Stock Trading Reform Across Government

Americans deserve to know whether decisions made in Washington serve the public or officials’ personal financial interests. That standard applies across all three branches: Congress, the executive branch, and the federal judiciary.

The 2026 midterms give voters an opportunity to choose a Congress willing to investigate credible concerns, demand evidence, and hold officials accountable—even when those officials belong to the same party. Congress works for the American people and should exercise independent judgment.

Lawmakers, executive officials, and judges can make decisions that affect companies and may receive important information before the public does. When they also own or trade those companies’ stocks, Americans deserve clear rules and credible oversight.

Voters can support candidates who will use Congress’s investigative powers responsibly and back an enforceable ban on individual stock trading across all three branches. That includes members of Congress, the president and vice president, covered executive officials, and federal judges. The standard should apply regardless of party or who appointed an official.

Country over party. Patriot over partisan. Public trust should be earned through conduct and accountability.

Why this matters even if you do not own stocks

Imagine an official learning about a major government decision before it is announced. That decision could affect a company’s profits, a federal contract, or an entire industry.

If the official buys or sells affected stock before the public learns the news, there may be a serious legal problem. Even when a trade is lawful, a personal financial interest can raise another question: Did it influence the official’s judgment?

These concerns reach beyond Wall Street. Government decisions affect jobs, prices, retirement savings, competition, and the use of taxpayer dollars.

A small business should not need political connections to compete fairly. A family saving for retirement should be able to trust that public officials are following the rules. And taxpayers should be able to expect officials to make decisions for public purposes.

A troubling appearance is not proof of a crime

Owning stock is not automatically illegal. Neither is making a profitable trade while serving in government.

Insider trading generally involves trading on important information that is not public, in violation of a legal duty. A case also requires proof of the required state of mind and other legal elements. The details depend on the law being applied. [6]

A conflict of interest is a different concern. An official may have a personal stake in a decision even when no insider-trading violation can be proved.

Stronger safeguards can address conflicts without presuming a crime. Investigators should consider evidence that could clear an official, including independent investment decisions made without confidential information.

What President Trump’s disclosures illustrate

President Donald Trump’s financial disclosures provide a concrete example of why these questions deserve attention. They document substantial private investment interests during his presidency. Those interests warrant scrutiny; they do not establish that he used the presidency unlawfully to make money. [1, 2]

The annual report filed in 2026 covers 2025. A separate report covers July 2026. They should not be combined as though they describe the same period.

The July report lists Microsoft and Amazon sales on July 20, 2026, each valued between $5 million and $25 million. Those amounts describe the size of the sales. They do not tell us how much profit was made. [1, 2]

The annual report also notes payment of late-filing fees for transactions not previously reported on the required periodic forms. That raises a disclosure-compliance issue, but it does not establish insider trading. [1]

The useful questions are easy to understand: Who decided to trade? What information did that person have? When was the decision made? Did anyone share confidential information?

Those questions should be answered through records and evidence. The same approach should apply to any president or lawmaker, regardless of party.

What would show whether public power produced private profits

There are three separate questions: Does an official have a financial interest? Did that official make money? Did misuse of public office help produce that gain?

A financial disclosure may help answer the first question without resolving the other two. A large stock sale is not the same thing as a large profit, and an investment gain during a presidency does not by itself establish abuse of the presidency.

Investigators would need underlying account records to calculate gains and losses, and evidence about the decisions behind relevant trades. They would also need to test whether confidential information was shared or used improperly. A fair review should consider ordinary market movements, established investment strategies, and other explanations.

This is why oversight matters: it can help distinguish legitimate investing from conflicts that need stronger safeguards and conduct that may violate existing law.

Having an investment manager does not answer every question

An independent investment manager can help separate public duties from personal investments. But investigators need to understand how the arrangement actually works.

ABC News reported the White House’s explanation that investment advisers managed Trump’s accounts without regular communication with him. That explanation should be considered fairly and tested against the relevant records. [3]

Could the official direct particular trades? Were confidential tips passed along? Did the manager follow a strategy established in advance?

Certain properly established trading plans can provide a legal defense, subject to specific requirements. Calling an account “professionally managed” does not, by itself, establish that defense. [7]

Can Congress investigate after the 2026 midterms

Yes. Congress already has investigative powers. The election can change who leads committees and whether those powers are used. A change in control of either chamber can affect oversight priorities; a change in party control is not legally required. [17]

Congress can examine financial disclosures, request relevant records, question witnesses, and use properly authorized subpoenas. An investigation could help lawmakers decide whether disclosure rules, trading restrictions, or enforcement procedures need to change. [17]

For example, a committee could compare trading records with the timing of government announcements, examine who controlled an account, and test whether safeguards against sharing confidential information worked.

There are limits. Investigations need a legitimate legislative purpose. Requests for a president’s financial records face special constitutional scrutiny. Witnesses retain legal rights, and disputes over records can take time. Congress can refer evidence to law enforcement, but it cannot declare someone criminally guilty or force prosecutors to bring charges. [12, 17]

The goal should be reliable answers and better rules—not a predetermined result.

Does presidential immunity protect personal stock trading

The Supreme Court’s 2024 immunity decision protects certain official presidential acts from criminal prosecution. It does not give a president criminal immunity for unofficial conduct. [9]

Managing a personal stock portfolio ordinarily is private conduct, rather than a duty of the presidency. For that reason, private trading would likely fall outside the protection recognized in that decision.

That does not mean every possible case would be simple. The Court also restricted prosecutors’ use of evidence involving protected official acts. A case involving private trades and confidential presidential decisions could therefore raise difficult questions about what evidence may be used. [9]

Why the ban should cover all three branches

A congressional-only ban would leave important conflicts unaddressed. We support a constitutionally sound ban on individual stock trading covering:

Congress: members and appropriately defined covered accounts and staff.

The executive branch: the president, vice president, Cabinet members, and other covered officials and staff with sensitive information or decision-making responsibilities.

The federal judiciary: judges, including Supreme Court justices, with appropriate safeguards for covered accounts and staff.

The concern is the same: public responsibilities should not create private investment advantages. The rules and enforcement procedures must fit each branch’s constitutional role.

Existing law already imposes significant restrictions. Congress is covered by insider-trading prohibitions. OGE has explained that restrictions on insider trading and misuse of nonpublic information apply to the president and vice president. [13, 18]

Most executive branch officials also face a separate law requiring them to stay out of official matters involving their financial interests, subject to exceptions and waivers. The president and vice president are excluded from that particular statute. That exclusion does not exempt them from all financial-disclosure or securities laws. [14, 19]

Federal judges already must step aside from cases involving specified financial interests or when their impartiality might reasonably be questioned. The statutory requirements reach Supreme Court justices too. These are rules about which cases a judge may hear; they are not a blanket ban on owning or trading individual stocks. [20]

For someone bringing a lawsuit, the concern is immediate: Is the judge financially interested in the company on the other side? Even when an existing rule requires the judge to step aside, reducing avoidable ownership conflicts could strengthen confidence in an independent judiciary.

A trading ban also needs to address existing holdings. Stopping new purchases while allowing an official to keep company stock can leave a financial stake in public decisions. Lawmakers should consider reasonable deadlines to sell conflicting holdings or move to permitted investments, appropriate diversified funds for retirement saving, and safeguards against trading through family or controlled accounts.

Clear coverage, disclosure, meaningful penalties, and fair enforcement matter. Judicial ethics rules must protect judicial independence and must not become a means of pressuring judges to decide cases a particular way.

Our earlier article on financial incentives and congressional accountability discusses how self-interest can compete with public duty. The practical reform is to reduce avoidable financial incentives that can compromise independent judgment. An investment portfolio alone does not prove why an official voted, declined an investigation, or ruled in a case.

A ban would not eliminate every form of corruption. It could reduce conflicts and make the boundaries of public service clearer.

Vote for a Congress that will use its powers

Congress should oversee the executive branch even when the president belongs to the same party as its majority. A Congress that simply approves or ignores whatever an administration does leaves an essential constitutional responsibility unfulfilled.

Americans do not have to agree on every policy to want a Congress that investigates credible allegations, requires evidence, and follows the facts.

Before voting, ask each candidate:

Will you support credible investigations even when they involve your own party?

Will you support the lawful use of subpoenas and other oversight tools when needed to obtain answers?

Will you support banning individual stock trading by members of Congress, with rules that apply to you?

Will you support extending a constitutionally sound ban to covered executive officials and federal judges, with safeguards against trading through covered family accounts?

Look at candidates’ records, specific proposals, and willingness to accept limits on themselves.

If your current representatives will not meet those standards, the election is an opportunity to choose representatives who will. No candidate should receive a free pass because of a party label.

An election cannot guarantee an investigation or a new law. Changing who holds congressional power can change whether that power is used to demand answers.

For families and businesses in Charlotte, Mecklenburg County, South Florida, and across the country, the stakes include fair treatment, responsible use of taxpayer money, and confidence that public decisions serve the public.

Make a voting plan for the 2026 midterms. Check your state or local election office for the rules, deadlines, and voting options where you live. Support candidates prepared to exercise independent judgment, conduct responsible oversight, and strengthen financial-conflict rules across all three branches.

Vote for a Congress that will do its job. Country over party. Patriot over partisan.

Through the Biazzo Law Government Oversight Program, we support lawful civic participation, constitutional accountability, and evidence-based scrutiny of public power. Asking for records and answers does not presume wrongdoing. It recognizes that public confidence depends on independent oversight, meaningful disclosure, and fair enforcement.

Read our government oversight articles or contact Biazzo Law to schedule a litigation strategy review.

This article provides general legal and civic information. It does not conclude that any identified person committed insider trading or another offense.

Sources and editorial verification

[1] Donald J Trump annual financial disclosure for reporting year 2025. Supplied PDF; cover, Part 3 trust disclosure, and Part 7, especially PDF page 358. Official OGE availability announcement dated June 30, 2026. Source

[2] Donald J Trump periodic transaction report. OGE Form 278-T received September 14, 2026; PDF page 33, entries 1036 and 1039. Downloaded from OGE. Source

[3] ABC News securities trading report. July 2, 2026. Reporting on the annual disclosure, transaction timing, portfolio practices, and White House explanation. Source

[6] Securities and Exchange Commission insider trading explanation. Official SEC explanation of securities-law theories and duties; December 1, 2011. Read together with the subsequent STOCK Act. Source

[7] SEC Rule 10b5 1 amendments guide. February 24, 2023. Conditions for trading-plan affirmative defenses. Source

[9] Trump v United States. 603 U.S. 593 (2024). Supplied 119-page opinion PDF; majority slip-opinion pages 6–18 and 30–34, including footnote 3. Source

[12] Trump v Mazars USA LLP. 591 U.S. 848 (2020), majority opinion; legislative-purpose requirements and special considerations for presidential records. Source

[13] Office of Government Ethics legal advisory LA 16 10. December 15, 2016. STOCK Act coverage of the president and vice president. Source

[14] Statutory framework. 18 U.S.C. § 202(c), defining exclusions for specified conflict-of-interest provisions; STOCK Act text is also reflected in the statutory notes to 15 U.S.C. § 78j. Source

[17] Congressional Research Service Congressional Oversight Manual. Investigative authority, authorization, legislative purpose, subpoenas, and enforcement limitations. Source

[18] STOCK Act provisions in the United States Code. Notes to 15 U.S.C. § 78j reproduce STOCK Act sections 4(a) and 9(b)(1) on application of insider-trading prohibitions. Source

[19] Congressional Research Service executive branch financial conflicts. Disqualification requirements under 18 U.S.C. § 208 and the presidential and vice-presidential exclusion. Source

[20] Judicial disqualification statute. 28 U.S.C. § 455(a), (b)(4), (d)(4), and (f); financial interests, impartiality, exceptions, and divestiture. Source

[21] Biazzo Law commentary on congressional incentives. Related institutional analysis of fear, self-interest, and accountability. Used as commentary rather than proof of any specific official’s motive. Source