Referred to the House Committee on House Administration.
The bill creates a new subchapter in Title 5 that restricts certain securities transactions by Members of Congress, their spouses, and dependent children.
It generally bars purchases of publicly traded securities (including certain derivatives) by covered individuals during federal service, requires Members to publicly notify intended sales 7–14 days in advance, and allows limited exceptions.
Violations trigger civil fees (minimum $2,000 or 10% of transaction value plus net gains) and, for purchases, an order to sell the violating asset; fees cannot be paid from official allowances or campaign contributions.
Content is administrable and publicly appealing but political resistance from affected Members and Senate procedural barriers reduce odds.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a well-defined substantive statute that adds new prohibitions, notice requirements, and penalties for covered individuals and integrates with existing Title 5 and securities law terminology. It specifies many concrete mechanics but leaves several administrative and procedural details to supervising ethics offices without establishing comprehensive implementation, adjudication, resourcing, or reporting frameworks.
Liberals praise stronger transactional limits; conservatives see overreach
The clearest budget scorecard attached to this bill: what it changes for direct spending, revenue, and the deficit.
As reported by the House Committee on House Administration on February 3, 2026
Liberals praise stronger transactional limits; conservatives see overreach
Generally supportive because the bill tightens transactional restrictions and increases disclosure to curb insider advantages.
Likely to view it as a substantive improvement over weaker disclosure-only regimes, while noting it could be strengthened.
Would push for closing loopholes and stronger enforcement, including criminal referrals for proven insider trading.
Cautiously supportive as a pragmatic anti-corruption reform that balances deterrence and member rights.
Concerned about administrative burden, legal clarity, and unintended market effects from the advance-notice requirement.
Would favor clarifying enforcement mechanics and interagency coordination before full endorsement.
Generally skeptical or opposed, viewing the bill as federal overreach into personal property and family financial affairs.
Likely to argue it imposes heavy compliance costs, privacy intrusions, and deterrents to public service without proven effectiveness.
Prefers narrower, less intrusive anti-corruption measures.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Content is administrable and publicly appealing but political resistance from affected Members and Senate procedural barriers reduce odds.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Liberals praise stronger transactional limits; conservatives see overreach
Content is administrable and publicly appealing but political resistance from affected Members and Senate procedural barriers reduce odds.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a well-defined substantive statute that adds new prohibitions, notice requirements, and penalties for covered individuals and integrates with existing Title 5 and…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.