Have members of Congress been expelled or censured over insider trading allegations, and what were the outcomes?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
No member of Congress has been expelled from the U.S. House or Senate in the modern wave of insider-trading scrutiny, but members have been investigated, publicly censured in other eras for trading-related conduct, and repeatedly accused of violating the STOCK Act’s disclosure rules — prompting a new bipartisan push to ban stock trading by lawmakers [1] [2] [3]. The STOCK Act of 2012 affirmed that members are covered by insider-trading laws and requires timely disclosure of trades, but news organizations and watchdogs report dozens of disclosure violations and limited enforcement, spurring bills like the Restore Trust/TRUST proposals and the Ban Congressional Stock Trading Act [4] [3] [5] [6].
1. Historical penalties vs. modern enforcement: expulsion is rare, censure has precedent
The Constitution sets a two-thirds threshold for expulsion, a remedy typically reserved for criminal convictions or extreme misconduct; censure has historically been used far more often as a formal reprimand — and over two centuries the House censured only a few dozen members, sometimes for trading or related ethical lapses [1]. Modern reporting shows that while censure has precedent for trading-related behavior, the recent surge of reporting about potentially opportunistic trades has produced public anger but not the sort of conclusive criminal cases that typically lead to expulsion [1] [2].
2. The STOCK Act: law on paper, weak in practice according to watchdogs
Congress passed the Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge (STOCK) Act in 2012 to make clear that members are not exempt from insider-trading laws and to tighten disclosure deadlines; it requires disclosure of trades within a short timeframe and criminalizes using nonpublic official information for securities trading [4] [7]. Multiple investigative outlets and watchdogs say enforcement has been weak: journalists and groups have identified dozens of members who violated disclosure rules, often making late filings and facing only minor penalties, which critics say undercuts the law’s deterrent effect [3] [8] [9].
3. Recent examples that galvanized reform efforts
Reporting and academic studies flagged patterns — including thousands of trades concentrated around market-moving events and briefings — that fed political pressure for tougher rules. For example, media and studies reported large numbers of trades and alleged correlations with committee assignments or closed-door briefings; those findings are a key rationale members cite for new legislation to ban trading outright [2] [10] [7]. News organizations documented multiple cases of delayed disclosures and potentially lucrative transactions that amplified calls for reform [3] [9].
4. Legislative response: bipartisan bills aiming to ban or blind-trust holdings
In 2025 a bipartisan group of House members introduced the Restore Trust in Congress Act and related proposals that would require blind trusts or ban members and their families from trading individual stocks; senators introduced companion measures such as the Ban Congressional Stock Trading Act and other proposals like the HONEST Act in committee [11] [5] [6] [12]. Proponents across the aisle argue the measures restore public trust; skeptics in Congress warn bans could deter public service or raise constitutional and practical questions, and some senators have pushed back on floor action [11] [13].
5. Outcomes so far: investigations, public pressure, but few criminal prosecutions or expulsions
Available reporting documents widespread disclosure lapses, ethics inquiries and political pressure but few criminal prosecutions tied to insider trading by lawmakers in the current wave; the public and many former members have urged tighter rules or bans based on newspaper counts and watchdog tallies showing dozens of violations and large dollar volumes of trades [3] [10] [7]. Reuters and other outlets reported lawmakers’ trades in the millions and renewed calls for action, but the primary institutional outcome so far has been legislation proposals and hearings rather than high-profile expulsions or convictions [2] [3].
6. Competing viewpoints and implicit agendas
Reformers — including nearly 100 former lawmakers and groups like POGO and Campaign Legal Center — frame the issue as democracy-preserving and bipartisan [3] [5] [14]. Opponents emphasize recruitment and free-market concerns, calling bans “legislative demagoguery” and warning that stringent rules could deter qualified candidates or create enforcement complexity [13]. Some sponsors and interest groups pushing bans benefit politically by spotlighting corruption narratives; watchdogs pushing for blind trusts emphasize transparency and nonpartisan enforcement [5] [11].
7. Limitations of available sources and what’s not reported
Available sources do not mention any definitive cases from 2023–2025 that resulted in congressional expulsion specifically for insider trading, nor do they document a recent criminal conviction of a sitting member for trading based on nonpublic congressional information (not found in current reporting). Detailed outcomes of ongoing bills — floor votes, final text, judicial challenges or enforcement mechanisms if enacted — are still developing and not fully resolved in these reports [15] [12].
Bottom line: long-standing legal prohibitions exist and many modern disclosures and investigations have revealed problematic trades and late filings, but the institutional response so far has been public shaming, ethics probes and a flurry of legislative proposals rather than expulsions or widespread criminal enforcement [4] [3] [2].