A New Ethics Bill Lands in Congress. Is Reform Finally Coming?
Rep. Haley Stevens’s proposal arrives amid a wave of stock-trading legislation and historically low trust in Congress.
Earlier this month, Representative Haley Stevens of Michigan introduced a proposal with an unusually blunt title: the No Getting Rich in Congress Act. The bill is pitched as a sweeping ethics reform package aimed at limiting how federal officials, including members of Congress, can profit from their positions.
At the moment, much of what we know about the proposal comes from Stevens’s office and summary materials accompanying the announcement on March 5, 2026. The full legislative text has not yet circulated as widely as other bills currently moving through Congress. Even so, the outlines are clear enough to understand the basic thrust. Stevens and several Democratic colleagues, including Reps. Derek Tran of California, Eric Sorensen of Illinois, Andrea Salinas of Oregon, and veteran Ohio Rep. Marcy Kaptur are proposing a far broader approach to government ethics than the narrower stock-trading bans that have dominated debate in recent years.
The bill would restrict members of Congress, their spouses, and dependents from trading individual stocks and certain other financial instruments while in office. It also goes further. According to the summary released by Stevens’s office, the legislation would bar members from serving on corporate boards while in Congress and impose additional reporting and conflict-of-interest rules that extend to family members and other financial relationships.
Notably, the proposal is not limited to Congress. Stevens’s framework would also apply to senior executive branch officials, including the president and vice president. That distinction matters. Many recent debates over financial conflicts have focused narrowly on lawmakers, but Stevens’s bill treats the issue as a broader problem of public officials exercising governmental authority while maintaining private financial interests.
Taken together, the proposal reads less like a narrow stock-trading fix and more like a broader modernization of federal ethics rules. Whether it becomes law is an open question, but the fact that it has been introduced at all—at this moment—may say as much about the political climate surrounding Congress as it does about the bill itself.
This Community Is Powered by You
What started as a small circle has grown into something much bigger, and it’s all because of readers like you.
Every time you forward this email, post it on socials, or bring someone new into the fold, you’re helping build one of the most passionate, independent political communities out there.
Want to keep the momentum going?
Share this newsletter with someone who should be part of this conversation.
Thank you for being here. It means everything.
A Narrower Bill Already Moving
Stevens’s proposal enters a debate that is already underway on Capitol Hill. In January, House Republicans advanced their own reform measure, H.R. 7008, known as the Stop Insider Trading Act.
Introduced on January 12, 2026, by Representative Bryan Steil of Wisconsin, the bill cleared the House Administration Committee two days later on a 7–4 vote and was formally reported to the House on February 3. That step placed the measure on the Union Calendar, meaning it is eligible for consideration by the full House if leadership chooses to bring it to the floor.
H.R. 7008 is narrower than Stevens’s proposal in several important ways. The bill would prohibit members of Congress, their spouses, and dependent children from purchasing new publicly traded stocks while the member is in office. It would also require lawmakers to provide advance public notice before selling certain holdings. The bill includes enforcement provisions overseen by congressional ethics authorities and requires the sale of investments purchased in violation of its rules.
Supporters describe the bill as a practical way to address the long-running controversy over congressional stock trading. Critics argue that it leaves significant gaps. Because the restriction focuses on new purchases, members could still retain existing portfolios and continue to benefit from market gains tied to industries they regulate. Other assets, including diversified funds and certain compensation structures, remain permitted under the bill’s framework.
The difference in scope between the two proposals is striking. H.R. 7008 aims primarily at one practice—new stock purchases by members and their families. Stevens’s bill treats the issue as part of a broader web of financial conflicts, including outside positions, family financial ties, and the role of executive branch officials.
The procedural gap between the bills is also significant. H.R. 7008 has already passed through committee and is positioned for a possible floor vote. Stevens’s bill is only beginning its legislative life.
The House operates under strict procedural rules that give leadership considerable control over which bills move and when. Even if Stevens’s proposal ultimately attracts support, it may never reach the floor as its own standalone vehicle. In Congress, legislative ideas often move forward not as separate bills but as amendments to measures that are already in motion.
A Growing Chorus Inside Congress
The Stevens proposal is also part of a much larger wave of legislative activity on the issue.
According to congressional research, more than 25 bills addressing congressional stock trading or related financial conflicts have been introduced in the current Congress alone. The proposals come from both parties and vary widely in scope, from narrow restrictions on trading to broader requirements involving blind trusts, divestment, and expanded disclosure.
We’ve been reporting on Congressional stock trading and related concerns for some time. See some of that reporting here:
Note: Articles move into the archive over time. Become a paid subscriber for full access to our extensive catalog.
That volume of legislation is notable in itself. While most bills introduced in Congress never become law, the sheer number of proposals reflects a growing recognition inside the institution that the issue is not going away. Members may disagree about how far reforms should go, but the repeated introduction of bills suggests that the pressure to address the problem is increasing.
Ethics Reform in Historical Perspective
To understand why these proposals have resurfaced now, it helps to step back.
Congress has not updated its ethics framework in a sweeping fashion for many years. The last major overhaul of congressional ethics and lobbying rules came with the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007, which tightened disclosure requirements and imposed new limits on gifts, travel, and lobbying contacts in the wake of the Jack Abramoff scandal.
Five years later, Congress passed the STOCK Act of 2012, which clarified that insider-trading laws apply to members of Congress and required faster public disclosure of lawmakers’ financial transactions. That law was enacted amid intense public scrutiny after media reports and investigative journalism highlighted the possibility that members could profit from nonpublic information obtained through their official duties.
Before those reforms came another major update, the Ethics Reform Act of 1989, which imposed strict limits on outside earned income and eliminated the once-common practice of lawmakers accepting honoraria for speeches and appearances. Prior to that was the Ethics in Government Act of 1978, a sweeping post-Watergate law that established the modern system of financial disclosure for senior federal officials.
Seen in sequence, these reforms suggest that congressional ethics rules evolve in bursts rather than through steady maintenance. Long periods of incremental change are followed by moments when public pressure, media attention, and legislative momentum converge to produce more significant updates.
Are Those Conditions Appearing Again?
Some observers believe the current environment resembles those earlier moments.
Public trust in Congress remains stubbornly low by historical standards. Surveys over the past decade have consistently shown congressional approval ratings in the teens or low twenties, far below the levels recorded in the mid-twentieth century.
Meanwhile, scrutiny of lawmakers’ financial activities has continued to surface in media coverage, watchdog reports, and legislative debate. Unlike earlier reform moments, however, the current pressure has not come from a single explosive scandal. Instead, it has accumulated gradually through repeated reporting, public criticism, and the steady introduction of reform proposals.
That pattern resembles the environment that preceded the STOCK Act more than the crisis that produced the 2007 reforms. In 2011, a series of investigations and media reports drew attention to the possibility that members of Congress could legally profit from nonpublic information gained through their work. The resulting backlash helped propel a long-discussed bill through Congress the following year.
Today’s debate carries a similar tone. The central complaint is less about one criminal act than about the broader perception that lawmakers operate under financial rules that would not be tolerated elsewhere in government.
At the same time, the political climate outside Washington has grown more austere. Many Americans are navigating rising living costs, stagnant wages in certain sectors, and persistent uncertainty about healthcare and retirement security. Against that backdrop, controversies involving lawmakers’ personal financial activity can carry an outsized symbolic weight.
What Happens If the House Votes?
The immediate legislative question is whether the House will eventually vote on H.R. 7008.
If leadership schedules the bill for floor consideration, it will first pass through the House Rules Committee, which determines how debate proceeds and whether amendments are allowed. The committee’s decision can shape the entire outcome of the debate.
Under an open rule, members could propose amendments from the floor. That scenario could allow supporters of broader reforms to introduce provisions resembling those in Stevens’s proposal.
Under a structured rule, only a limited set of pre-approved amendments would be considered. Under a closed rule, no amendments would be permitted, leaving the House with a simple up-or-down vote on the bill as written.
If the bill reaches the floor, lawmakers who favor Stevens’s broader approach will face a strategic choice. Some may attempt to amend the bill to include stronger restrictions. Others may argue that the proposal is too narrow and that a more comprehensive reform — such as Stevens’s — is needed.
Either way, the debate would serve as a public acknowledgment that Congress recognizes the underlying problem, paving the way for future reform.
Reform or Another Patch?
For now, the outcome remains uncertain.
The presence of dozens of reform proposals suggests that concern about congressional financial conflicts is not disappearing. Yet history shows that such debates do not always end with sweeping change. Sometimes Congress responds with narrower adjustments that address the immediate controversy without fundamentally rewriting the rules.
Whether the current moment produces a major overhaul or another incremental patch may depend on the same forces that shaped earlier reforms: public pressure, media attention, and the willingness of congressional leadership to bring legislation to the floor.
What seems clear is that the issue is unlikely to fade quietly. As long as scrutiny of lawmakers’ financial dealings continues and trust in Congress remains low, the pressure for some form of reform will remain part of the political landscape.
The question is not whether Congress will face that pressure. It is whether this time the response will amount to a genuine update or simply the smallest concession necessary to move the debate along.
If you found this analysis helpful, consider subscribing.
We cover the intersection of policy, politics, and institutional reform, with a focus on the context often lost in daily headlines. Our goal is simple: help readers understand not just what Congress is doing, but how and why it happens.
Subscribe to receive new posts directly in your inbox.
Sources:
Rep. Stevens Introduces Congressional Stock Trading Ban, Additional Measures — March 5, 2026, Office of Rep. Haley Stevens
VIDEO: MI Congresswoman Haley Stevens Announces ‘No Getting Rich in Congress Act’ — March 11, 2026, Office of Rep. Haley Stevens
Group of House Democrats introduce new stock trading bill — March 5, 2026, The Hill (via AOL mirror)
Steil Introduces Legislation to Ban Congressional Stock Trading — January 12, 2026, Office of Rep. Bryan Steil
US House Republicans advance bill to curtail lawmaker stock trades as Democrats seek tougher controls — January 14, 2026, Reuters
Stock trading by members of Congress could be banned in bipartisan push — November 20, 2025, CT Mirror / States Newsroom
Taking Stock of the STOCK Act — November 19, 2025, Congressional Research Service (hosted by EveryCRSReport)
Rep. Stevens' bill would answer the disturbing frequency with which supporters of the Democratic party slag the Democratic party electeds for being controlled by insider trading incentives.
There is nothing like a circular firing squad, am I right??
Now we need campaign finance laws such that supporters of the Democratic party cannot slag the Democratic party electeds for being controlled by AIPAC.
The people who profit the most from this bills failure are the same people who are going to vote for it. This is just another example of a completely broken system. Put it on a fucking ballot and see what happens. Half of Congress will retire.