• A bipartisan push to ban members of Congress from trading stocks is gaining steam following ethics investigations.
• Rep. Anna Paulina Luna plans a discharge petition to force a vote on a bill banning lawmakers and families from trading.
• Internal disagreements, Trump carve-outs, and questions over enforcement continue to complicate legislative momentum.

WASHINGTON, D.C. (TDR) — The long-running debate over whether members of Congress should be allowed to trade individual stocks has returned to center stage following a new House Ethics Committee report and a key Senate committee’s advancement of legislation.

Luna and Burchett Lead the Charge

At the center of the renewed push is Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.), who has announced plans to file a discharge petition to compel action on a bill that would prohibit lawmakers and their immediate family members from owning or trading individual stocks, commodities, or futures. Under the bill, members would be required to divest their holdings within 180 days of enactment. The underlying legislation, sponsored by Rep. Tim Burchett (R-Tenn.), could receive a vote as early as this fall if Luna’s procedural maneuver garners enough support.

Despite the uphill nature of the effort, Burchett remains hopeful.

“I think America is aware of what’s going on,” Burchett told The Hill. “They know it’s not natural for somebody to, day in and day out, pick stock and have a 100, 200, 300 percent return, and they’re tired of seeing Congress members making $170,000 a year retiring worth millions.”

Public Support vs. Political Resistance

Freedom-Loving Beachwear by Red Beach Nation - Save 10% With Code RVM10

Public support for the ban remains high, but concerns persist among lawmakers about congressional salaries and the practical details of enforcement. The Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee recently advanced its own version of the ban, which would apply not only to members of Congress and their families but also to the president and vice president. Notably, that bill includes a carve-out for President Trump, ensuring the restrictions would only apply starting in future terms.

The hearing featured partisan disagreement, with some Republicans resisting the ban and Democrats pressing ahead. Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) questioned why Trump should be excluded, while Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), a co-sponsor of the legislation, became the target of Trump’s ire for supporting it.

Pelosi’s Shift and Competing Bills

Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), once resistant to such bans, has now voiced support for the concept — a notable shift that could sway additional Democrats. Her past reluctance had been a central talking point for Republicans, who named a previous version of the ban the “PELOSI Act” in ironic tribute.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE THE DUPREE REPORT

The Burchett-Luna effort is one of several active proposals. Others include the bipartisan TRUST in Congress Act from Reps. Chip Roy (R-Texas) and Seth Magaziner (D-R.I.), which has similar goals but does not extend the prohibition to the executive branch.

“It’s an increasingly public fight that people care about,” Roy said. “And Congress is running out of runway with the people. We will force votes.”

Hypocrisy and Ethics Under Scrutiny

The political heat surrounding the issue has grown more intense with scrutiny of lawmakers like Rep. Rob Bresnahan (R-Pa.), a wealthy freshman who campaigned in favor of banning trades yet has reported numerous transactions since taking office. Bresnahan insists he has no direct involvement in the trades, which are managed by his financial advisors. He says he plans to set up a blind trust but has encountered obstacles with the House Ethics Committee’s process.

WVIA, a Pennsylvania-based public broadcaster, noted the incongruity of Bresnahan’s claim that asking his advisors to stop trading would be financially ruinous.

“And then do what with it?” Bresnahan said. “Just leave it all in the accounts and just leave it there and lose money and go broke?”

The Kelly Scandal and the Path Ahead

The current momentum is driven in part by a House Ethics Committee finding that Rep. Mike Kelly (R-Pa.) violated chamber rules when his wife made stock trades in Cleveland-Cliffs — a company with facilities in his district — after the congressman accessed non-public information about it. The report galvanized reformers who argue that even the appearance of insider knowledge undermines institutional trust.

“Members of Congress should be banned from trading individual stocks because their access to privileged, nonpublic information creates unavoidable conflicts of interest that erode public confidence in government,” Luna said.
“Even if no laws are broken, the appearance of profiting from this access fuels distrust among Americans. The American people do not trust the US government, and this is a step forward to building that trust.”

Will lawmakers finally choose integrity over insider advantage before public trust collapses entirely?

Follow The Dupree Report on YouTube

Freedom-Loving Beachwear by Red Beach Nation - Save 10% With Code RVM10