WASHINGTON, D.C. — Americans have spoken, again and again — and the message is crystal clear: members of Congress should not be allowed to trade stocks while in office. Yet, despite bipartisan legislative proposals and national scrutiny, Congress continues to stall.

It’s An Issue that Unites Nearly All Democrats, Republicans, and Independents

A 2023 poll from the University of Maryland’s Program for Public Consultation found that 86% of Americans support banning stock trading by members of Congress, including:

• 88% of Democrats
• 87% of Republicans
• 81% of independents

In swing states like Arizona, Georgia, and Pennsylvania, support for a congressional AND executive ban ranged from 71% to 76%, indicating strong majorities regardless of geography or ideology.

Another recent survey showed support reaching as high as 90% for a congressional ban among likely voters, and it’s easy to understand why there is such overwhelming support for the proposal:

• Conflict of interest: Lawmakers write laws and receive confidential briefings that can influence markets.
• Scandals: High-profile trades by former Sen. Richard Burr, Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s husband, and others have drawn scrutiny.
• Eroding trust: Voters increasingly believe Congress is more interested in personal gain than public service.

“It’s time to stop turning a blind eye to corruption and start restoring the public’s trust. Members of Congress shouldn’t be using their position to make money off the stock market,” said Republican U.S. Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO).

Hawley has supported multiple attempts to pass a legislative ban on congressional stock trading. Among his allies in this effort is U.S. Sen. Jon Ossoff (D-GA), who has echoed his colleague's sentiments:

Members of Congress should not be playing the stock market while we make federal policy and have extraordinary access to confidential information.”

Why Isn’t This Already Illegal?

Hawley has pointed out in public statements and in committee that insider trading is illegal. However, the public is largely unaware that some information lawmakers have access to technically does not fall in that category.

And yet, it can still give lawmakers an advantage in playing the stock market.

A notable example of this was the beginning of the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic, when U.S. lawmakers had access to the severity and spread before the public. Some rushed to sell stock before the market took massive hits.

Many instances of this happening were investigated, but ultimately no one was found guilty of any crime because the information they used was not legally defined as insider information by current securities regulations.

Since then, there have been multiple attempts to close these loopholes and/or ban congressional stock trading completely. 

The Ban Congressional Stock Trading Act (Ossoff and Sen. Mark Kelly) required members to place stocks in blind trusts. A House version was also introduced called the TRUST in Congress Act, sponsored by U.S. Reps. Abigail Spanberger (D-VA) and Chip Roy (R-TX).

The ETHICS Act – introduced by Sens. Ossoff, Hawley, Jeff Merkley (D-OR), and Gary Peters (D-MI) – was approved by the Senate Committee on Homeland Security & Governmental Affairs in 2024. It banned members of Congress and their families from trading stocks. 

Similarly, Hawley’s HONEST Act completely bans lawmakers and their spouses from holding or trading individual stocks. The bill also made it out of committee with Hawley voting with all Democrats on the panel.

Yet, despite cross-partisan support – including from high-profile members of Congress like Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez – Senate and House leaders have never let these bills come to the floor.

Why? Well, for one, many lawmakers – in both parties – still own individual stocks and benefit from market success. In 2021, U.S. Rep. Nancy Pelosi, then Speaker, said “we’re a free market. [Lawmakers] should be able to participate in that."

Pelosi has since changed her position on the matter. 

Opponents in Congress have also raised issues with scope, enforcement, and inclusion of spouses or dependents. Leaders in both chambers have even said that such a ban would dissuade people from running for office.

Advocates aren’t backing down. Along with Hawley’s HONEST Act, Spanberger has again rallied bipartisan support in the House. The question is: What will it take for congressional leadership to listen to 90% of the public?