The House passed the Stop Insider Trading Act 232-198, with every Republican in favor and just 13 Democrats joining them, after Republicans bundled a voter ID requirement that split the minority caucus.
The vote came after Republicans attached a photo ID requirement to a congressional stock-trading ban, turning a potentially bipartisan reform into a partisan fight. Every Republican voted yes; most Democrats voted no, citing the voter ID provision. Thirteen Democrats crossed the aisle to support the bill despite party opposition.
The bill would bar members of Congress, their spouses, and dependent children from buying individual stocks in publicly traded companies while in office, with narrow exceptions for certain funds. Selling stock would require public notice filed seven to 14 days ahead of the sale, and violations would trigger fees and ethics scrutiny. Supporters framed those limits as a needed update to the STOCK Act era rules that critics say have failed to stop problematic trading.
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York framed her opposition starkly and on July 21, 2026:
“Republicans are trying to pull a trick this week. They say we are voting on an ‘insider trading’ bill, but have snuck in massive SAVE Act-style voter suppression measures to it. This is a GOP effort to sabotage national mail-in voting, disguised as a trading ban. I’m voting NO.”
https://x.com/AOC/status/2079618843815645552
Trading in Congress is substantial enough to alarm voters. Data from Quiver Quantitative shows many lawmakers and their households moved large sums over the past year, though disclosure rules report ranges rather than exact figures. Those ranges still reveal tens of millions of dollars in activity among several high-profile members.
Rep. Ro Khanna topped Quiver Quantitative’s list with 4,772 reported trades and an estimated $65.9 million in assets moved by his household. Khanna says he owns no stocks personally and that a trust set up before his marriage is managed independently by a third-party trustee in compliance with ethics rules. He has publicly explained the family arrangements to address those concerns.
Former Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s household reported roughly $52.5 million in trades across 21 occasions in the past year, and her husband, Paul Pelosi, remains a focal point in trading controversies. A spokesperson for Pelosi has maintained that “Speaker Pelosi does not own any stocks and has no knowledge or subsequent involvement in any transactions.” Years earlier Pelosi had defended trading with another comment: “We are a free market economy. They should be able to participate in that.”
Republicans also featured prominently on the trading lists. Rep. Michael McCaul, a retiring Texas Republican, reported about $48 million in moves across roughly 980 trades, and his office has said his wife holds assets managed by a third-party manager. McCaul voted for the bill despite the scrutiny, underscoring the political calculus facing members with high trading volumes.
Rep. Tony Wied reported approximately $25.9 million in trades concentrated mostly in tech and called the legislation a “symbolic gesture” that should have gone further. He argued Congress should address the revolving door that lets career politicians profit as lobbyists and contractors after leaving office, and he warned that “Insider trading is already entirely illegal.” Wied still supported the bill as a step forward.
Other Republicans named in trading reports, including Reps. Lisa McClain and Kevin Hern, also voted for the measure. House GOP communications director Joe Buccino defended McClain, saying, “They have been made in line with all House rules and applicable laws.” Some offices attributed listings to disclosure quirks or reporting errors, as in Rep. Chip Roy’s case.
The 13 Democrats who backed the bill tended to come from swing districts or moderate districts where protecting against the appearance of conflicts is politically important. The list included Reps. Jared Golden, Josh Gottheimer, Marie Gluesenkamp Perez, Susie Lee, and Chris Pappas, among others. Several of those members have a record of breaking with the party on high-profile votes when district pressure demands it.
Not every lawmaker with significant trading showed the same vote. Gottheimer previously appeared on trade-volume lists, and other Democrats like Cleo Fields and Tim Moore appeared in rankings without joining the yea votes. Rep. Gil Cisneros reported roughly $12 million in movements across more than 1,128 trades and defended his family’s approach by saying they “have always employed outside financial advisors who have a fiduciary responsibility to maintain a diverse portfolio.” He added that they “do not manage the day-to-day trading of our investment portfolio, nor have we ever suggested a trade while serving in Congress or at the Department of Defense.” Cisneros also said he has “always complied with all rules and regulations regarding stock trading and financial disclosures.”
Democratic objections centered on the voter ID language, which many Democrats view as a partisan imposition and a suppression risk, even as polls show broad public support for photo identification. Republicans say bundling voter ID with the trading ban was a deliberate strategy to force a choice and expose divide lines within the Democratic caucus. That tactic succeeded in the House vote.
Even if the bill cleared the House, its path in the Senate looks difficult, where 60 votes would be necessary to overcome a filibuster. The voter ID provision that drove many House Democrats away could provide Senate Democrats a similar rationale to block the measure. For now, the House roll call makes clear who was willing to take a symbolic step against insider trading and who let the voter ID fight determine their vote.
