House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries of New York and 197 other Democrats faced a simple political test early today. The bill before them restricted congressional stock purchases and required photo ID in federal elections.
They voted no.
The Stop Insider Trading Act passed 232 to 198. Every House Republican voted yes, with 13 Democrats joining them, while one Democrat didn't vote. Every opposing vote came from the Democratic caucus.
JUST IN: Congress has passed a bill banning members of Congress and their spouses from trading individual stocks in a 232-198 vote.
— Benny Johnson (@bennyjohnson) July 22, 2026
198 Democrats voted AGAINST this bill. pic.twitter.com/7UrrHjaHCl
The bill isn't the sweeping ban that its name suggests. Members of Congress, their spouses, and dependent children could keep individual stocks they already own.
They couldn't buy new covered investments while in office, and any sale would require public notice seven to 14 days beforehand. Violations would bring a fee of at least $2,000 or 10% of the transaction, whichever is greater, plus any net gain.
Republicans also left openings large enough to notice; the measure doesn't cover President Donald Trump, the vice president, federal judges, Cabinet officials, or senior political appointees.
House Republicans blocked an amendment from Rep. Warren Davidson (R-Ohio) that would've expanded the restrictions to many of those officials. A stronger bill would require divestment, qualified blind trusts, or broad market funds instead of merely stopping new purchases.
Democrats seized on those flaws and the voter ID language attached to the bill. From the Associated Press:
“This bill, quite simply, is a sham,” Rep. Joe Morelle, a New York Democrat, said on the House floor ahead of the vote. He called the voter identification provision a “poison pill” designed to sink the legislation.
Supporters nevertheless hailed the bill, known as the Stop Insider Trading Act, as the most significant congressional action yet to restrict stock trades by members of Congress.
“I had legislation that would have required divestiture. I preferred that approach,” Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, said. “But you got to build a coalition in a body. And I think this is a giant step forward.”
The election section requires a valid physical photo ID for in-person federal voting. Somebody without one could cast a provisional ballot and provide identification within three days, with an exception for religious objections. Absentee voters would face identification requirements as well.
Critics called voter ID a poison pill. Their argument says that Republicans combined two popular ideas to trap Democrats into a damaging vote. Republicans clearly wanted the contrast, and they got it.
Political strategy, however, doesn't remove responsibility from the members who pressed the red button.
A vote can carry several motives, but only one result. Jeffries and nearly his entire caucus opposed a package that placed limits on congressional stock activity and asked voters to prove who they are. From the Associated Press:
Outside ethics groups said the bill leaves intact the very conflicts it is meant to address by allowing lawmakers to keep existing stock holdings.
The Campaign Legal Center urged Congress to reject the measure, saying it “fails to address the two inherent problems with congressional stock ownership: the appearance of insider trading and members’ ability to profit from their official position.”
Not all Republicans were on board for the stock ban. Kentucky Rep. Thomas Massie, who was defeated in a primary earlier this year by a Trump-backed candidate, derided Republicans for inserting the voter identification requirement.
“Republicans added voter-ID in the legislation. Not to get Dems to vote for voter-ID,” Massie wrote in a social media post. “but to get them to vote against the stock trading ban, so they can use it in the Nov. election.”
Thirteen Democrats found a way to support it; their votes show party membership didn't dictate the outcome.
Congress has access to most Americans will never possess. Members hear private briefings, shape regulations, approve contracts, and write laws that can move entire industries. Allowing them and their immediate families to buy individual stocks invites suspicion even when no crime occurs. Public office shouldn't give lawmakers a private financial advantage.
Voter ID is easier to understand; people show identification to board airplanes, enter many government buildings, open financial accounts, and handle countless ordinary responsibilities. Asking for identification before casting a federal ballot protects the lawful voter and the integrity of the result.
Democrats claim they want clean government and secure elections, but 198 of them rejected a package containing both reforms.
Their objections may explain the choice; they don't erase it.
House Republicans now need to finish the job instead of treating one vote as a campaign prop. The Senate should strengthen the trading rules, cover the executive and judicial branches, and close the loopholes.
President Trump should sign a real ban if Congress sends one.
Washington's grift survives through delay, exceptions, and carefully worded excuses. The House bill wasn't perfect; it still asked Congress to surrender part of its privilege and voters to present identification.
When the roll was called, 198 Democrats chose no.
Washington protects its privileges when nobody is watching. PJ Media VIP helps keep the lights on and the pressure high. Join today and save 60% with promo code FIGHT.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member