According to Forbes, a review of congressional financial disclosures reveals several lawmakers made multi-million dollar stock trades in 2025. Rep. Garret Graves (R-La.) bought Nvidia stock valued between $1 million and $5 million on June 26, a trade now up about 22%. Former Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s husband exercised Broadcom call options in June, netting a paper gain of roughly 40% so far. Rep. Josh Gottheimer (D-N.J.), a former Microsoft executive, made five separate million-dollar-plus trades involving Microsoft options and shares on a single day in February; the stock is up about 20% since. Not all trades were winners: Rep. John Rose (R-Tenn.) sold Alphabet shares in June, missing out on an 88% surge. These disclosures arrive as bipartisan bills in both the House and Senate, which some of these members support, aim to ban stock trading by members of Congress.
The Winners, Losers, And Excuses
So, what’s the scorecard look like? On the winning side, you’ve got the Pelosi household’s savvy Broadcom play and Graves doubling down on the AI juggernaut Nvidia. Gottheimer’s Microsoft bets also paid off nicely. But here’s the thing: the “how” matters as much as the “what.” Gottheimer’s spokesperson says a third party has “full investment discretion” over those trades. Pelosi’s office states she “has no knowledge or subsequent involvement.” It’s the classic disclaimer: managed accounts and spouses handle everything. On the losing side, Rose’s sale of Google parent Alphabet looks painfully early in hindsight. And Rep. Scott Franklin (R-Fla.) sold his Baldwin Insurance Group stock in February, which has since dropped 42%—a great trade for him, but one that fits his decades-long career in insurance. Makes you think, doesn’t it?
The Push To Ban The Practice
Now, this isn’t happening in a vacuum. There’s a real, bipartisan push to finally ban this stuff. The Restore Trust in Congress Act in the House has 119 cosponsors, including Gottheimer. Pelosi, who famously opposed a ban years ago, now backs the Senate’s version. Even Sen. Dave McCormick’s spokesperson says he “supports a ban.” The public pressure is clearly building. But the opposition has some seemingly reasonable points. Franklin argues the bill would force him to sell inherited or marital assets within 90 days, creating huge tax bills, and might have forced him to resign. He asks, “Is it really the intent to force honest people to leave Congress?” It’s a fair logistical question, but it also feels like a convenient shield for the status quo.
A System Ripe For Abuse
Let’s be real: the current system is a joke. The STOCK Act was supposed to fix things, but the disclosures are clunky PDFs in hard-to-search portals. The penalty for filing late is a laughable $200. And research, like that National Bureau of Economic Research paper, suggests lawmakers in leadership positions start outperforming the market by a staggering margin. That doesn’t smell right. Basically, we have a system that relies on self-policing and offers minimal transparency, all while these individuals are voting on budgets, regulations, and contracts that directly move the markets they’re trading in. The conflict is baked in. And while not every trade is nefarious—some are in blind trusts or managed accounts—the appearance is utterly corrosive. It’s no wonder public trust is in the gutter.
What Happens Next?
So, will a ban actually pass? The bills are in committee, which is where good ideas often go to die. The arguments about residency costs and salary freezes are emotional, but they’re separate from the ethics of trading individual stocks. A clean solution—moving everything into blind trusts or broad-based funds—seems obvious to the public but is a tough sell to incumbents used to the current rules. What we’re watching is a classic Washington struggle between public outrage and institutional inertia. The trades detailed here, like Graves’ Nvidia purchase or Pelosi’s Broadcom options, will fuel the outrage. But the clock is ticking. The full picture of 2025 trades won’t even be public until mid-2026. By then, we’ll know if the push for change was real, or just another political talking point.
