Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has joined a cross-ideological push for a stock trading ban in Congress, aligning with Reps. Chip Roy and Seth Magaziner on a plan to bar members and their families from owning or trading individual stocks, enforce 180-day divestment for incumbents and 90 days for newcomers, and permit ETFs and mutual funds. [1][2] The proposal contemplates fines equal to 10% of any noncompliant investments and rides a wave of public backing—86% of voters supported a ban in a major 2023 poll. [2][4]

Key Takeaways

– Shows bipartisan House plan compels incumbents to divest within 180 days, newcomers within 90 days, covering members’ families while permitting ETFs and mutual funds. – Reveals fines up to 10% of noncompliant investment value, designed to deter conflicts of interest and rebuild public trust in Congress. – Demonstrates 86% voter support for a stock trading ban, energizing rare cooperation from AOC to Chip Roy, Tim Burchett, and Seth Magaziner. – Indicates House and Senate efforts converging after May 14 and May 22, 2025 actions, with about a dozen House backers unveiling a September 3 framework. – Suggests critics warn restrictions could deter wealthy professionals, yet proposals retain 180-day divestment windows and 90-day onboarding limits alongside blind-trust options.

What the proposed stock trading ban would do

The emerging House framework would prohibit members of Congress—and their families—from owning or actively trading individual stocks, a core change aimed at eliminating perceived conflicts of interest that can arise from lawmaking and oversight responsibilities. [1] Instead, lawmakers could hold diversified vehicles such as mutual funds and exchange-traded funds, with some versions also allowing limited exposure to selected commodities. [1][3]

For sitting lawmakers, the plan sets a 180-day window to divest restricted holdings, while newly elected members would have 90 days from taking office, putting all members on a fixed clock to comply. [1] This dual timeline attempts to balance speed and practicality: incumbents unwind over roughly six months, while newcomers must meet the standard within three months of arrival on Capitol Hill. [1]

A key enforcement feature under active discussion is a financial penalty of 10% of the underlying investment value for violations, a bite intended to outweigh any perceived benefit from holding restricted assets. [2] The point is straightforward: the cost of noncompliance would be immediate and quantifiable, making adherence the rational choice for any member. [2]

While the latest House coalition unveiled its “Restore Trust in Congress Act” package on September 3, 2025, with roughly a dozen lawmakers, earlier House action in May urged swift floor consideration for the TRUST in Congress Act, which similarly featured a 180-day divestment requirement. [3][5] The common thread across these efforts is to channel ownership into broadly diversified instruments and away from individual stocks and potential conflicts. [1][5]

In the Senate, Democrats have reintroduced related proposals that would require either divestment or placement of assets into blind trusts, another model designed to remove lawmakers from any investment decision-making that could intersect with legislative duties. [4] Together, the House and Senate tracks broaden the menu of compliance options while maintaining the central goal of distancing members from individual securities. [4]

Why a stock trading ban is advancing now

Public demand is unmistakably high: an 86% share of voters backed a ban in 2023, according to the University of Maryland’s Program for Public Consultation, a striking supermajority in an era of polarization. [4] Lawmakers across the spectrum have echoed that sentiment, calling trading by members corrosive to confidence in federal institutions and the fairness of policymaking. [4]

Rep. Chip Roy has framed the House initiative as a trust-restoration measure, asserting that prohibiting individual stock ownership by lawmakers is essential to rebuilding credibility with constituents. [1] Sen. Jon Ossoff has similarly argued that congressional trading erodes public confidence, a rationale that has motivated repeat attempts to move reforms through the Senate. [4]

The rare alignment of voices is notable. Ocasio-Cortez publicly praised the cross-party collaboration as an example of how Congress can still function, while Tennessee Republican Tim Burchett highlighted that the group includes lawmakers who disagree on most issues but agree on the need to police conflicts. [3] The coalition counts ideological opposites who normally spar on policy, yet are converging on strict rules against individual stock holdings. [3]

Political incentives have also shifted. Former President Donald Trump has said he would “absolutely” sign a ban, signaling that momentum for tighter ethics rules could persist across administrations. [4] That stance, combined with bipartisan House energy and Senate reintroduction, improves the probability of action compared with prior cycles. [1][4]

Who is in the coalition—and their unlikely alliances

The negotiation nucleus features Reps. Seth Magaziner, Chip Roy, and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez—three lawmakers who typically occupy distinct ideological lanes but have hammered out shared parameters for a stock trading ban. [2] Their cooperation underscores how ethics questions can override party-line instincts when public trust is on the line and rules are clearly drawn. [2]

On September 3, about a dozen House members unveiled a package titled the Restore Trust in Congress Act, telegraphing the primary objective in the name. [3] At the same event, Rep. Ocasio-Cortez called it a rare bipartisan moment and said the group’s workflow exemplified what constituents expect—collaboration without sacrificing core principles. [3] Rep. Tim Burchett pointedly noted he disagrees with many colleagues present, yet views stock trading restrictions as common-sense guardrails. [3]

Earlier in May, Magaziner and a bipartisan cohort pressed House leaders for a vote on the TRUST in Congress Act, citing signals of support from Speaker Mike Johnson and House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries. [5] Leadership openness does not guarantee floor time, but such signals matter when assembling a coalition and scheduling a pathway to passage. [5]

Enforcement, penalties, and the fine print

The headline enforcement provision is a monetary penalty equal to 10% of the investment value tied to any violation—an outcome that scales with the size of the noncompliant holding. [2] Unlike nominal fines that can be treated as a cost of doing business, a 10% levy is designed to sting, especially for larger portfolios. [2]

Compliance windows are precise: 180 days for incumbents, 90 days for freshman members, creating clear start and end dates to unwind individual stocks. [1] Regulated entities in other sectors often receive similar grace periods when rules change, and applying the model here aims to prevent forced selling shocks while setting an enforceable, near-term deadline. [1]

Asset-class allowances are equally explicit. Diversified mutual funds and ETFs remain permissible, must-have tools for building retirement savings without picking individual companies that come before committees or agencies overseen by Congress. [1] Some versions of the House package also permit selected commodity holdings, a narrower corner of the market where direct conflicts are considered less likely under specified conditions, though details would be codified in final text. [3]

Family coverage is central and consequential. Extending the rules to spouses and dependent family members would close common loopholes by preventing circumvention via household accounts, a frequent critique of existing ethics regimes. [1] The House framework’s family scope aligns with the push for blind trusts or divestment options in the Senate, both of which aim to sever any line from a member’s official actions to private investment decisions. [4]

How a stock trading ban could change Congress

A strict stock trading ban could materially alter how members manage wealth and plan for service. Instead of choosing individual companies, members would default to broad funds, with the 180-day and 90-day milestones forcing portfolio overhauls on a defined timetable after enactment or swearing-in. [1] For many, that means shifting retirement and taxable accounts away from company-specific bets and toward diversified exposure. [1]

Critics caution that stringent limits and a 10% violation penalty could discourage some wealthy professionals from running for office, arguing the tradeoff between financial autonomy and public service may look less attractive at the margin. [2] Supporters counter that financial sacrifice is reasonable for a position of public trust, and that broad fund options and potential blind-trust pathways keep investment growth accessible while removing conflict risks. [2][4]

The politics are shaped by numbers more than rhetoric: with 86% of voters backing a ban in the 2023 consultation, members in both safe and swing districts face strong pressure to support reform. [4] Add to that two top House leaders who have signaled receptivity and an ideologically diverse cadre elevating the issue, and the legislative environment looks more favorable than in previous pushes. [5]

What happens next for the stock trading ban

On September 3, House proponents revealed their Restore Trust in Congress Act framework and set expectations for a vote as they recruit additional co-sponsors and convert leadership signals into a place on the floor calendar. [3][5] The coalition is betting that codified 180-day and 90-day compliance clocks, combined with a 10% penalty, will attract members who want definitive rules rather than symbolic gestures. [1][2]

Parallel Senate action keeps pressure high. With Democrats reintroducing legislation that pairs divestment with blind-trust options and a former Republican president expressing willingness to sign a ban, bicameral momentum is deeper than a single chamber’s storyline. [4] The remaining tests are procedural and political: aligning bill language between House and Senate, sustaining a coalition that currently spans about a dozen House backers, and navigating amendments without diluting the core prohibitions. [3][4]

Sources: [1] AP News – Left and right are joining forces to ban lawmakers from trading stock: https://apnews.com/article/7467604e26652de32687442bcb277774 [2] The Wall Street Journal – Bipartisan Proposal Would Ban Stock Trading by Lawmakers: www.wsj.com/politics/policy/bipartisan-proposal-would-ban-stock-trading-by-lawmakers-e97c20a3″ target=”_blank” rel=”nofollow noopener noreferrer”>https://www.wsj.com/politics/policy/bipartisan-proposal-would-ban-stock-trading-by-lawmakers-e97c20a3 [3] The Washington Post – Left and right are joining forces to ban lawmakers from trading stock: www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/09/03/stock-trading-ban-congress/4efe1d10-890a-11f0-895c-97bd39cbdc59_story.html” target=”_blank” rel=”nofollow noopener noreferrer”>https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/09/03/stock-trading-ban-congress/4efe1d10-890a-11f0-895c-97bd39cbdc59_story.html [4] Axios – Scoop: Senate Dems reintroduce stock trading ban for Congress: https://www.axios.com/2025/05/22/senate-democrats-congress-stock-trading-ban [5] Office of Rep. Seth Magaziner – Magaziner, Bipartisan Colleagues Take House Floor to Call for Ban on Congressional Stock Trading: https://magaziner.house.gov/media/press-releases/magaziner-bipartisan-colleagues-take-house-floor-call-ban-congress

Image generated by DALL-E 3