Congress Premieres New Blockbuster: “INSIDER TRADING 2: NOW WE TELL YOU FIRST”

Congress absolutely LOVES a good distraction. And this week, they unveiled their latest magic trick: “What if, hear us out, instead of banning ourselves from insider trading… we just pre-announce the insider trading?”

The official term they all came up with is called Pre-disclosure. The legislative equivalent of a bank robber yelling, “HEADS UP, I’M HITTING THE VAULT IN 30 MINUTES,” as if that somehow makes it ethical.

During an 82-minute hearing (which somehow ran longer than their last “emergency” meeting on the Federal Budget), lawmakers tossed around this new buzzword like it was the missing verse from the Constitution. They repeated it six separate times, as if saying it often enough might hypnotize the public into forgetting what they’re actually up to.

The Manhattan Institute’s James Copland told the committee that pre-disclosure is a thing in some corporate environments, which is true… except those corporate environments don’t set national policy and have the ability to move markets with a single tweet. Congress heard that and went, “Oh great, so we still get to trade… but now we say it with a straight face?”

Government ethics expert Mark Greenblatt (aka the only adult in the room) politely warned lawmakers that pre-disclosure is a “fig leaf.” Translation: Congress wants to keep trading, but also wants the American public to stop screaming at them. As you can imagine, advocates for an actual ban were not happy.

(Source: Yahoo Finance)

Emma Lydon of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, pretty much called BS right away. Her point: yeah, pre-disclosure might curb a tiny sliver of insider trading… but it does nothing to stop the bigger issue… lawmakers trading stocks in companies they literally oversee.

And in case you thought the outrage was overblown, The Motley Fool ran the numbers and discovered that more than 100 members of Congress make around 10,000 trades a year… and both parties consistently beat the market. 

Which is funny, because Congress isn’t exactly stacked with Wall Street quants firing up Monte Carlo simulations on their lunch breaks. Still, 2025 is shaping up to be their busiest trading year yet. But by all means, tell us again how your cute little “heads-up” system is going to solve the corruption problem.

Some lawmakers suggested going even further… not just pre-disclosing trades, but requiring actual pre-clearance, where members have to ask for permission before pressing Buy. Rep. Bryan Steil pitched a scenario where lawmakers would have to announce their intention to sell a stock 30 days in advance to “restore trust.”

Greenblatt supported the pre-clearance version because at least it forces someone to review potential conflicts, which is better… but still a far cry from a real ban. Meanwhile, Rep. Morgan Griffith summed up Congress’s enthusiasm with a simple, “Pre-disclosures, I’m good with.” Of course you are, Morgan. Of course you are.

Because here’s the thing… pre-disclosure means “we still want to trade stocks… but we’ll tell you first so you stop yelling at us.” A ban means “we’re giving up our favorite government employee perk.” And with congressional trading volume at decade highs (and both parties crushing the S&P like they have Warren Buffett whispering in their ear) we know they aren’t gonna go down without a fight. 

If this does end up being the middle ground, it will be fun seeing random defense stocks explode 100% in 2 minutes all because Dan Crenshaw tweets he's about to “grab a few shares” like he’s running a paid Discord.

At the time of publishing this article, Stocks.News doesn’t hold positions in companies mentioned in the article.