The Stop Insider Trading Act, explained
On 22 July 2026 the House passed H.R. 7008, the Stop Insider Trading Act, by 232–198. If enacted it would be the most significant change to how Congress trades since the STOCK Act itself — moving from "disclose what you trade" to "you can't buy individual stocks at all."
Here is what the bill text actually says, including two provisions most coverage has skipped.
What it bans
No covered individual — a member of Congress, their spouse, or a dependent child — may purchase a covered investment, defined as a security issued by a publicly traded company or any comparable economic interest acquired through synthetic means, such as a derivative, option or warrant. So it captures options too, not just shares.
It does not touch existing holdings. Members could keep what they own, and could still sell it. There is no divestment requirement.
What's excluded — including the blind-trust route
Four things fall outside "covered investment":
- Diversified funds — mutual funds and ETFs — so a member can still invest through a broad index fund
- Funds that fail the diversification test only because they're concentrated in the US, or in the member's own state
- An interest in a small business
- Assets held in a trust where no covered individual has any authority over the trustee — including any power to appoint, replace or direct them — and where the trustee is not the member's spouse, child, parent or sibling
That last exclusion is the one worth watching. Assets moved into such a trust aren't covered investments at all, so neither the purchase ban nor the advance-notice rule below applies to them — and a genuinely blind trust's transactions aren't reported at transaction level, because the point is that the member doesn't know what's in it. Widespread migration into independent trusts would remove those members from public transaction data altogether, which is a larger change to what the public can see than the purchase ban itself.
The sell-side rule: advance notice
Selling isn't banned, but it isn't unrestricted. A member would have to file a notice of intent to sell — publicly disclosed at least 7 and no more than 14 calendar days before the sale — stating the projected sale date, a description, and the number of shares. Notices are published by the Clerk of the House or Secretary of the Senate, and must be withdrawn if the member decides not to sell.
This is a genuine reversal of how congressional disclosure works today. Everything currently published is retrospective and up to 45 days stale. Advance sell notices would be prospective — and they'd include exact share counts, which ordinary filings never disclose.
Penalties
A violation carries a fee of the greater of $2,000 or 10% of the transaction value, plus any net gain realised on the investment, plus a requirement to sell it. The fee can't be paid from office accounts or campaign funds, and ethics offices can refer a member who resigns before paying to the Department of Justice.
When it would take effect
The trading provisions take effect 180 days after enactment — so even on the fastest path there would be roughly six months before anything changed, followed by the usual disclosure lag on trades made before the cutoff.
Why it's stuck in the Senate
Section 3 of the bill has nothing to do with trading: it's a voter photo-ID mandate for federal elections, in person and by post. A stock-trading ban carrying an unrelated and highly partisan election-law provision into a chamber that needs 60 votes is not a bill optimised for enactment. A Senate companion bill exists under the same title, and decoupling the trading provisions from the rider is the more plausible route if the House version stays stuck.
What it would mean for this site
New purchase disclosures — the core of the Trades and Notable feeds — would thin out. Sell-side disclosure would continue, and would actually improve, since advance notices arrive before the trade rather than weeks after it. The historical record of scored trades becomes the definitive account of the pre-ban era rather than losing value. The bigger risk to public visibility isn't the ban; it's the blind-trust exclusion.
What to watch
Any Senate floor action, any move to decouple the trading provisions from the voter-ID rider, and any statement on scheduling. This page is updated in place as the bill moves.