The Congressional Stock Trading Ban and Trust Act

PLACEHOLDER TEXT

Executive Summary

Americans expect lawmakers to write rules for the public interest—not to profit from information and influence that only public office provides. Yet Members of Congress can legally own and trade individual stocks while voting on legislation that can move markets, shape regulatory outcomes, and steer federal contracts. Even when no insider trading occurs, the appearance of self-dealing corrodes legitimacy. Today, public trust in the federal government sits near historic lows. In the most recent Pew measurement (September 2025), only 17% of Americans say they trust the federal government to do what is right "just about always" or "most of the time."³

Congress has attempted to manage this problem primarily through disclosure, most notably via the Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge (STOCK) Act of 2012, enacted after overwhelming bipartisan votes.⁵ The STOCK Act increased transparency by requiring periodic transaction reporting (via Form 278-T) within a fixed window after covered transactions.⁶ But disclosure is not prevention. A system that permits trading first and reports later cannot eliminate conflicts of interest or restore credibility—especially when violations can be frequent, enforcement is uneven, and penalties are widely viewed as insufficient to deter misconduct.^89101112

The public's appetite for a stronger rule is clear. An in-depth survey by the University of Maryland's Program for Public Consultation found 86% support for prohibiting Members of Congress from trading individual stocks (with similarly high bipartisan support).⁹ That is the political reality: the status quo is unpopular, unstable, and increasingly incompatible with a modern ethics framework.

This paper advocates for a comprehensive reform: the Congressional Stock Trading Ban and Trust Act ("the Act").¹² It combines two practical ideas into a single enforceable architecture:

1. A bright-line ban on owning or trading individual corporate equities (and closely related instruments) by covered officials and their immediate families during service; and
2. A compliance pathway that preserves lawful investing through diversified funds and—when necessary—independently managed qualified trusts modeled on federal "qualified blind trust" standards.¹⁵

Under the Act, covered individuals must choose a compliance route within a defined transition window: divest prohibited assets into permitted diversified holdings or place covered assets into a qualified blind trust/qualified diversified trust administered by an independent trustee with strict communication limits.¹¹ The Act also strengthens enforcement by requiring routine audits, standardized penalties, and transparent compliance reporting—while minimizing privacy risks by relying on structural prevention rather than expanding intrusive disclosure.

The benefits are straightforward:

• Integrity and legitimacy: A clear rule replaces a loophole-rich honor system.³
• Reduced conflict risk: Eliminates the most visible and avoidable financial conflict—direct ownership in companies affected by congressional action.¹
• Public confidence: Aligns congressional ethics with overwhelming public expectations.⁹
• Better governance: Minimizes incentives for—and suspicion of—policy choices that benefit a lawmaker's portfolio rather than constituents.¹¹

Congress has already demonstrated it can act decisively on this issue: the STOCK Act passed by overwhelming margins.⁵ Today, Congress again has a credible window to modernize ethics rules, as multiple bipartisan bills and committee actions show continued legislative momentum.¹³¹⁴ The only missing ingredient is the willingness to move from "report it later" to "prevent it now."

---

The Problem Statement

1.1. A Structural Conflict—Even Without a Criminal Act

Members of Congress have three unique advantages that make personal stock trading ethically corrosive even when legal:

• Policy foresight: access to nonpublic briefings, draft language, and regulatory timelines;
• Influence: ability to shape outcomes (committee work, oversight, amendments, appropriations); and
• Public power: decisions that can predictably affect sectors, firms, and contract flows.

A governance system that allows officials to directly hold and trade concentrated positions in affected companies creates (at minimum) an appearance of conflicted decision-making, which is itself damaging to democratic legitimacy.¹

1.2. Disclosure (STOCK Act) ≠ Prevention

The STOCK Act of 2012 significantly improved transparency by requiring periodic transaction reporting and clarifying ethics expectations, and it was enacted with overwhelming bipartisan votes.⁵ But it is fundamentally a disclosure regime: it does not prohibit most trading; it governs reporting.

House Ethics guidance instructs filers to report covered transactions on a periodic transaction report (Form 278-T) within a fixed statutory timeframe and provides detailed procedures for compliance.⁶ When compliance becomes a paperwork exercise rather than a structural restriction, predictable failure modes emerge:

• trades occur and are disclosed after the fact;
• reporting windows can still allow public suspicion that officials acted on privileged timing;
• late or missing reports undermine transparency; and
• low or inconsistent penalties may fail deterrence.

1.3. Weak Deterrence and Uneven Enforcement

Ethics enforcement depends heavily on institutional follow-through. House Ethics materials include processes for late filing fees and waivers.⁸ The very existence of routine waiver processes underscores a core issue: when noncompliance is treated as remediable paperwork, the system can degrade into "file late, pay little, move on."⁸ Secondary syntheses of enforcement outcomes and investigations have repeatedly highlighted the gap between formal disclosure requirements and real deterrence.¹²

1.4. Evidence of Suspicious Performance Patterns

Beyond appearances, recent empirical work intensifies the policy case. A 2025 NBER working paper analyzing transaction-level data reports that lawmakers who later ascend to leadership positions perform similarly to peers before ascension but outperform matched peers by 47 percentage points annually after ascension, with patterns consistent with both political influence and corporate access channels.¹¹ This is not proof of criminal insider trading in any individual case—but it is strong evidence that position and access can correlate with trading advantage in ways that the public will reasonably perceive as unfair.

1.5. Trust Is Already Collapsing—And This Is a High-Visibility Fix

The ethics problem lands in a broader trust crisis. Pew reports only 17% trust in Washington to do the right thing "just about always/most of the time."³ Congress cannot rebuild trust with small procedural tweaks; it needs reforms that are easy for the public to understand and hard to evade.

---

The Proposed Reform

2.1. Policy Objective

Replace a "disclose-and-defend" framework with a "prevent-and-comply" framework by prohibiting direct ownership/trading of individual corporate securities while preserving reasonable, diversified investment options.¹

2.2. Covered Persons (Scope)

The Act applies to:

• Members of the U.S. House and Senate;
• spouses;
• dependent children; and
• controlled entities (e.g., LLCs, partnerships, trusts) used to hold investment assets where the covered person is a beneficial owner or exercises control.¹

This scope prevents evasion through family accounts or closely held entities while keeping administration focused on the most plausible channels for conflicted trading.¹

2.3. Covered Assets (What Is Prohibited vs Permitted)

Prohibited (core):

• Individual corporate stocks (U.S. and foreign equities);
• corporate bonds;
• commodity futures and options on individual equities; and
• derivatives or instruments that create similar concentrated exposure to specific firms or sectors.¹

Permitted (always):

• diversified mutual funds and exchange-traded funds (ETFs) that meet defined criteria (e.g., minimum number of holdings, industry distribution);
• U.S. Treasury securities and government-backed bonds;
• cash and cash equivalents; and
• diversified real estate investment trusts (REITs) meeting specified diversification standards.¹

The line is simple: if a single corporate entity's fortunes dominate the investment's return profile, it is prohibited. If risk is pooled across dozens or hundreds of securities, it is permitted. This design eliminates the perception (and risk) of self-dealing without barring participation in market-wide economic growth.¹

2.4. Compliance Pathways: Divestiture or Qualified Trusts

Covered individuals with prohibited holdings must choose one of two compliance routes:

1. Divestiture: sell prohibited assets and reinvest proceeds into permitted holdings (diversified funds, treasuries, etc.).¹

2. Qualified Trust Placement: transfer prohibited assets into a qualified blind trust or qualified diversified trust managed by an independent, certified trustee.¹¹⁵

Qualified Trust Requirements:

• Trustee independence: no personal or financial relationship with the covered official;
• communication limits: no advance notice of transactions, no instructions permitted;
• diversification obligations: trustee must diversify holdings to eliminate concentrated exposure; and
• audit and certification: annual compliance reports reviewed by the supervising ethics office.¹¹⁵

This approach mirrors the federal "qualified blind trust" structure already in use for executive branch officials, ensuring tested administrative precedent.⁷¹⁵

2.5. Transition Timeline and Tax Fairness

The Act provides a defined transition period (e.g., 180 days after enactment or assumption of office) to complete divestiture or establish qualified trusts, preventing fire sales while maintaining enforcement discipline.¹

Tax fairness: Where divestiture is required for compliance, Congress could extend existing capital gains deferral mechanisms (similar to 26 U.S.C. § 1043, used for executive branch conflict-of-interest divestitures) to avoid penalizing compliance.¹⁶

2.6. Enforcement Mechanism: Audits, Penalties, and Transparency

Enforcement must be credible and visible:

1. Annual audits: supervising ethics office conducts or commissions independent verification of compliance (certification of permitted holdings or qualified trust status).¹
2. Public summary reporting: aggregate compliance statistics (e.g., percentage in compliance, number of waivers) published annually to maintain accountability without invading privacy.¹
3. Uniform penalties: civil penalties for violations that scale meaningfully and predictably (e.g., percentage-of-transaction-value fines and mandatory disgorgement of profits to the U.S. Treasury).¹⁷
4. Escalation for willful misconduct: referrals for investigation where facts suggest knowing evasion, false statements, or other potentially criminal conduct.¹

This approach recognizes a basic compliance truth: bright-line rules only matter if enforcement is systematic.

2.7. Privacy and Due Process

The Act's design is intentionally privacy-preserving. Rather than expanding public disclosure into granular real-time surveillance, it prevents conflicts structurally (by restricting the asset classes that create the conflict) and uses audited certification to ensure compliance.¹

2.8. Narrow Exceptions (Avoiding Loopholes)

Exceptions should be tightly defined and auditable:

• spousal employment compensation equities that must be held temporarily, with mandatory diversification/transition requirements;¹
• inheritance or gifts requiring divestment within a limited period;¹
• hardship waivers for demonstrable, narrow circumstances—publicly reported in anonymized summary form to prevent abuse.¹

2.9. Relationship to Current Law and Active Legislative Efforts

The Act complements—rather than replaces—the STOCK Act disclosure regime. It treats disclosure as a transparency baseline and adds a prevention layer to eliminate the most visible conflict.

Congress's own legislative record shows the issue is active and mature for action:

• The Senate has advanced stock-trading reform proposals through committee action (e.g., HONEST Act activity).¹³
• The House has introduced bills that extend bans broadly across officials and family members (e.g., TRUST in Congress Act).¹⁴
• Senate committee reporting on related proposals (e.g., ETHICS Act) reflects that Congress has already developed technical implementation timelines and definitions.¹⁸

---

Impact Analysis

3.1. Integrity and Public Trust Benefits

This reform is unusually high leverage: it is easy to explain ("lawmakers shouldn't trade individual stocks while writing the rules") and addresses a widely recognized fairness concern. Public support is overwhelming: 86% favor prohibiting Members from trading individual stocks.⁹ Combined with historically low trust in government (17% in the most recent Pew measure),³ the credibility payoff is substantial.

3.2. Reduced Risk of Policy Distortion and Apparent Self-Dealing

Even if most lawmakers act ethically, the system should not rely on personal virtue to avoid predictable conflicts. The NBER evidence that congressional leaders' trading performance changes sharply after gaining power strengthens the case for structural prevention.¹¹ The Act reduces the incentive—and the suspicion—that public decisions are influenced by private portfolios.

3.3. Economic and Administrative Costs

The Act is designed to minimize costs and disruption:

• It does not bar participation in diversified market growth; permitted holdings remain robust.¹
• Administration can largely operate through existing ethics offices and standardized certification/audit processes, with modest incremental staffing.¹
• Any tax-fairness provision (e.g., extending divestiture deferral) would be narrowly scoped to compliance-triggered sales.¹⁶

3.4. Precedent and Feasibility

Congress has already shown it can legislate in this domain: the STOCK Act passed overwhelmingly.⁵ Today, Congress has both policy maturity (multiple bills, committee reports)¹³¹⁴¹⁸ and public consensus⁹ to enact a stronger rule.

---

Conclusion

The legitimacy of democratic governance depends on the public's belief that public power is not a private profit engine. The STOCK Act improved transparency, but the modern trust environment demands more than after-the-fact reporting.³⁶

The Congressional Stock Trading Ban and Trust Act offers a practical, enforceable, and publicly supported solution: a bright-line ban on conflicted assets paired with safe-harbor diversified investing and qualified-trust compliance pathways.¹¹⁵ It is a rare reform that is simultaneously easy for the public to understand, technically implementable, and supported across party lines.⁹

In a period of historic distrust, Congress should adopt reforms that are both ethically sound and visibly fair. This is one of them.

---

Reference List

1. Document A (Draft): Congressional Stock Trading Ban and Trust Act
   Link: Congressional Stock Trading Ban and Trust Act

2. Document B (Draft): Congressional Stock Trading Ban and Trust Source Library
   Link: Congressional Stock Trading Ban and Trust Source Library

3. Pew Research Center - Public Trust in Government: 1958–2025 (December 4, 2025)
   Link: https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2025/12/04/public-trust-in-government-1958-2025/

4. U.S. Congress - Public Law 112–105 (STOCK Act of 2012) (GovInfo PDF)
   Link: https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/PLAW-112publ105

5. Congress.gov - S. 2038 (112th): STOCK Act — Actions Overview / Votes
   Link: https://www.congress.gov/bill/112th-congress/senate-bill/2038

6. U.S. House Committee on Ethics - Periodic Transaction Report (PTR) Instruction Guide / Form 278-T Guidance
   Link: https://ethics.house.gov/financial-disclosure/ptr

7. U.S. Office of Government Ethics - OGE Form 278e FAQs (Qualified Trusts overview)
   Link: https://www.oge.gov/web/278eGuide.nsf/FAQs

8. U.S. House Committee on Ethics - Late Fee Waiver Form / Process for Financial Disclosure Late Fees
   Link: https://ethics.house.gov/sites/ethics.house.gov/files/documents/Late%20Fee%20Waiver%20Form%20%283%29.pdf

9. University of Maryland (DRUM repository) - Survey: Ban on Stock Trading for Members of Congress Favored by Overwhelming Bipartisan Majority (July 2023 materials)
   Link: https://drum.lib.umd.edu/items/6dbca567-f940-4897-bde1-02610cfb5ef6

10. PRNewswire / Program for Public Consultation - Ban on Stock Trading for Members of Congress Favored by Overwhelming Bipartisan Majority (July 19, 2023)
    Link: https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/ban-on-stock-trading-for-members-of-congress-favored-by-overwhelming-bipartisan-majority-301880349.html

11. Wei, S-J., & Zhou, Y. - "Captain Gains" on Capitol Hill (NBER Working Paper 34524, November 2025)
    Link: https://www.nber.org/papers/w34524

12. Investopedia - The STOCK Act: What It Is, How It Works, Criticism
    Link: https://www.investopedia.com/the-stock-act-7491534

13. Congress.gov - S. 1498 (119th): HONEST Act — Actions & Summary
    Link: https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/senate-bill/1498

14. Congress.gov - H.R. 6731 (119th): TRUST in Congress Act — Actions & Summary
    Link: https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/6731

15. Cornell Law (e-CFR) - 5 CFR § 2634.402 — Definitions (Qualified blind trust / qualified diversified trust)
    Link: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/5/2634.402

16. Cornell Law (U.S. Code) - 26 U.S.C. § 1043 — Sale of property to comply with conflict-of-interest requirements (certificate of divestiture)
    Link: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/1043

17. Rep. Greg Stanton - Stanton, Nunn Introduce Bipartisan Congressional Stock Trading Ban (February 17, 2023) - Policy design, penalties, disgorgement concept
    Link: https://stanton.house.gov/2023/2/stanton-nunn-introduce-bipartisan-congressional-stock-trading-ban

18. Congress.gov (Senate Report 118-309) - ENDING TRADING AND HOLDINGS IN CONGRESSIONAL STOCKS (ETHICS) Act — Committee Report
    Link: https://www.congress.gov/committee-report/118th-congress/senate-report/309/1

    Changelog

• December 27, 2024 — Fixed MDX syntax errors (removed invalid {#id} heading anchors)
• December 26, 2024 — Initial draft published