Hawley Proposes Stock Trading Ban for Presidents, Lawmakers
Republican Senator Josh Hawley announced on Tuesday that he favors a stock trading ban that would apply to presidents, vice presidents, Supreme Court justices, and all members of Congress, expanding the scope of existing ethics legislation beyond lawmakers alone. The proposal, which Hawley described as a “uniform rule for everybody,” comes in the wake of a financial disclosure revealing that President Donald Trump’s investment managers made more than 3,700 stock trades in the first quarter of 2026, valued between $220 million and $750 million, as NBC News reported.
Context and Background
The push for a stock trading ban is not new. The Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge (STOCK) Act, signed into law in 2012, required members of Congress to publicly disclose stock trades within 45 days but imposed only a nominal $200 fine for late filings. Critics have long called the law ineffective, with a 2022 Campaign Legal Center report describing it as a “failed effort.”
Hawley is co-author of bipartisan legislation originally named the PELOSI Act — a pointed reference to former Speaker Nancy Pelosi — and later renamed the Honest Act. The bill would ban members of Congress, the president, and the vice president from buying, selling, or holding individual stocks, with a 180-day window to divest existing holdings. Notably, the legislation delays implementation for the president and vice president until the start of their next term, effectively exempting Trump from having to sell his assets.
Key Developments
In July 2025, the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee voted 8-7 to advance the bill, with Hawley joining all Democrats while every other Republican voted against it. The vote drew sharp criticism from Trump, who posted on Truth Social that he did not think “real Republicans want to see their President, who has had unprecedented success, TARGETED, because of the ‘whims’ of a second-tier Senator named Josh Hawley!” as AP News reported.
After the attack, Hawley spoke with Trump and clarified that the bill explicitly exempted the president from having to sell Mar-a-Lago or other assets. Trump then told Hawley he “wants a stock trade ban,” according to Fox News. Despite the reconciliation, the bill has stalled in the Senate since the committee vote, with Majority Leader John Thune signaling reluctance to bring it to the floor with only one Republican supporter.
Speaking at a White House press briefing on Tuesday, Vice President JD Vance defended Trump’s trading activity, arguing that the president “doesn’t sit at the Oval Office on his computer on his Robinhood account” and that independent wealth advisers manage his money. Vance said he and Trump support banning members of Congress from trading stocks but did not explicitly say whether presidents and vice presidents should be included.
Hawley, who says he does not own individual stocks himself, told NBC News: “I’d be in favor of a uniform rule for everybody. By everybody, I mean everybody, Supreme Court justices, you pick it, that says you can’t trade in stock.”
Analysis and Implications
The renewed debate highlights several key tensions. First, the question of scope — should the ban apply only to Congress, or also to the executive and judicial branches? This remains the central disagreement among lawmakers. Second, Trump’s active portfolio creates a potential conflict of interest between his personal financial interests and policy decisions that affect markets. Third, Hawley’s decision to cross party lines angered Republican colleagues, exposing the tension between ethics reform and partisan loyalty.
A separate bipartisan effort, the Restore Trust in Congress Act, has attracted more than 120 co-sponsors in the House and includes a discharge petition that could force a floor vote. This competing legislation would ban members of Congress, their spouses, and dependent children from owning or trading individual stocks, though it does not extend to the president or Supreme Court.
What’s Next
The Honest Act faces an uncertain path in the Senate with limited Republican support, while the House version enjoys broader bipartisan backing. Trump’s position remains ambiguous — he says he “conceptually” supports a ban but has attacked its proponents. With the 2026 midterm elections approaching, public pressure for ethics reform may intensify, potentially forcing lawmakers to act on an issue that polls show has unusually broad bipartisan public support.
Key questions remain: Will Majority Leader Thune allow a floor vote? Can the House discharge petition succeed? And would any ban be effectively enforced given the STOCK Act’s weak track record?