Americans should never have to question whether their elected officials are prioritizing public service over personal portfolio gains. Yet, as reports continue to surface of lawmakers trading stocks in sectors overseen by their own committees, that doubt has become impossible to ignore.
The House recently passed legislation aimed at limiting congressional stock trading. While a step in the right direction, the measure fails to tackle the underlying issue: conflicts of interest. This problem is not new—it has festered for decades, prompting investment firms to create funds that mirror lawmakers' trades. As the Harvard Law School Journal on Legislation noted, "investors are betting on the untrustworthiness of Congress." That's a stark indictment of how pervasive the issue has become.
Take Senator John Hickenlooper (D-Colo.), whose trust recently bought shares in companies overseen by two Senate committees he sits on. He's not alone. A recent analysis found at least nine senators from both parties disclosed trades in industries relevant to their committee work. A 2022 study identified 97 lawmakers or their family members who traded assets in sectors potentially impacted by their legislative duties.
The real question isn't whether such trades are legal—it's how to eliminate the inherent conflicts when legislators own individual companies affected by their official actions. Several proposals miss the mark. Blind trusts, for instance, sound appealing but don't solve the problem. Lawmakers still know what they own, and they can still act in ways that benefit those holdings. Hickenlooper's defense of his blind trust illustrates this flaw perfectly.
Pre-disclosure of trades, another popular idea, only adds transparency without addressing the root conflict. It merely alerts the public to behavior that shouldn't be permitted in the first place. Congress is trying to have it both ways—appearing to tighten ethics rules while allowing members to keep investments that create real or perceived conflicts. The House bill, for example, would bar new purchases of individual stocks but let members retain existing holdings, leaving current conflicts untouched.
Congress already knows how to fix this. Thousands of executive branch employees are prohibited from owning stocks that conflict with their duties and must divest into diversified mutual funds. As a former federal ethics investigator and inspector general, I enforced those mandatory safeguards. They protect the integrity of government decisions. Yet Congress exempts itself from these very standards.
A meaningful ban also requires robust enforcement. The current $200 penalty for certain violations is laughable. Congress should adopt substantial fines and disciplinary measures to deter misconduct. This isn't about any single politician or party—it's about whether Americans can trust that their government serves the public interest, not personal financial gain.
If ordinary citizens traded on material nonpublic information or faced similar conflicts, they'd face serious legal consequences. Members of Congress should not be held to a lower standard. The STOCK Act's failure is a reminder that disclosure alone doesn't curb abuse. And as Congress leaves for recess with this issue unresolved, the public's skepticism only grows.
Mark Lee Greenblatt, a former inspector general at the Interior Department and chair of the Council of Inspectors General, wrote this piece. He is the author of "Valor: Unsung Heroes from Iraq, Afghanistan, and the Home Front."
