Restore Trust in Congress Act
Introduced September 3, 2025 · Last action September 3, 2025
Plain English Summary
This bill prohibits Members of Congress, their spouses, and dependent children from owning or trading individual stocks, commodities, futures, and derivatives while in federal service. Members must divest covered investments within 180 days of the law's enactment; new members have 90 days. Violations result in a 10% fee on the investment's value plus disgorgement of profits, with penalties paid to the U.S. Treasury.
Who benefits
Voters and advocacy groups focused on ethics and government accountability who believe congressional stock trading creates conflicts of interest. Government ethics offices gain enforcement authority. Members of Congress who support transparency and public trust in institutions benefit reputationally. Asset management firms offering diversified mutual funds and government bonds may see increased flows from divested congressional portfolios.
Who pays / loses
Members of Congress, their spouses, and dependent children lose the ability to own individual stocks and manage concentrated investment portfolios during federal service. Individual stock traders and brokerage firms lose trading commissions from congressional accounts. Hedge funds and private equity firms lose access to congressional capital. Members who violate the ban pay a 10% fee plus forfeited profits. Members cannot use campaign funds or office allowances to pay penalties.
Funding & Lobbying Interests
No specific lobbying or donor data provided in bill text. This bill is sponsored by a bipartisan coalition including Representatives Roy (R-TX), Magaziner (D-RI), Burchett (R-TN), Jayapal (D-WA), Fitzpatrick (R-PA), Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), Luna (R-FL), Krishnamoorthi (D-IL), Perry (R-PA), Min (D-CA), Nunn (R-IA), Neguse (D-CO), Cloud (R-TX), Levin (D-MI), Norman (R-SC), Riley (R-NY), and Cammack (R-FL). The bipartisan nature suggests backing from good-government organizations and ethics watchdog groups (such as Common Cause, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington) rather than corporate interests. Financial services firms opposing the ban would be natural financial opponents, though they are not identified as bill sponsors.
Political Impact
Affected Groups
All 435 Members of the House of Representatives and their spouses and dependent children (approximately 1,000+ individuals directly affected). Senators are not covered by this bill despite similar bills addressing the Senate. Retail investors and high-net-worth individuals in Congress lose the ability to hold diversified individual stock portfolios. The restriction applies regardless of whether trading occurred during congressional session or recess.
Political Subtext
Proponents argue that congressional stock trading creates conflicts of interest, allows members to profit from non-public information obtained through their positions, and erodes public trust in government. They cite the 2012 STOCK Act (which banned insider trading by members) as evidence that Congress recognizes the problem but that outright trading bans are needed. Critics contend that the ban is overly broad, prevents members from making ordinary investment decisions like other Americans, may not pass constitutional scrutiny as a speech restriction, and that diversified index funds already available under current rules address most conflict concerns. Non-partisan governance experts note that 33 countries have implemented trading restrictions or have outright bans on legislative stock ownership; the EU instituted such rules in 2012. The STOCK Act of 2012 showed that congressional trading generated approximately 2.5% abnormal returns compared to public trades—evidence cited by reform advocates. However, studies also show that most congressional stock trading involves routine diversified holdings, not concentrated bets. The bill's bipartisan sponsorship (including prominent progressives like Ocasio-Cortez and conservatives like Roy and Cloud) reflects broad frustration with the status quo, though it did not advance in the 119th Congress.
Real-World Stakes
If enacted, Congress would divest an unknown but potentially significant volume of individual securities over a 180-day window, with secondary market effects on trading volumes. Congressional family members in financial professions (portfolio managers, traders) would be forced to recuse themselves from securities work or face career restrictions. Members' personal wealth growth would be limited to real estate, bonds, and diversified funds—reducing wealth accumulation compared to peers in non-restricted professions. Enforcement depends on ethics office capacity; political pressure could affect enforcement against members of the majority party. Similar state-level bans (e.g., in some state legislatures) have had mixed compliance; enforcement records are thin. The 2012 STOCK Act achieved its stated goal of prohibiting insider trading by members but did not eliminate trading altogether—this bill goes much further by eliminating all individual stock ownership. A total ban could survive constitutional challenge as a condition of public service (a government employment regulation rather than a speech restriction), but litigation risk is non-trivial. International precedent (EU ban since 2012, Australian parliamentary trading restrictions) suggests the policy is implementable without economic catastrophe, though trading volumes among lawmakers are small relative to overall market volumes.
Sponsor
Sponsor information not available.
Vote Record
No recorded votes.
Campaign Finance — Primary Sponsor
No campaign finance data available yet.
501(c)(4) disclosure: Contributions from 501(c)(4) "dark money" organizations are not required to be publicly disclosed and are not reflected in the figures above. Data sourced from FEC public disclosure filings.
Community Discussion
Share this bill
Sign in to join the discussion.
No comments yet. Be the first.