Congressional Stock Trading: New Legislation Revives the Debate Over Profits, Public Trust and Political Power
Congress has moved closer to restricting lawmakers’ stock purchases, but critics argue that the House-approved legislation contains major loopholes. Meanwhile, financial disclosures show that several members recorded estimated market returns substantially above the S&P 500 in 2025.
By USCongress.us Staff
August 23, 2026
Members of Congress help determine tax policy, authorize federal contracts, regulate industries and oversee agencies whose decisions can move financial markets. At the same time, many senators and representatives—or their spouses and dependent children—own and trade shares in the companies affected by those decisions.
That combination has created one of Washington’s most persistent ethical controversies.
Congress has now taken its most significant step toward restricting lawmaker stock trading in years. In July 2026, the House approved the Stop Insider Trading Act, H.R. 7008. The legislation would prevent members, their spouses and dependent children from making new purchases of individual corporate stocks. It would also require advance public notice before covered shares are sold.
The bill does not require lawmakers to divest their existing holdings. It also contains exceptions and procedures that critics say could permit families to retain substantial financial interests in companies affected by congressional action.
Those limitations have divided lawmakers who agree that reform is necessary but disagree over whether the House bill constitutes a meaningful prohibition or merely a partial restriction.
The debate is made more urgent by the volume of congressional trading. According to an analysis cited by Reuters, lawmakers completed 13,324 trades with an estimated combined value of $635.6 million during 2025. Reuters
The controversy is not proof that the lawmakers recording the largest market gains violated federal law. Portfolio performance can result from long-held investments, diversified funds, inherited assets or decisions made by spouses and professional advisers. Public financial forms usually report transaction values within broad ranges rather than exact amounts, making precise profit calculations impossible.
Nevertheless, the appearance of a conflict can be damaging even when no illegal activity occurred. Congress is therefore confronting two separate questions: whether lawmakers are actually misusing confidential information and whether allowing them to trade individual stocks creates an unacceptable appearance that official power can be used for personal enrichment.
What the STOCK Act currently requires
Congress enacted the Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge Act—known as the STOCK Act—in 2012. President Barack Obama signed it into law on April 4 of that year.
The STOCK Act explicitly affirmed that members and congressional employees are not exempt from federal insider-trading laws. It established that they owe a duty of trust and confidence regarding material, nonpublic information obtained through their official positions.
The law also prohibits members and employees from using nonpublic information derived from their government responsibilities for private profit. Official STOCK Act text, GovInfo
Under the disclosure provisions, members generally must report purchases, sales or exchanges of securities exceeding $1,000 within 45 days. Transactions by spouses and dependent children can also trigger reporting obligations.
These periodic transaction reports are publicly available through House and Senate disclosure systems. Private services such as Quiver Quantitative, Capitol Trades and Unusual Whales collect the reports and organize them into searchable databases.
The STOCK Act increased transparency, but it did not prohibit lawmakers from owning or trading individual stocks. It also did not eliminate practical enforcement problems.
An insider-trading prosecution generally requires proof that a person knowingly traded on material, nonpublic information. Establishing that a legislator purchased or sold a stock is relatively easy. Proving that a trade was motivated by confidential information from a classified briefing, private committee discussion or pending government action is considerably more difficult.
Disclosure violations are usually treated as ethics matters and can result in relatively modest penalties. Reports may also be filed late, amended months later or describe transaction values only as ranges such as $1,001 to $15,000 or $100,001 to $250,000.
As a result, the STOCK Act tells the public more about congressional investing, but it does not remove the underlying conflict.
The House-approved Stop Insider Trading Act
The House Administration Committee approved the Stop Insider Trading Act in January 2026 by a party-line vote of 7–4. Chairman Bryan Steil, Republican of Wisconsin, promoted the legislation as a way to improve public confidence.
“You want to trade stocks? Go to Wall Street,” Steil said while advancing the bill.
H.R. 7008 would generally prohibit members of Congress, spouses and dependent children from purchasing the stock of publicly traded companies. Sales of covered assets would have to be disclosed before they occur rather than weeks afterward.
The legislation therefore goes beyond the current STOCK Act. A lawmaker could not continue actively accumulating new shares in a company that the lawmaker’s committee regulates or oversees.
The measure, however, is not a complete ownership ban.
Members could retain individual shares already in their portfolios. They would not necessarily have to sell assets that present a conflict with committee duties. The bill also permits certain dividend reinvestments and does not apply equally to every federal official who possesses market-sensitive information.
Representative Joe Morelle of New York, the ranking Democrat on the House Administration Committee, argued that these exceptions leave the most important conflicts in place. Morelle and other Democrats sought restrictions covering the president, vice president and Supreme Court justices as well as members of Congress.
The House ultimately passed H.R. 7008 in July by a vote of 232–198. Its path became more controversial when Republican leaders connected the stock-trading measure with voter-identification provisions. Democrats accused the majority of attaching a partisan election policy to legislation that otherwise could have attracted broad bipartisan support.
The Senate has not approved the House bill. Unless senators pass the same text—or the chambers negotiate a compromise—and the president signs it, the restrictions will not become law.
The bill’s procedural record and legislative text are available through the House Rules Committee.
A competing bipartisan proposal: Restore Trust in Congress
A broader alternative is the Restore Trust in Congress Act.
Representatives Chip Roy, Republican of Texas, and Seth Magaziner, Democrat of Rhode Island, introduced the House proposal with support from a large bipartisan group of members. Senators Kirsten Gillibrand, Democrat of New York, and Ashley Moody, Republican of Florida, introduced companion legislation in the Senate in January 2026.
Their proposal would prohibit members, spouses, dependent children and trustees from owning, buying or selling individual stocks and certain other assets. It would cover securities, commodities and futures, including assets held in qualified blind trusts.
The proposal would allow widely held, diversified investments such as mutual funds and exchange-traded funds. It would also permit U.S. Treasury securities and state and municipal bonds.
Those exceptions reflect a central principle behind most comprehensive reform proposals: lawmakers should be able to save for retirement and participate in broad economic growth, but they should not select individual companies whose financial prospects may be affected by congressional action.
Gillibrand and Moody argue that eliminating individual stock ownership is necessary because disclosure alone cannot remove the conflict. Their proposal would establish a clearer rule than attempting to determine whether each trade resulted from confidential information. Senators Gillibrand and Moody
Roy and Magaziner similarly contend that lawmakers must put their public responsibilities ahead of their portfolios. Representative Chip Roy
The Restore Trust proposal is stricter than H.R. 7008 because it addresses ownership as well as future purchases. Its breadth, however, could make passage more difficult among lawmakers who entered Congress with substantial business interests or accumulated large portfolios before taking office.
The lawmakers pushing for stronger restrictions
The stock-trading issue has produced alliances that do not follow conventional party lines.
Major proponents of restrictions include:
- Representative Bryan Steil, R-Wis. Steil sponsored and promoted the House-approved Stop Insider Trading Act. His approach prohibits new purchases but allows existing holdings.
- Representative Chip Roy, R-Texas. Roy supports a stronger ownership and trading ban covering lawmakers and their immediate families.
- Representative Seth Magaziner, D-R.I. Magaziner partnered with Roy on the Restore Trust in Congress Act.
- Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y. Gillibrand helped lead enactment of the original STOCK Act and now argues that disclosure is insufficient.
- Senator Ashley Moody, R-Fla. Moody joined Gillibrand in sponsoring the Senate Restore Trust proposal.
- Representative Joe Morelle, D-N.Y. Morelle supports restrictions but opposed Steil’s version as too limited.
- Representatives Tim Burchett, R-Tenn.; Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y.; Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash.; and other bipartisan negotiators have participated in efforts to develop a more comprehensive prohibition.
- Senators Mark Kelly, D-Ariz., and Jon Ossoff, D-Ga. have promoted separate legislation intended to prohibit congressional stock trading.
The disagreement among these lawmakers is not primarily about whether reform is needed. It concerns how extensive the prohibition should be, which relatives and federal officials should be covered, how quickly existing holdings must be divested and which investments should remain permissible.
Why measuring congressional gains is difficult
Lists of the “best congressional stock traders” should be treated as estimates, not audited profit statements.
Federal disclosures contain several limitations:
- Transaction amounts are reported in ranges rather than exact dollars.
- Disclosures may identify a purchase or sale without reporting the original cost basis.
- A report may involve the member, the member’s spouse, a dependent child or a jointly held account.
- Some portfolios are managed by financial advisers without day-to-day direction from the lawmaker.
- Dividends, options, transfers, taxes and account contributions may not be fully captured in a simple return estimate.
- A large percentage gain does not necessarily represent a large dollar profit.
- A portfolio concentrated in one successful stock can appear to demonstrate exceptional trading skill even if the shares were purchased many years earlier.
- Different tracking organizations use different assumptions, producing different rankings.
For example, a disclosure showing a purchase between $1,001 and $15,000 does not reveal whether the actual investment was $1,100 or $14,900. A tracking service may use the midpoint of the range to estimate portfolio weight, but that assumption can materially alter the calculated return.
The figures below are therefore estimated 2025 portfolio returns derived primarily from the Unusual Whales congressional trading report and summarized by other financial publications. They should not be described as proven cash profits or evidence of wrongdoing.
Members with the largest estimated 2025 portfolio gains
The most recent complete annual comparison covers calendar year 2025. The 2026 trading year remains incomplete, and many 2026 transactions will not become public until weeks after they occur.
| Rank | Member | Party and state | Estimated 2025 return |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Rep. Warren Davidson | Republican–Ohio | 78.8% |
| 2 | Rep. Donald Norcross | Democrat–New Jersey | 70.8% |
| 3 | Rep. Terri Sewell | Democrat–Alabama | 67.9% |
| 4 | Rep. Bryan Steil | Republican–Wisconsin | 62.5% |
| 5 | Sen. Alex Padilla | Democrat–California | 61.7% |
| 6 | Rep. Nick LaLota | Republican–New York | 61.5% |
| 7 | Sen. Rick Scott | Republican–Florida | 54.8% |
| 8 | Rep. Michael Guest | Republican–Mississippi | 52.5% |
| 9 | Rep. Tom McClintock | Republican–California | 50.0% |
| 10 | Rep. Dwight Evans | Democrat–Pennsylvania | 41.9% |
These estimates were reported from an Unusual Whales analysis and summarized by The Motley Fool and Finviz.
The S&P 500 returned approximately 16.6% during the same period, meaning each member in this estimated top 10 substantially outperformed that broad benchmark.
Warren Davidson
Representative Warren Davidson of Ohio recorded the highest estimated return at 78.8%. Reporting attributes much of the performance to concentrated holdings connected to General Electric, including GE Aerospace and GE Vernova.
Davidson’s result demonstrates why “largest gain” does not necessarily mean “most aggressive trader.” His estimated return was strongly influenced by a concentrated position rather than thousands of short-term transactions.
Donald Norcross
Representative Donald Norcross of New Jersey recorded an estimated 70.8% return. His disclosed portfolio reportedly included concentrated positions in Cigna and Toronto-Dominion Bank.
Terri Sewell
Representative Terri Sewell of Alabama ranked third with an estimated 67.9% return. Her performance was attributed partly to Nvidia shares acquired during 2025.
Sewell’s appearance near the top is particularly relevant to Alabama readers. Senator Tommy Tuberville of Alabama reportedly recorded an estimated 15.6% return during 2025, placing him substantially below the leading group but still drawing attention because of his history of active disclosures.
Bryan Steil
Representative Bryan Steil, the principal sponsor of the House’s stock-trading restrictions, recorded an estimated 62.5% portfolio gain.
This does not establish hypocrisy or misconduct. Reports indicate that Steil was not among the most active traders during the year. However, his strong estimated performance illustrates the difficult optics facing lawmakers who regulate congressional investing while holding successful market portfolios.
Alex Padilla and Rick Scott
Senators Alex Padilla of California and Rick Scott of Florida were the two highest-ranking senators in the cited top 10, with estimated gains of 61.7% and 54.8%, respectively.
Again, those figures reflect calculated portfolio performance, not necessarily realized income placed into a personal bank account.
Other studies produce different rankings
Not every analysis reaches the same result.
Separate reporting placed Representative Tim Moore of North Carolina at approximately 52% for 2025, Senator Ted Cruz of Texas at about 50% and Representative Tom Suozzi of New York at approximately 35%. Another analysis identified Suozzi as the highest-performing Democratic member under its methodology. New York Post summary
These differences underscore the danger of presenting any ranking as exact. Some services count only actively traded portfolios. Others include long-standing holdings, options or assets reported on annual disclosures. Different estimates of transaction size can also change the rankings.
A credible presentation should identify the source and methodology rather than combining incompatible lists.
Trading volume is different from investment performance
The lawmakers completing the most transactions are not necessarily those earning the highest percentage returns.
According to reporting based on congressional disclosures, the largest 2025 trading volumes included:
- Representative Michael McCaul, R-Texas: approximately 1,008 trades and $57.7 million in estimated volume.
- Representative Ro Khanna, D-Calif.: approximately 4,107 trades and $53.4 million in volume.
- Representative Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.: 19 disclosed trades and approximately $51.7 million in volume.
- Representative Jefferson Shreve, R-Ind.: approximately 556 trades and $29.3 million in volume.
Because the transactions may belong to spouses or managed accounts, it is more precise to describe them as transactions reported by the member’s household rather than trades personally placed by the lawmaker.
Money magazine’s review of the disclosures provides additional details about these active accounts. Money
Why the conflict extends beyond insider trading
The case for reform does not depend on proving a crime.
Suppose a member owns a large position in a defense contractor while voting on military procurement. The member may sincerely believe that a particular weapons system is necessary for national security. The vote may be entirely legitimate. Yet the member’s household could still benefit financially from the decision.
The same concern arises with healthcare companies, technology platforms, banks, energy producers and pharmaceutical manufacturers.
Committee assignments can make the appearance particularly sensitive. Members of the Armed Services Committee oversee defense policy. Financial Services members regulate banks and securities markets. Energy and Commerce members influence telecommunications, healthcare and energy companies.
Even if a lawmaker never receives a confidential tip, official experience may provide a superior understanding of legislative momentum, agency priorities or emerging regulatory risks.
Public confidence can suffer when citizens believe lawmakers have a different set of market opportunities than ordinary investors.
Arguments against a complete ban
Some members and legal analysts argue that a total ownership ban could go too far.
Lawmakers do not surrender all private-property rights when elected. Requiring divestment may generate substantial taxes or force the sale of family businesses and long-held investments. A ban could also discourage successful professionals and business owners from seeking office.
Others argue that broad mutual funds are not automatically conflict-free. A legislator with millions invested in an energy-sector fund, for example, could still benefit from policies affecting energy companies.
Blind trusts also present complications. A conventional qualified blind trust can prevent a public official from knowing how assets are invested, but transferring existing holdings into a trust does not instantly make those holdings unknown. The Restore Trust proposal addresses this concern by restricting covered individual assets even when held through qualified blind trusts.
Opponents of an immediate ban may favor stricter disclosure, real-time reporting, larger penalties, mandatory recusals and more aggressive enforcement instead.
A workable path forward
A durable bipartisan law could combine the strongest elements of existing proposals:
- Prohibit members, spouses and dependent children from buying or owning individual stocks, corporate bonds, options, commodities and futures.
- Permit diversified mutual funds, broad exchange-traded funds, Treasury securities and diversified retirement accounts.
- Require divestment within a reasonable transition period to avoid forced fire sales.
- Establish independent enforcement instead of relying primarily on congressional ethics committees.
- Require electronic disclosures in a standardized, searchable format.
- Shorten the transaction-reporting period until the ownership ban becomes effective.
- Increase penalties for late, incomplete or inaccurate reports.
- Cover the president, vice president, senior executive officials and Supreme Court justices under comparable standards.
- Require public reporting of waivers, recusals and enforcement actions.
- Protect lawmakers from tax penalties caused solely by required divestment while preventing those protections from becoming a financial windfall.
The objective should not be to prevent public officials from saving for retirement. It should be to eliminate financial incentives tied to the success or failure of individual companies affected by their official decisions.
What happens next
H.R. 7008 has passed the House but faces an uncertain future in the Senate. Senators could accept the House bill, modify it or pursue the more comprehensive Restore Trust in Congress Act.
The attachment of voter-identification provisions complicates the legislative path. A standalone stock-trading measure could attract support from both parties, while a combined bill may force lawmakers to oppose restrictions they otherwise favor.
That may become the central political question: whether congressional leaders genuinely intend to enact a restriction or prefer to use a popular reform proposal as leverage for unrelated legislation.
Public demand for action remains strong. Yet Congress has introduced numerous stock-trading bills over several years without enacting a comprehensive prohibition.
The issue will remain difficult to resolve because the people writing the rules are also the people whose financial activity would be restricted.
The highest-performing congressional portfolios do not prove corruption. They do, however, illustrate why transparency alone has not restored confidence. When lawmakers can influence industries, receive confidential information and participate in individual securities markets, every unusually successful investment can generate suspicion.
Congress can reduce that suspicion by adopting a clear rule: public officials may participate in broad economic growth, but they should not place personal bets on the individual companies their government decisions can help or harm.
References
- U.S. Government Publishing Office. “Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge Act of 2012,” Public Law 112-105. April 4, 2012.
https://www.govinfo.gov/link/plaw/112/public/105 - House Committee on Rules. “H.R. 7008—Stop Insider Trading Act.” July 2026.
https://rules.house.gov/bill/119/hr-7008 - Reuters. “U.S. House Republicans Advance Bill to Curtail Lawmaker Stock Trades as Democrats Seek Tougher Controls.” January 14, 2026.
https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/us-house-republicans-advance-bill-curtail-lawmaker-stock-trades-democrats-seek-2026-01-14/ - Senator Kirsten Gillibrand. “Sens. Moody, Gillibrand Announce New Bipartisan Bill to Ban Congressional Stock Trading.” January 15, 2026.
https://www.gillibrand.senate.gov/news/press/release/sens-moody-gillibrand-announce-new-bipartisan-bill-to-ban-congressional-stock-trading/ - Representative Chip Roy. “Reps. Roy, Magaziner Introduce Historic Bipartisan Bill to Prevent Members of Congress From Trading Stocks.” September 3, 2025.
https://roy.house.gov/media/press-releases/reps-roy-magaziner-introduce-historic-bipartisan-bill-prevent-members-congress - Unusual Whales. “2025 Congressional Trading Report.” January 2026.
https://unusualwhales.com/congress-trading-report-2025 - The Motley Fool. “Congressional Stock Trading: Who Trades the Most and Who Makes the Most?” January 22, 2026.
https://www.fool.com/research/congressional-stock-trading-who-trades-and-makes-the-most/ - Money. “Congress Stock Tracker: Here’s What the Most Active Traders Bought to Start 2026.” February 13, 2026.
https://money.com/congress-stock-market-traders-2026-activity/ - Common Cause. “Congress Made Over $635 Million in Stock Trades While Americans Struggled.” December 2025.
https://www.commoncause.org/articles/congress-made-over-635-million-in-stock-trades-while-americans-struggled-see-who-traded-the-most/ - Quiver Quantitative. “Congress Trading Dashboard.”
https://www.quiverquant.com/congresstrading/ - Investopedia. “How to Find Lawmakers’ Investment Disclosures.”
https://www.investopedia.com/how-to-find-lawmaker-investments-11753849
Sources accessed August 23, 2026. Portfolio-return figures are third-party estimates based on public financial disclosures and should not be interpreted as audited profits, investment advice or evidence of illegal conduct.
