WASHINGTON, D.C. — The U.S. House of Representatives passed the Stop Insider Trading Act in a 232 to 198 vote, marking a legislative effort to restrict financial activities by federal lawmakers. The legislation prohibits members of Congress, their spouses, and dependent children from purchasing individual stocks while allowing them to retain holdings they already possess.

The bill permits members of Congress to buy and trade investment stocks, distinguishing between individual equities and broader investment vehicles. Republicans attached a voter-identification provision to the measure, which requires voters to show photo identification when voting in federal elections.

Thirteen Democrats voted with all Republicans in favor of the Stop Insider Trading Act, providing the necessary margin for passage in the chamber. The legislation was introduced by Rep. Bryan Steil, R-Wis., who sought to address concerns regarding conflicts of interest in Washington.

"I think it's really important that we tell the American people we're done allowing members of Congress to be day-trading stocks," Steil said. "Let's remove even the appearance of impropriety that any given trade is based on any inside information an individual may gain while serving in Washington."

The Stop Insider Trading Act increases penalties for members who fail to properly disclose sales of stock, raising the stakes for non-compliance. Lawmakers must publicly disclose their intent to sell stocks at least seven days in advance to the House clerk or Senate secretary under the new rules.

The legislation sets the penalty for violation at $2,000 or 10% of the transaction's value, whichever is greater. This represents a significant increase from the current penalty for disclosure violations under existing law, which is $200 for first-time offenders.

If a violation occurs, the Stop Insider Trading Act requires the forfeiture of any realized gains from the sale. This provision aims to remove the financial incentive for lawmakers to engage in prohibited trading activities.

Critics of the bill argued that it did not go far enough to eliminate potential conflicts of interest. Rep. Seth Magaziner, D-R.I., expressed dissatisfaction with the final text of the legislation.

"I'm very disappointed in it," Magaziner said. "It's a stock trading ban that still allows stock trading. It's a weak bill."

Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, criticized the process that led to the vote, arguing that the House should have considered a more direct ban. He stated that colleagues on both sides of the aisle deserved a clear vote on the issue.

"I think we should be having a straight up-or-down vote on the stock trading bill," Roy said. "I think my friends that worked in good faith to do that deserve that on both sides of the aisle."

Roy added that he would continue to push for a different approach in the current session. "I'm not done this year demanding that we have a straight up-or-down vote on stock trading," he said.

The legislative maneuver occurred as the House was set to vote on the National Defense Authorization Act and the House Budget Bill. The inclusion of the stock trading ban and voter ID provision added complexity to the chamber's agenda.

President Donald Trump stated during his February State of the Union address that he would ensure congressional insider trading would be stopped. He has previously targeted Rep. Nancy Pelosi over the issue of congressional stock trading.

Pelosi was questioned about her husband’s stock trading and initially did not support a ban, but later reversed her position. Her shift occurred during broader pressure from within her party and from the executive branch.

Efforts to restrict trading have faced hurdles in both chambers of Congress. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., and Sen. Ashley Moody, R-Fla., launched a bipartisan push to ban Congress from trading stocks.

In the House, Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, R-Fla., filed a discharge petition late last year to force a vote on a bill from Rep. Tim Burchett, R-Tenn., to prohibit stock trading among Congress and their immediate family members. Luna warned she would file the petition if House leadership did not advance stock ban legislation.

House Speaker Mike Johnson said he was working with Steil to find other paths to address the issue of congressional stock trading after Luna filed her discharge petition. Luna's discharge petition to circumvent GOP leaders and bring the Restore Trust in Congress Act to the House floor is far short of the 218 signatures needed to move forward.

A discharge petition led by Rep. Joe Morelle on the Restore Trust in Government Act is closer to the threshold but still dozens of names short. The Restore Trust in Government Act would ban members of Congress, the president, vice president, and their families from owning or trading individual stocks.

President Donald Trump has been pressing Congress to approve the SAVE America Act, which would impose voter-ID and proof of citizenship requirements on voters across the U.S. The SAVE America Act lacks support to clear Congress.

A bill spearheaded by Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., to ban lawmakers, the president, vice president, and their families from owning stocks advanced out of committee but has since sat idle in the Senate. This legislative stagnation contrasts with the House action on the Stop Insider Trading Act.

Insider trading is currently illegal for members of Congress under a 2012 federal law known as the STOCK Act. The STOCK Act requires officials to disclose stock trades exceeding $1,000 within 45 days, yet no member of Congress has ever been prosecuted under the law.

An investigation from 2019 to 2021 found that 18% of congressional members traded stocks in sectors related to the work of the congressional committees they sat on. This finding fueled arguments that existing disclosure rules were insufficient to prevent conflicts of interest or the appearance of them.

The passage of the Stop Insider Trading Act reflects ongoing political debate over how to regulate the financial activities of elected officials. By attaching a voter-identification provision, Republicans linked the issue of congressional ethics to broader election policy priorities, while Democrats remained divided on whether the bill constituted a meaningful reform or a diluted compromise.