Congress is considering pre-disclosing their stock trades. Some see a distraction from the need for a ban.
A formal debate over lawmaker stock trading got underway on Capitol Hill this past week and injected a new term into the now years-long debate: pre-disclosure.
As lawmakers outlined it, pre-disclosure of stock trades could provide a way to limit congressional day trading while still allowing lawmakers to play the market.
But the notion of forcing lawmakers to disclose their trades on the front end — as opposed to 45 days afterward as the rules now state — came up six separate times during the 82-minute hearing, according to Yahoo Finance’s count.
Illustration by Getty Images ·traffic_analyzer via Getty Images
Pre-disclosure is indeed a common practice for some in the private sector; another witness Wednesday noted his father worked at a bank and has had to pre-disclose his personal trades for years. But it hadn’t been discussed in recent years as an option for lawmakers in any prominent setting.
“Look, it’s an interesting idea,” acknowledged Mark Greenblatt, an expert on government ethics and a former inspector general at the US Department of the Interior who has called recent scandals a bipartisan failure.
But he added that underneath any rhetoric, lawmakers may simply “want to be able to trade as much as they can trade, but they also want to take some nominal action to address the concerns in the American public.”
In his view, presenting pre-disclosure as a cure-all could be, for some, “a fig leaf to cover up continued insider trading.”
Those pushing for a total ban were even less enamored with the idea, worrying it could derail their efforts. Public opinion is clearly on the side of a ban, with voters distrusting Congress after years of scandals and trading levels among lawmakers that remain high.
A recent analysis from the Motley Fool offered an array of eye-popping stats: More than 100 members of Congress make about 10,000 stock trades each year, and both parties consistently beat the market. As for the volume of trades, 2025 is on pace to set yet another record.
Rep. Bryan Steil, a Wisconsin Republican, opened the hearing by saying that “stronger restrictions may be necessary to restore public trust.”
He then brought up pre-disclosure during his questioning and suggested that “if you had to make a notification you’re going to sell a share in a month from now, the entire American public would be privy to that action.”
Chairman Bryan Steil speaks during a 2023 hearing of the Committee on House Administration. (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik) ·ASSOCIATED PRESS
Others described a more stringent requirement for “pre-clearance” where a lawmaker would not just be notifying the public of plans to trade but also asking for permission.
Greenblatt noted that these distinctions matter and offered his support for more stringent pre-clearance requirements, saying “that to me would be better [because] then you’re getting into the merits of whether there is a conflict of interest with that transaction.”
Either way, the overall concept of flagging trades ahead of time seemed to garner support among lawmakers.
“Pre-disclosures I’m good with,” offered Rep. Morgan Griffith, a Virginia Republican, who otherwise offered critical questioning around other ideas to rein in lawmaker trading.
Advocates for a ban quickly dismissed the idea.
Emma Lydon is a managing director at a group called the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, one of numerous organizations pushing for a ban.
“I’m very skeptical of this idea of pre-disclosure,” she said. “Pre-disclosure might address a narrow concern around some insider trading, but it doesn’t address the underlying problem of conflicts of interest.”
This extensive pre-clearance conversation in evidence this past week took place as other lawmakers in the hearing room — and across Capitol Hill — are adamant that a ban is the only way to address the problem.
A bipartisan array of lawmakers — 96 at last count — are pushing a bill called the Restore Trust in Congress Act that would ban members of Congress, their spouses, their dependent children, and their trustees from owning, buying, or selling individual stocks, securities, commodities, or futures.
Some of the sponsors of that bill gathered this week to thank the committee for holding the hearing, with a clear worry that their push was getting bogged down.
“This is a fist fight,” Rep. Tim Burchett, a Tennessee Republican and one of the cosponsors of a ban, offered in heated comments about the face-off between proponents and opponents of a ban. He called possible efforts across Capitol Hill to slow-walk his bill “a scam that is being played on the American public.”
From left, Reps. Brian Fitzpatrick, Tim Burchett, Seth Magaziner, and Pramila Jayapal hold a news conference to discuss congressional stock trading on November 19. (Bill Clark/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images) ·Bill Clark via Getty Images
Advocates of a ban do have a Plan B of sorts. One of the most vocal advocates of the Restore Trust in Congress Act is Rep. Anna Paulina Luna.
The Florida Republican has promised action through what is called a discharge petition, which bypasses leadership and forces a full House vote if the bill isn’t considered.
The congresswoman didn’t offer an immediate reaction to this week’s hearing. A source familiar with her thinking previously told Yahoo Finance that she is not taking the discharge petition option off the table.
Polls indicate overwhelming public support for a ban. One survey this summer from the University of Maryland’s School of Public Policy found that 86% of Americans back the idea.
Yet the path ahead for a ban on Capitol Hill, where opinion is clearly more mixed, is far from certain. In his comments, Burchett even went so far as to say that he thought the forces arrayed against his ban may win out in the end.
“We probably won’t do it and I will remain ticked off for the rest of the day because of this,” he said, adding, “let’s give America a reason to trust Congress for once in our miserable lives.”
Ben Werschkul is a Washington correspondent for Yahoo Finance.
