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's bottom line.

Or what about a senator advocating for renewable energy subsidies while holding shares in a specific solar manufacturer that stands to gain?

It may sound like insider trading to many. Yet, current U.S. law doesn’t always treat it as such.

There is little disagreement among Americans that members of Congress should not be trading individual stocks while writing laws and overseeing the agencies that regulate entire industries.

Polls consistently show voter support for a ban on congressional stock trading. And while leaders in both parties routinely say they agree the practice should stop, it hasn’t, despite years of attention, multiple bills, and repeated public commitments.

It is a case study in performative reform resulting in a familiar cycle of motion without resolution.

Lawmakers from both parties continue to introduce “bipartisan” legislation, hold hearings, sign discharge petitions, and issue statements signaling support for restrictions, even as they advance proposals that remain politically incompatible and structurally impossible to pass.

Members of Congress have access to information that is not available to the public through classified briefings, closed-door committee hearings, and private meetings with industry leaders.

They oversee federal agencies that regulate companies such as the Environmental Protection Agency, the Food and Drug Administration, and the Securities and Exchange Commission.

This combination of access, authority, and personal financial stakes creates unavoidable questions about conflicts of interest, even if there is no illegal activity or insider trading.

CNN senior reporter Annie Grayer said on CNN News Central on February 9 that her review of recent Congressional financial disclosure filings found “at least 10 senators, a mix of Democrats and Republicans, who own stocks in companies that are in industries that directly overlap with their committee assignments.”

While Grayer emphasized that overlap does not imply wrongdoing, she noted that it helps explain ongoing public frustration.

These senators include Republicans Bill Hagerty, John Kennedy, Ashley Moody, Jerry Moran, Bernie Moreno, Markwayne Mullin, and Tommy Tuberville, as well as Democrats John Hickenlooper, Gary Peters, and Sheldon Whitehouse. CNN also reported that at least one Democrat and one Republican who support restricting congressional stock trading disclosed trades connected to their committee work.

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. Her office said the trades were part of an independently managed family investment partnership, that she later withdrew from the partnership, and that she has not traded stocks since April 2025.

Democratic Senator John Hickenlooper of Colorado, a member of the Senate Commerce Committee, reported investing in a cybersecurity firm while serving on the committee. His office said his investments have been held in a blind trust since 2003, with decisions made without his knowledge or input.

“We’re not suggesting insider trading or anything like that,” CNN’s Grayer said. “But it’s more just to show the proximity that these members have to these trades, and while they’re also doing their committee work.”

That proximity has prompted a steady stream of legislative proposals that have gone nowhere.

On December 2, 2025, Rep. Anna Paulina Luna filed Discharge Petition #11 to force a vote on a stock trading ban. Eighty members have signed the petition, including both Democrats and Republicans, but far short of the 218 signatures needed.

In the Senate, Senators Kirsten Gillibrand, a Democrat from New York, and Moody, a Republican, introduced the Restore Trust in Congress Act on January 15.  The bill would require lawmakers and their immediate families to divest individual stocks or place them in qualified blind trusts. It is a companion measure to H.R. 5106, introduced in September 2025. Supporters say it strengthens gaps left by the 2012 STOCK Act.

On January 21, in the House, Democrats filed Discharge Petition #14 to force a vote on a different bill that would ban members of Congress, the president, the vice president, and their immediate families from owning or trading individual stocks. The petition initially attracted seven Democratic signatures, including House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries. The discharge petition has since gained another 170 signatures, all from Democrats. Not a single Republican has emerged to support the petition.

The bill’s sponsor, Democrat Rep. Seth Magaziner of Rhode Island, has argued for a comprehensive ban without exceptions.

A prior bipartisan version Magaziner introduced with Republican Rep. Chip Roy of Texas in January 2025 also failed to advance.

Legislation advanced by the Republican House Administration Committee in January 2026 would allow lawmakers and their families to keep stocks they already own while prohibiting new purchases. The committee approved this bill along Republican party lines without a single Democratic vote. Republican House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.) said he supported the bill.

“This legislation is critical to restoring the public’s trust in their elected officials. If you want to trade stocks, go to Wall Street, not Capitol Hill,” Republican Rep. Bryan Steil previously said in a statement.

Democrats have refused to support this legislation because they say it does not meaningfully resolve conflicts of interest.

“The Stop Insider Trading Act allows Members of Congress to continue to trade a substantial number of individual stocks. Under this bill, the wealthiest Members of Congress can keep every single share of stock they currently own—and use their dividends to buy even more stock,” House Administration Committee ranking member Joe Morelle (D-N.Y.) said in a statement. “I wouldn’t even call this a half measure—it’s a misdirection play. Because of that – because I believe this bill is simply Speaker Johnson’s attempt to blunt momentum toward a full congressional stock trading ban – I plan on opposing this bill today,” he added.

Taken together, these dueling Congressional proposals reveal a pattern familiar to voters. Both parties can point to legislation that allows them to claim support for banning stock trading. At the same time, the bills are structured in ways that fail to attract consensus and will never advance to final passage. The absence of compromise ensures that neither proposal succeeds.

That dynamic has consequences beyond the policy itself. When lawmakers repeatedly signal support for a ban while allowing the issue to stall out, it reinforces the perception that reform is more symbolic than sincere. Over time, the failure to resolve a widely supported issue and stem corruption contributes to declining trust in Congress and skepticism about whether elected officials intend to limit privileges that benefit them personally.

For now, congressional stock trading continues under existing disclosure rules. The public support for reform remains clear. What remains unresolved is whether the two major political parties in Congress have any incentive or political will to move beyond performance and enact meaningful change.