carper (D-DE), who loaded up on lithium stocks like Arcadium Lithium in 2024 while on a natural resources subcommittee, another unique trade. Then there was then-Rep. John Curtis (R-UT) sold up to $840,000 across 56 trades in 2023, including timely sales of First Republic Bank before its collapse. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) sold Veralto stock in 2023 while on the Environment Committee, echoing his pre-2008 crisis sales.
Trading on insider information is not only profitable but bipartisan. Also bipartisan is the overwhelming public support efforts to put a stop to this practice receive.
A 2023 University of Maryland poll found 86% of Americans favor banning individual stock trading by members of Congress, with bipartisan support (87% Republicans, 88% Democrats). As it happens, similar majorities back extending bans to the president, vice president, and Supreme Court justices—with strong majorities favoring extending the ban to all federal employees.
Yet despite this consensus, meaningful change never seems to materialize.
Historical and ongoing efforts to ban congressional trading date back over a decades. The STOCK Act itself emerged after scandals in the mid-2000s, including insider trading allegations against aides to former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-TX) and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN). Initially introduced in 2006 by Reps. Louise Slaughter (D-NY) and Brian Baird (D-WA), it languished until a 2011 “60 Minutes” exposé on congressional trading applied enough public pressure to spur bipartisan support, leading to its passage in 2012.
Post-STOCK Act, abuses and lack of enforcement were the norm—but revelations of pandemic-era trades reignited public pressure, prompting calls for stricter measures. In 2022, Senator Jon Ossoff (D-GA) introduced the Ban Congressional Stock Trading Act, prohibiting members, spouses, and dependents from buying or selling individual stocks—and similar proposals followed, including the Ban Stock Trading for Government Officials Act by Senators Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) and Josh Hawley (R-MO) in 2023, extending bans to the executive branch.
Most recently, the Restore Trust in Congress Act, introduced in September 2025 by a bipartisan group including Reps. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA), Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), and Chip Roy (R-TX), seeks to ban trading by members and families, with strong enforcement and penalties—it has since languished, however. More promising, as of January 2026, Rep. Bryan Steil’s (R-WI) bill, which allows retaining pre-office stocks but bars new purchases, advanced through committee but faces uncertainty in a full House vote.
The real problem is that Congress is essentially responsible for reigning in its own abuses. Unsurprisingly, bills advance in committees but falter in full votes, as lawmakers resist measures that could limit their financial freedom. As Obama White House alumni David Axelrod has noted, “additional efforts to prohibit members of Congress from trading individual stocks have failed.”
With no external enforcement, functional forbearance, and vested interests at play, an outright ban seems unlikely, perpetuating a system where public polls scream for accountability, but Capitol Hill remains defiantly inert.
