House GOP Declares War on Lawmakers’ Stock Profiteering in Bold Move

Paul Riverbank, 1/13/2026House GOP pushes bold bill to curb lawmakers' stock trading, aiming to restore public trust.

Bryan Steil, who chairs the House Administration Committee, kicked off the renewed push by dropping a bill packed with restrictions on congressional trading. The message could hardly have been clearer: Americans are tired of the headlines hinting their elected representatives might be cutting themselves sweetheart deals with access to information the rest of us can’t see. The Wall Street whispers have echoed through Congress for years. Steil says this measure, with Speaker Mike Johnson’s firm backing, is supposed to hush them once and for all.

Quick refresher: Congress tried to get ahead of this a decade ago with the STOCK Act, a law that essentially declared “no insider trading” for Capitol Hill. Yet, loopholes and lousy enforcement have kept both the media and the public hovering over every oddly timed buy and sell. It’s not even a partisan gripe; poll after poll reveals a bipartisan appetite for stripping these privileges.

So, what does Steil’s new proposal—modestly named the Stop Insider Trading Act—actually aim to change? Under the new rules, any House or Senate member, along with their spouse or kids, would be on a strict no-buy list for individual stocks. There’s some leniency on the types of broad-based funds they can own or acquire, but no cherry-picking company shares while the seat is warm. If a lawmaker needs to sell off stock, the coming-and-going isn’t a backroom affair; they’d be required to wave a flag—publicly announce the move at least a week in advance, but not more than two.

It’s not without its teeth, either. Lawmakers caught sidestepping these new guardrails could be hit with fines starting at $2,000, or 10% of whatever the questionable transaction was worth—whichever stings more. And if someone were to cash in illegally, they’d be returning the profits to the people’s coffers. Notably, these penalties aren’t eligible for a rescue from campaign accounts or taxpayer dollars. Run up a tab and ride out of town? Ethics officials can send the file straight down Pennsylvania Avenue to the Justice Department.

The reforms stop short of a total ban—there are carve-outs tucked in for small business owners, certain trusts, and spouses who make their living managing investments for others. Those exceptions probably won’t quiet every critic, but the drafters say the goal here is closing the most blatant gaps that have tarnished Congress’s reputation.

It’s worth pausing on why this measure landed with surprisingly strong Republican support. Chip Roy, a Texas Republican who’s often happy to break ranks, came out swinging: “The people should be able to trust the motives of their representatives...yet active stock trading that enriches certain members has broken that trust.” Mike Lawler from New York didn’t mince words either: “If you’re getting rich in Congress, you should get the hell out or be thrown out.” For lawmakers, the pressure isn’t only legislative, but public—and the optics are lousy.

Logistically, the bill’s on a fast track. The House Administration Committee plans to debate the fine print and accept amendments before sending it to the House floor. If it passes, Congress would have six months to wrap up any affected holdings. That’s a pretty tight turnaround, and, in practical terms, it would test just how many members are willing to sign off on a plan that cramps their own bottom lines.

Of course, similar efforts have died quiet deaths before. But the bipartisan undertow here can’t be ignored. The climate outside the Capitol is such that any sign of self-enrichment, real or perceived, lands with a thud. With Steil’s bill, supporters say, Congress has a rare opportunity to offer voters a visible gesture of reform.

Will this be the round that finally converts outrage into law? We’ll know soon enough. For now, this proposal stands as a marker of whether the House truly intends to police itself—or if, once again, the quest for public trust takes a back seat to business as usual.

For anyone following the perennial debate over congressional stock trading, the past week might feel like déjà vu—only with a new cast at the helm. This time around, it’s House Republicans steering the effort, attempting to do what several election cycles, ethics scandals, and legislative proposals haven’t: finally put the brakes on lawmakers—and their immediate families—shopping for stocks while in office.Bryan Steil, who chairs the House Administration Committee, kicked off the renewed push by dropping a bill packed with restrictions on congressional trading. The message could hardly have been clearer: Americans are tired of the headlines hinting their elected representatives might be cutting themselves sweetheart deals with access to information the rest of us can’t see. The Wall Street whispers have echoed through Congress for years. Steil says this measure, with Speaker Mike Johnson’s firm backing, is supposed to hush them once and for all.Quick refresher: Congress tried to get ahead of this a decade ago with the STOCK Act, a law that essentially declared “no insider trading” for Capitol Hill. Yet, loopholes and lousy enforcement have kept both the media and the public hovering over every oddly timed buy and sell. It’s not even a partisan gripe; poll after poll reveals a bipartisan appetite for stripping these privileges.So, what does Steil’s new proposal—modestly named the Stop Insider Trading Act—actually aim to change? Under the new rules, any House or Senate member, along with their spouse or kids, would be on a strict no-buy list for individual stocks. There’s some leniency on the types of broad-based funds they can own or acquire, but no cherry-picking company shares while the seat is warm. If a lawmaker needs to sell off stock, the coming-and-going isn’t a backroom affair; they’d be required to wave a flag—publicly announce the move at least a week in advance, but not more than two.It’s not without its teeth, either. Lawmakers caught sidestepping these new guardrails could be hit with fines starting at $2,000, or 10% of whatever the questionable transaction was worth—whichever stings more. And if someone were to cash in illegally, they’d be returning the profits to the people’s coffers. Notably, these penalties aren’t eligible for a rescue from campaign accounts or taxpayer dollars. Run up a tab and ride out of town? Ethics officials can send the file straight down Pennsylvania Avenue to the Justice Department.The reforms stop short of a total ban—there are carve-outs tucked in for small business owners, certain trusts, and spouses who make their living managing investments for others. Those exceptions probably won’t quiet every critic, but the drafters say the goal here is closing the most blatant gaps that have tarnished Congress’s reputation.It’s worth pausing on why this measure landed with surprisingly strong Republican support. Chip Roy, a Texas Republican who’s often happy to break ranks, came out swinging: “The people should be able to trust the motives of their representatives...yet active stock trading that enriches certain members has broken that trust.” Mike Lawler from New York didn’t mince words either: “If you’re getting rich in Congress, you should get the hell out or be thrown out.” For lawmakers, the pressure isn’t only legislative, but public—and the optics are lousy.Logistically, the bill’s on a fast track. The House Administration Committee plans to debate the fine print and accept amendments before sending it to the House floor. If it passes, Congress would have six months to wrap up any affected holdings. That’s a pretty tight turnaround, and, in practical terms, it would test just how many members are willing to sign off on a plan that cramps their own bottom lines.Of course, similar efforts have died quiet deaths before. But the bipartisan undertow here can’t be ignored. The climate outside the Capitol is such that any sign of self-enrichment, real or perceived, lands with a thud. With Steil’s bill, supporters say, Congress has a rare opportunity to offer voters a visible gesture of reform.Will this be the round that finally converts outrage into law? We’ll know soon enough. For now, this proposal stands as a marker of whether the House truly intends to police itself—or if, once again, the quest for public trust takes a back seat to business as usual.