Skip to Main Content
  • Blog
  • Politics
  • Can Congress Members Be Banned from Stock Trading? What the Prediction Markets Say
Politics PredictionsExpert Analysis

Can Congress Members Be Banned from Stock Trading? What the Prediction Markets Say

86% of Americans support banning Congress from trading stocks. 126 House cosponsors. A bipartisan Senate bill. A committee vote passed in January 2026. And yet - prediction markets price this at 12-20% probability of passage. The gap between public demand and legislative reality is the entire story. Here is what every market on the issue is pricing and why the odds are where they are.

Key Takeaways

  • 86% of Americans across party lines support banning members of Congress from trading individual stocks - one of the highest public approval ratings for any legislative proposal in recent memory. Prediction markets price the actual passage of a ban at 12-20%. This gap is the entire story.
  • A Republican-backed bill cleared the House Administration Committee in January 2026 - the first stock-ban bill of any kind to advance out of committee this decade. But Democrats voted against it for not going far enough. A separate bipartisan Senate bill from Gillibrand (D-NY) and Moody (R-FL) was introduced the same week. Multiple competing bills at different scope levels have fractured the coalition.
  • The discharge petition filed by Rep. Anna Paulina Luna had 82 signers as of late March 2026 - needing 218 for a floor vote. The united front began to crumble as midterms approached. Congressional self-regulation has failed every time it has been attempted since the 2012 STOCK Act, which is widely considered inadequate.
  • The insider trading angle has merged with the stock trading ban debate: the same Congress considering a stock ban is also investigating insider trading on prediction markets. Multiple bills in Q1 2026 targeted prediction markets specifically - creating a parallel regulatory track that could pass even if the stock ban does not.
  • The midterm election cycle is working against both bills. Incumbents who trade stocks - or whose spouses do - have strong personal incentives to slow-walk reform. Sen. Murphy told reporters in March 2026 that odds of any prediction market regulation gaining momentum this Congress were 'slim to none.'
2,175 Words
11 min Read
Expert Verified
DuelDuck Research TeamDuelDuck Research TeamResearch TeamPublished on May 4, 2026Updated on May 4, 2026

The Gap: 86% Public Support, 12-20% Market Odds

The congressional stock trading ban is one of the most striking examples of the gap between public demand and legislative probability in American politics right now. The numbers are stark:

Metric

Value

Source

Public support for Congressional stock ban

86%

Campaign Legal Center / polling aggregate

House cosponsors on Restore Trust in Congress Act

126

Gillibrand Senate press release, Jan 2026

Discharge petition signers (needed: 218)

82 of 218

Roll Call, March 2026

Prediction market odds of passage (stock ban)

~12%

PredictIt proxy market, January 2026

Kalshi odds of CFTC new insider trading rules (2026)

~20%

PredictIt/Kalshi, January 2026

Times similar bills stalled before (since 2012)

Multiple cycles

Historical record

Congress members who own stock (119th Congress)

95%+ own stock

Campaign Legal Center

Congress members who have violated STOCK Act disclosure

25+ in 2025 alone

Roll Call

Metric
Value
Source
Public support for Congressional stock ban
86%
Campaign Legal Center / polling aggregate
House cosponsors on Restore Trust in Congress Act
126
Gillibrand Senate press release, Jan 2026
Discharge petition signers (needed: 218)
82 of 218
Roll Call, March 2026
Prediction market odds of passage (stock ban)
~12%
PredictIt proxy market, January 2026
Kalshi odds of CFTC new insider trading rules (2026)
~20%
PredictIt/Kalshi, January 2026
Times similar bills stalled before (since 2012)
Multiple cycles
Historical record
Congress members who own stock (119th Congress)
95%+ own stock
Campaign Legal Center
Congress members who have violated STOCK Act disclosure
25+ in 2025 alone
Roll Call

NOTE

The prediction market price of 12-20% is not a bug. It reflects a pattern that has repeated itself every congressional session since 2012: overwhelming public support, bipartisan co-sponsorship, committee momentum, and then legislative death by personal incentive. The people voting on the ban are the same people who benefit from not having one. This conflict of interest is structural, not accidental, and prediction markets are pricing it accurately.

The Bills: What Is Actually Being Proposed

Multiple competing bills in 2026 have fractured what could have been a unified coalition. Understanding the differences between them explains why the odds remain low despite the apparent momentum.

Bill

Sponsors

Scope

Status (April 2026)

Key limitation

Restore Trust in Congress Act

Rep. Roy (R-TX) + Rep. Magaziner (D-RI); companion: Sen. Gillibrand (D-NY) + Sen. Moody (R-FL)

Bans members of Congress and immediate family from owning or trading individual stocks (not president)

126 House cosponsors; bipartisan Senate intro Jan 2026; discharge petition at 82/218

Does not cover the president or executive branch; Democrats oppose as insufficient

Stop Insider Trading Act (GOP version)

Rep. Bryan Steil (R-WI)

Narrower ban; advanced out of House Administration Committee Jan 2026

Committee vote passed along party lines (7-4); Democrats voted against

Less comprehensive; seen by Democrats as designed to stall broader reform

Restore Trust in Government Act

House Democrats

Extends ban to president and executive branch

Introduced separately; no Republican support

Partisan; unlikely to pass Republican-controlled House

Public Integrity in Financial Prediction Markets Act

Rep. Ritchie Torres (D-NY)

Bans federal officials from trading prediction markets on government policy and actions

Introduced Jan 2026; Kalshi CEO endorsed; bipartisan interest

Narrower scope - only covers prediction markets, not stocks

Bill
Sponsors
Scope
Status (April 2026)
Key limitation
Restore Trust in Congress Act
Rep. Roy (R-TX) + Rep. Magaziner (D-RI); companion: Sen. Gillibrand (D-NY) + Sen. Moody (R-FL)
Bans members of Congress and immediate family from owning or trading individual stocks (not president)
126 House cosponsors; bipartisan Senate intro Jan 2026; discharge petition at 82/218
Does not cover the president or executive branch; Democrats oppose as insufficient
Stop Insider Trading Act (GOP version)
Rep. Bryan Steil (R-WI)
Narrower ban; advanced out of House Administration Committee Jan 2026
Committee vote passed along party lines (7-4); Democrats voted against
Less comprehensive; seen by Democrats as designed to stall broader reform
Restore Trust in Government Act
House Democrats
Extends ban to president and executive branch
Introduced separately; no Republican support
Partisan; unlikely to pass Republican-controlled House
Public Integrity in Financial Prediction Markets Act
Rep. Ritchie Torres (D-NY)
Bans federal officials from trading prediction markets on government policy and actions
Introduced Jan 2026; Kalshi CEO endorsed; bipartisan interest
Narrower scope - only covers prediction markets, not stocks

Why It Keeps Failing: The Structural Explanation

The Personal Incentive Problem

95% of Congress members own stock. 59% of stock-owning members are Republican, 41% Democrat. The people voting on the ban are the people the ban would affect. This is not a partisan problem - it is a structural one. Any member who trades actively has a direct financial incentive to slow, weaken, or kill reform.

During the 2025 government shutdown, members of Congress made nearly 200 trades representing $3-9 million in assets while their constituents faced missed paychecks and drained SNAP benefits. The STOCK Act passed in 2012 was supposed to address this. More than 25 members violated even its disclosure requirements in 2025.

The Scope Fragmentation Problem

Every time a stock trading ban gains momentum, it fragments along two fault lines:

  • Scope: Should the ban cover only Congress, or also the president and executive branch? Democrats want both. Republicans prefer Congress-only. This difference has killed multiple bipartisan deals.

  • Strength: Should new purchases be banned, or should all holdings be divested? The Republican-backed Steil bill focuses on new purchases. The Restore Trust Act requires divestment of existing holdings. Democrats consider the Steil approach inadequate.

These two axes create four distinct bill variants, each with its own coalition. When multiple bills compete for the same sponsor pool, none reaches the threshold for a floor vote.

The Midterm Election Calendar

Luna's discharge petition had 82 of 218 needed signers as of late March 2026, and 'the group's united front began to crumble with this year's midterm elections closing in' (Roll Call). As November 2026 approaches, members who might have supported the bill in a non-election year revert to caution. Supporting a stock ban means publicly acknowledging that the current system is broken - a harder vote to cast when your opponent can use it against you.

The Insider Trading on Prediction Markets: A Parallel Track

The stock trading ban debate has merged with a separate and newer controversy: whether government officials are trading on prediction markets using insider knowledge. This parallel track has its own bills, its own market, and its own probability - and it may actually be more likely to pass than the stock ban.

The Maduro Bet That Started It

In January 2026, a Polymarket account placed $32,500 in bets on Venezuelan President Maduro's ouster, profiting over $400,000 within 24 hours after US forces captured him - a return of over 1,200%. The account made only four predictions, all related to US intervention in Venezuela. The market began rising hours before Trump's announcement.

This incident - following similar concerns about Iran war markets - triggered a cascade of legislative responses in Q1 2026. Rep. Torres' Public Integrity in Financial Prediction Markets Act, Sen. Murphy's war-betting ban, and the Schiff-Curtis bill targeting casino-style prediction market contracts all followed within weeks.

Why the Prediction Market Ban May Move Faster

The prediction market insider trading bills have one structural advantage over the stock ban: most members of Congress do not trade on prediction markets. The personal incentive to kill the bill is lower. At the same time, the public outrage over the Maduro and Iran bets gave it political urgency in early 2026 that the stock ban - a slower-burning issue - lacks.

Kalshi CEO Tarek Mansour publicly supported the Torres bill, framing it as distinguishing regulated US platforms from unregulated offshore ones. Both Kalshi and Polymarket announced new insider trading guardrails in March 2026 alongside the legislative push - a self-regulatory move designed to pre-empt the strongest versions of the proposed legislation.

What the Markets Are Actually Pricing

Market

Platform

Current price

What it measures

Key driver of current price

Will Congress pass a stock trading ban in 2026?

PredictIt (proxy market)

~12%

Full passage and presidential signature by Dec 31, 2026

Structural failure pattern; competing bills; midterm calendar

Will CFTC adopt new insider trading rules in 2026?

Kalshi

~20%

CFTC regulatory action (lower bar than legislation)

Administrative action faster than legislation; CFTC has existing authority

Will Congress ban member stock trading? (general)

Various

12-20%

Any version of stock ban passing

Depends on which version; Steil narrow bill has better odds than comprehensive ban

Will prediction market insider trading legislation pass?

Various

Low - no current major contract

Any version of prediction market trading ban for officials

Newer issue; less liquid market; Murphy said 'slim to none'

Market
Platform
Current price
What it measures
Key driver of current price
Will Congress pass a stock trading ban in 2026?
PredictIt (proxy market)
~12%
Full passage and presidential signature by Dec 31, 2026
Structural failure pattern; competing bills; midterm calendar
Will CFTC adopt new insider trading rules in 2026?
Kalshi
~20%
CFTC regulatory action (lower bar than legislation)
Administrative action faster than legislation; CFTC has existing authority
Will Congress ban member stock trading? (general)
Various
12-20%
Any version of stock ban passing
Depends on which version; Steil narrow bill has better odds than comprehensive ban
Will prediction market insider trading legislation pass?
Various
Low - no current major contract
Any version of prediction market trading ban for officials
Newer issue; less liquid market; Murphy said 'slim to none'

The most important distinction: regulatory action (CFTC) is priced at 20% while legislative action (Congress) is priced at 12%. This gap reflects the market correctly pricing that administrative rulemaking by an existing regulator is faster and faces fewer veto points than passing legislation. The CFTC has existing authority to address insider trading on the prediction markets it regulates. New legislation is not required for the CFTC to act.

Historical Context: Every Time This Has Been Attempted

Year

Bill

Status

Reason for failure

2012

STOCK Act

Passed - limited version

Weakened in final passage; disclosure requirements but no ban; widely violated since

2020

ETHICS Act

Did not pass

COVID legislative priorities displaced reform agenda

2021-22

PELOSI Act / multiple

Did not pass

Pelosi opposed; Democratic leadership blocked floor vote

2022 (Dem House)

Various stock ban bills

Did not pass

Speaker Pelosi resistance; competing priorities

2023-24

Bipartisan proposals

Did not pass

House speaker transitions; competing priorities

2025

Multiple bipartisan

Did not pass

Government shutdown consumed legislative calendar; 25+ STOCK Act violations documented

2026 (current)

Restore Trust in Congress Act / Steil bill / Gillibrand-Moody

Committee vote passed; discharge petition at 82/218; odds 12-20%

Competing bill versions; midterm calendar; scope disagreement

Year
Bill
Status
Reason for failure
2012
STOCK Act
Passed - limited version
Weakened in final passage; disclosure requirements but no ban; widely violated since
2020
ETHICS Act
Did not pass
COVID legislative priorities displaced reform agenda
2021-22
PELOSI Act / multiple
Did not pass
Pelosi opposed; Democratic leadership blocked floor vote
2022 (Dem House)
Various stock ban bills
Did not pass
Speaker Pelosi resistance; competing priorities
2023-24
Bipartisan proposals
Did not pass
House speaker transitions; competing priorities
2025
Multiple bipartisan
Did not pass
Government shutdown consumed legislative calendar; 25+ STOCK Act violations documented
2026 (current)
Restore Trust in Congress Act / Steil bill / Gillibrand-Moody
Committee vote passed; discharge petition at 82/218; odds 12-20%
Competing bill versions; midterm calendar; scope disagreement

NOTE

The STOCK Act was passed in 2012 with strong bipartisan support and widespread public enthusiasm. It was immediately weakened before final passage, removing a provision requiring disclosure within two days. More than 25 members violated even the weakened version's requirements in 2025 alone. The prediction market pricing of 12-20% for a new ban reflects this full historical record: high public support and bipartisan co-sponsorship do not reliably produce passage when the bill directly affects the legislators voting on it.

The Information Edge: What to Watch Before Trading

Several specific, trackable events will reprice these markets between now and December 2026. Monitoring them provides information advantage over participants anchored to current polling:

  • The discharge petition count. It needs 218 signatures. At 82 as of March 2026, it is more than halfway - but the rate of new signers is slowing as midterms approach. If it crosses 150+ signatures by June, the probability of a floor vote increases substantially. If it stalls below 100, the market should move toward lower passage odds.

  • Floor vote scheduling. GOP leadership promised Rep. Luna a floor vote in Q1 2026 (since passed without one). Any new leadership commitment to a specific vote date is a strong signal. Any leadership silence after Q1 passes is a negative signal.

  • CFTC regulatory action. The CFTC does not require Congressional action to issue new insider trading rules for prediction markets. A CFTC rulemaking announcement would resolve the 20% market and likely occur independently of the stock ban legislation.

  • Trump's public position. The Trump family has direct financial interest in prediction markets (Truth Predict). Any public Trump statement on the stock ban or prediction market regulation moves these markets immediately.

  • Senate majority leader scheduling. Senate Majority Leader Thune controls the Senate floor calendar. If he schedules the Gillibrand-Moody bill for a vote, odds increase. If no scheduling occurs by September, the midterm calendar effectively kills 2026 passage.

The DuelDuck Opportunity: Policy Prediction Duels

Policy passage markets are among the most underserved in prediction markets. Kalshi and Polymarket list major macro events (Fed decisions, election outcomes) but rarely cover specific legislative bill passage with community-level specificity. DuelDuck creators with policy expertise or Washington tracking experience have genuine information advantages in this space.

Duel format

Example

Pool size

Information edge

Stock ban floor vote

Will the House vote on a stock trading ban before June 30, 2026?

$200-$1,500

Discharge petition count tracking; leadership scheduling signals

Discharge petition threshold

Will the discharge petition reach 150 signatures before July 4?

$200-$1,000

Daily petition count monitoring; member pressure tracking

Senate vote

Will the Senate hold a floor vote on the Gillibrand-Moody bill?

$200-$1,000

Senate calendar tracking; Thune scheduling signals

CFTC rulemaking

Will the CFTC issue new prediction market insider trading rules in 2026?

$300-$2,000

CFTC rulemaking calendar; regulatory comment period tracking

Presidential signature

Will any version of a congressional stock ban be signed into law before Dec 31, 2026?

$300-$3,000

Full legislative path tracking; hardest bar but highest conviction duels

Weaker pass: disclosure reform

Will Congress pass any STOCK Act strengthening legislation in 2026?

$200-$1,000

Lower bar than full ban; bipartisan support for disclosure is higher

Duel format
Example
Pool size
Information edge
Stock ban floor vote
Will the House vote on a stock trading ban before June 30, 2026?
$200-$1,500
Discharge petition count tracking; leadership scheduling signals
Discharge petition threshold
Will the discharge petition reach 150 signatures before July 4?
$200-$1,000
Daily petition count monitoring; member pressure tracking
Senate vote
Will the Senate hold a floor vote on the Gillibrand-Moody bill?
$200-$1,000
Senate calendar tracking; Thune scheduling signals
CFTC rulemaking
Will the CFTC issue new prediction market insider trading rules in 2026?
$300-$2,000
CFTC rulemaking calendar; regulatory comment period tracking
Presidential signature
Will any version of a congressional stock ban be signed into law before Dec 31, 2026?
$300-$3,000
Full legislative path tracking; hardest bar but highest conviction duels
Weaker pass: disclosure reform
Will Congress pass any STOCK Act strengthening legislation in 2026?
$200-$1,000
Lower bar than full ban; bipartisan support for disclosure is higher

DUELDUCK EDGE

Policy passage markets have a structural DuelDuck advantage: they are 50/50 on entry regardless of Kalshi's 12% or 20% pricing. A 'Will a congressional stock ban be signed into law by December 31, 2026?' duel gives YES side participants a 38-point structural entry advantage relative to Kalshi's 12% price. The NO side participants at 50/50 still accept the risk. This is not a guaranteed edge - it only matters if you have a higher-than-market conviction on passage. But for policy researchers, DC trackers, and legislative professionals who follow the bill more closely than the general Polymarket participant, the entry advantage is substantial.

Conclusion: Public Support Is Not Legislative Probability

86% of the public wants this. 126 House members co-sponsored a bill. The Senate has bipartisan legislation. A committee vote passed. And yet prediction markets price passage at 12-20%.

This gap is not a market failure. It is a market correctly pricing the historical pattern of congressional self-regulation: consistent demand from the public, consistent co-sponsorship from members who know they cannot be stopped from signing onto bills that will never pass, and consistent death at the floor vote stage where personal financial incentives override public opinion.

The faster-moving track is CFTC regulatory action on prediction market insider trading - priced at 20% and requiring no new legislation. The Iran and Maduro insider trading scandals gave the CFTC political cover to act unilaterally. Watch for rulemaking announcements, not just congressional votes.

The stock trading ban is a market where public support does not predict passage. The prediction market is correct. The polls are not the right signal here.

Start Predicting. Start Earning

DuelDuck - P2P prediction market on Solana. No vig. No KYC. Instant USDC payouts. Create policy community duels and earn up to 10% creator fee on every pool.

Create your first policy duel today

Related Topics

Congress Stock Trading Ban Prediction MarketWill Congress Ban Stock Trading 2026STOCK Act Reform OddsRestore Trust in Congress Act Prediction MarketCongressional Insider Trading Ban Kalshi
DuelDuck Research Team
AuthorVerified Expert

DuelDuck Research Team is a group of analysts and writers focused on in-depth research, market insights, and data-driven analysis.