The House approved the "Stop Insider Trading Act" on a 232, 198 vote with full Republican support and just 13 Democrats, after a voter ID requirement bundled into the bill gave most of the minority party a reason to walk away from a measure their own voters have demanded for years.

Every Republican in the chamber voted yes. Thirteen Democrats crossed the aisle to join them. The rest of the Democratic caucus voted no, not because they oppose restricting congressional stock trades, a position that polls well across party lines, but because the bill also requires photo identification to cast a ballot. That pairing turned what could have been a bipartisan layup into another partisan fight, and it exposed a familiar pattern: when forced to choose between a popular reform and a progressive litmus test, most House Democrats chose the litmus test.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York framed her opposition in stark terms. She posted on X on July 21, 2026:

"Republicans are trying to pull a trick this week. They say we are voting on an 'insider trading' bill, but have snuck in massive SAVE Act-style voter suppression measures to it. This is a GOP effort to sabotage national mail-in voting, disguised as a trading ban. I'm voting NO."

Set aside the "voter suppression" framing, requiring a photo ID to vote is standard practice in most democracies and supported by broad majorities of American voters. The more revealing question is what Ocasio-Cortez and her colleagues chose to sacrifice. They walked away from the most significant congressional stock-trading restriction since the STOCK Act passed in 2012, a law that even its supporters acknowledge has done little to curb the problem.

Billions in trades, and every lawmaker has an explanation

The bill would bar lawmakers, their spouses, and dependent children from purchasing individual stocks of publicly traded companies while in office, with limited exceptions for certain investment funds. Selling stock would require filing public notice seven to 14 days in advance. Violators would face a fee and ethics scrutiny.

Those restrictions matter because the trading volume in Congress is staggering. Data from Quiver Quantitative, a firm that tracks congressional financial disclosures, shows that several sitting lawmakers moved tens of millions of dollars in assets over the past year alone. Calculating exact numbers is difficult because lawmakers are only required to report ranges in their financial disclosures, not precise figures. But even the ranges are eye-opening.

Rep. Ro Khanna, a California Democrat, topped the list. His household traded 4,772 times, moving an estimated $65.9 million in assets. Khanna insists he personally owns no stocks. He posted on social media last month that his "household's only investments are in a trust that my in-laws set up before marriage, managed independently by a third party trustee in full compliance with the Office of Government Ethics (OGE) and House Rules." He also penned a Substack post explaining his family finances.

Former Speaker Nancy Pelosi, long the most prominent name in congressional trading controversies, came in close behind. Her household made roughly $52.5 million worth of trades across 21 occasions over the past year. Her husband, Paul Pelosi, has built substantial wealth through stock transactions. A spokesperson for Pelosi, Ian Krager, told the New York Post that "Speaker Pelosi does not own any stocks and has no knowledge or subsequent involvement in any transactions." That claim sits uneasily next to Pelosi's own comment from roughly five years ago, when she defended congressional stock trading outright:

"We are a free market economy. They should be able to participate in that."

Pelosi eventually reversed course and publicly backed efforts to restrict congressional trading in 2022. But the household's trading volume has not slowed, and the defense has simply shifted from "it's our right" to "she doesn't know about it." Voters can judge which version they find more persuasive.

Republicans on the list didn't dodge the vote

Democrats were not alone on the leaderboard. Rep. Michael McCaul, a retiring Texas Republican and former chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, saw his family move roughly $48 million across 980 trades. His office has previously said his wife "has assets she solely owns, and a third-party manager" makes purchases "without her direction." McCaul voted for the bill anyway, a point worth noting, since vulnerable House Democrats have repeatedly broken with their party on popular votes only when the political cost of loyalty became too high.

Rep. Tony Wied, a Wisconsin Republican whose household moved some $25.9 million across 19 trades concentrated mostly in the tech sector, voted yes but did not pretend the bill solved the real problem. He called it a "symbolic gesture" and argued Congress should have gone further:

"If my colleagues on both sides of the aisle were serious about solving the actual problem, we would have gone much further with this legislation and addressed the real issue plaguing the swamp: career politicians using their connections and insider knowledge to enrich themselves as lobbyists and federal contractors after leaving office."

Wied also noted what should be obvious: "Insider trading is already entirely illegal." The bill adds disclosure and purchase restrictions on top of existing law, but it does not address the revolving door between Congress and the lobbying industry that Wied described. Still, he voted for it. So did every other Republican, including Rep. Lisa McClain of Michigan and Rep. Kevin Hern of Oklahoma, both listed among the top traders in Congress. House GOP communications director Joe Buccino said of McClain's investments: "They have been made in line with all House rules and applicable laws."

Rep. Chip Roy of Texas also appeared on the Quiver Quantitative rankings, though his office attributed the listing to an error in his financial disclosures. The nature of that error was not specified.

Thirteen Democrats crossed the line, the rest hid behind voter ID

The 13 Democrats who voted yes represent a familiar type: members from swing districts or moderate constituencies who cannot afford to be seen protecting congressional stock trading. The list includes Reps. Jared Golden of Maine, Josh Gottheimer of New Jersey, Marie Gluesenkamp Perez of Washington, Susie Lee of Nevada, and Chris Pappas of New Hampshire, among others. Several of these members have broken ranks with their party before on high-profile votes.

Gottheimer's inclusion is notable. He appeared on Quiver Quantitative's list of the top 10 sitting lawmakers by trading volume last year. So did Rep. Cleo Fields of Louisiana and Rep. Tim Moore of North Carolina, both Democrats. Neither was listed among the 13 who voted yes.

Rep. Gil Cisneros, a California Democrat whose household moved roughly $12 million across more than 1,128 trades spanning tech, health care, and industrials, told the Post that he and his wife "have always employed outside financial advisors who have a fiduciary responsibility to maintain a diverse portfolio." He added that they "do not manage the day-to-day trading of our investment portfolio, nor have we ever suggested a trade while serving in Congress or at the Department of Defense." Cisneros stressed that he has "always complied with all rules and regulations regarding stock trading and financial disclosures."

The defenses follow a pattern. Khanna says a trust handles it. Pelosi's office says she doesn't know about it. McCaul's team says a third-party manager does it. Cisneros says advisors run it. Every lawmaker on the list has an intermediary standing between them and the trades, on paper. Whether voters believe that arrangement eliminates conflicts of interest is another matter entirely.

Senate prospects look dim, and Democrats own part of the blame

Even after passing the House, the Stop Insider Trading Act faces long odds in the Senate, where it would need 60 votes to clear a filibuster. The upper chamber has shown little appetite for the bill in its current form. That means the voter ID provision that drove Democrats away from the House vote may also give Senate Democrats a convenient excuse to block the trading restrictions they claim to support.

The pairing of voter ID with the stock trading ban was a deliberate choice by House Republicans, and it worked exactly as designed. It forced Democrats to choose, and most chose to protect their opposition to voter ID over their stated commitment to ending congressional insider trading. The strategy of pairing voter ID with must-pass legislation has become a recurring feature of House Republican tactics, and it keeps exposing the same fault line in the Democratic caucus.

Ocasio-Cortez called the bill a disguise. But the trading data is real, the restrictions are real, and the voter ID requirement reflects a policy supported by most Americans. The only disguise in this debate was the one worn by lawmakers who claim to oppose insider trading but voted against the bill that would restrict it.

Progressive members like Ocasio-Cortez have built entire brands around fighting corruption and holding the powerful accountable. When the vote came, they sided with the status quo, a status quo in which progressive members talk about cleaning up Washington while their colleagues trade millions in stocks and hide behind blind trusts and third-party managers.

Congress has been promising to police its own stock trading since at least 2012. The STOCK Act was supposed to fix the problem. It didn't. This bill might not either, Wied himself called it symbolic. But it passed the House, and the roll call tells you everything about who was willing to take even a symbolic step and who wasn't.

When lawmakers trade tens of millions in stocks and then vote against the bill that would make them stop, the "free market" defense doesn't cut it anymore, no matter how many spokespeople they send out to explain it away.