Bipartisan House coalition presses ban on members trading individual stocks

An unlikely coalition of lawmakers from the left, right and center on Wednesday pressed forward with legislation that would prohibit members of Congress and their immediate family members from owning and trading individual stocks, citing concerns about conflicts of interest when elected officials have access to market-moving information.

Sponsors and supporters, who said they rarely agree on much else, gathered to promote the proposal that has broad public support and has regained momentum after stalling in previous congressional sessions. "It’s not every day you see this cast of characters up here," said Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick, a moderate Republican from Pennsylvania. "You’re all smirking out there. That’s a good thing. It speaks to the power of this cause."

The measure would bar members and their families from owning or trading individual stocks and instead require investments to be made through broad-based mutual funds, exchange-traded funds or similar pooled vehicles. Proponents say that change would reduce the appearance and risk of conflicts without preventing lawmakers from investing in the market generally.

A Senate committee has approved a companion bill introduced by Republican Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri that would extend a similar prohibition to future presidents and vice presidents. The Senate measure has drawn attention for its broader sweep and for questions about how exemptions would be structured.

Lawmakers have debated restrictions on trading for years amid repeated concerns that personal financial activity by members of Congress can intersect with the performance of markets and with government decisions. Supporters of the current push say that past ethics rules and disclosure requirements have not been sufficient to prevent misuse of privileged information or the appearance of impropriety.

Backers of the House bill emphasized the cross-ideological nature of the effort. The gathering included lawmakers from the political right who have been critical of concentrated economic power, progressives who have pushed for stricter ethics rules, and moderates who say the reform would restore public trust. Sponsors note that polling consistently shows strong voter backing for measures that limit lawmakers’ ability to trade individual stocks.

Opponents and some legal scholars have raised questions about whether a sweeping ban could face constitutional challenges or inadvertently penalize lawmakers who lack the time or resources to manage diversified investment portfolios without relying on outside advice. Supporters counter that rules can be drafted to protect constitutional rights while closing loopholes that allow individual-asset trading tied to legislative knowledge.

The House proposal still must navigate committee consideration and potential amendments before a floor vote, while the Senate bill may face additional review as it moves through legislative processes. Ethics advocates said progress in both chambers represents a rare moment of agreement on Capitol Hill and could create pressure for more definitive action if momentum holds.

Lawmakers who favor the bans framed the initiative as an effort to strengthen public confidence in Congress at a time when trust in institutions remains low. Critics urged careful drafting and legal review to ensure enforceability and to address potential unintended consequences. The bills’ fate will depend on how lawmakers across the chamber reconcile those concerns with the political appetite for change.