1. Direct Financial Self-Interest

Many members of Congress personally benefit from owning and trading stocks. Any meaningful ban would require them or their families to divest assets or limit investment strategies. Lawmakers are being asked to restrict their own wealth-building opportunities, which creates an inherent conflict between public duty and private financial interest.

Republican Senator Ashley Moody of Florida serves on the Senate Health Committee and reported trades in multiple health care companies in 2025, including Eli Lilly stock valued between $100,000 and $250,000.

Why Congress Can’t (Won’t) Ever Quit Trading Stocks

Imagine a lawmaker on the House Armed Services Committee who owns stock in a major defense contractor voting on military spending or weapons systems tied to that company.

Independent VoterCara Brown McCormick

While her office said the trades were part of an independently managed family investment partnership and that she has since withdrawn, the example illustrates how members can hold substantial financial stakes in industries they help oversee.

2. Structural Conflicts Are Legal Under Current Law

The overlap between committee assignments and stock ownership is not automatically illegal. Because the current legal framework permits this proximity as long as disclosure rules are followed, lawmakers are not operating under a system that forces change. Reform would require them to tighten rules that currently protect them.

A February 9 CNN News Central report by senior reporter Annie Grayer, who reviewed recent congressional financial disclosure filings. Grayer identified at least 10 senators from both parties who own stocks in companies operating in industries that directly overlap with their committee assignments.

Those senators include Republicans Bill Hagerty, John Kennedy, Moody, Jerry Moran, Bernie Moreno, Markwayne Mullin, and Tommy Tuberville, along with Democrats John Hickenlooper, Gary Peters, and Sheldon Whitehouse.

3. Disclosure Rules Provide Political Cover

The STOCK Act requires disclosures, which allows lawmakers to argue they are transparent even if they continue trading. Transparency without prohibition gives members a defense against criticism while preserving their financial flexibility. As long as disclosure is treated as sufficient accountability, pressure for stricter reform weakens.

4. Performative Bipartisanship Without Alignment

Both parties introduce bills and speak in favor of reform. However, their proposals are politically incompatible. One side pushes comprehensive bans. The other advances partial restrictions that allow current holdings or future flexibility. Each party can claim reform credentials without agreeing on a version that could actually pass.

5. Competing Bills Are Designed to Fail

Legislative proposals are structured in ways that prevent consensus. Comprehensive bans repel some members. Partial bans repel others. By designing bills that appeal only to their base or caucus, lawmakers ensure stalemate. The lack of compromise is not accidental but predictable.

6. Party-Line Incentives Override Reform

When proposals advance strictly along party lines, as seen in the House Administration Committee vote, reform becomes a partisan messaging tool rather than a shared institutional priority. If stopping stock trading were treated as a core institutional reform rather than a partisan issue, cross-party agreement would be necessary. That incentive is missing.

7. High Signature Thresholds Stall Action

Discharge petitions require 218 signatures in the House. Even when dozens or over a hundred members sign on, the threshold is rarely met. This procedural hurdle allows leadership to avoid bringing uncomfortable legislation to the floor. Structural rules protect inaction.

8. Access to Information Is an Advantage Members Are Reluctant to Surrender

Lawmakers have access to classified briefings, industry meetings, and regulatory oversight. Even without insider trading, this proximity gives them informational advantages. 

The portfolios of dozens of members of Congress from both major parties outperformed the benchmark S&P 500 in 2024, according to the annual analysis of the politicians' stock portfolios by Unusual Whales, a financial startup run by an anonymous tracker.

Restricting stock trading would remove the ability to personally benefit from knowledge gained in office. Few institutions voluntarily give up advantages tied to power.

A Historic First: Congressional Stock Trading Ban Makes It Out of Committee

A bill that would completely ban members of Congress and their families from trading stocks while in office was approved by the Senate Committee on Homeland Security & Governmental Affairs.

Independent VoterShawn Griffiths

9. Public Support Alone Is Not Sufficient Pressure

Polls consistently show that voters favor banning congressional stock trading. Yet the issue has not translated into decisive electoral consequences strong enough to force reform. Without sustained voter punishment or a single-party mandate centered on this issue, members can afford to let it stall.

10. Symbolic Reform Is Politically Safer Than Real Reform

By introducing bills, holding hearings, and making public statements, lawmakers can signal responsiveness without delivering change. Symbolic action reduces immediate political risk while preserving financial freedom. The appearance of effort is enough to satisfy enough voters to avoid backlash, even if nothing substantive passes.

Taken together, these reasons suggest that Congress is unlikely to stop itself from stock trading because doing so would require lawmakers to limit their own financial interests, overcome partisan incentives, accept meaningful compromise, and prioritize institutional integrity over personal benefit. The current system allows them to appear supportive of reform while ensuring it never becomes reality.