The Democratic Party finds itself divided over a Republican-led initiative to impose a ban on stock trading by members of Congress. Some Democrats argue that any such ban should also encompass the executive branch, adding a layer of complexity to an already contentious issue that has long troubled lawmakers and faced numerous failed reform attempts.

This recent development emerged when Representative Anna Paulina Luna, a Republican from Florida, introduced a discharge petition with the aim of reigniting the stagnant debate. Her objective is to compel a vote on a bipartisan bill designed to prohibit lawmakers, along with their spouses, dependent children, and trustees, from engaging in the buying, selling, or ownership of individual stocks.

While there is a general consensus across party lines on the necessity of reforming stock trading practices within Congress, differing opinions on the method of implementation remain a stumbling block. The use of a discharge petition, considered a challenge to House leadership, necessitates broad support from Democrats for it to succeed.

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries of New York expressed strong criticism of the Republican effort during a press conference on Tuesday. Despite his objections, several Democrats have diverged from party leadership to endorse the petition, highlighting the ongoing division within the party on this issue.

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) blasted the effort at a Tuesday press conference, even as several members of his conference broke ranks to back it.

“If she’s interested in dealing with corruption, do something about the active ongoing crime scene coming out of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave., the most corrupt administration in American history. And it’s not even close. And we don’t hear a peep from her or any of her colleagues about even extending the stock ban to the executive branch to Donald Trump to JD Vance or perhaps even to the Supreme Court,” Jeffries said. 

He added that, “The only open question about whether we’re going to move forward and deal with this aspect of cleaning up corruption in this town, a congressional stock ban, is whether Republicans have the will to partner with us in a bipartisan way.”

The bipartisan bill Luna is aiming to bring to the floor, introduced by Reps. Chip Roy (R-Texas) and Seth Magaziner (D-R.I.) in September, has been backed by progressive Democratic Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) and Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.). As of 4 p.m. EST Wednesday, 13 Republicans and 24 Democrats have signed onto the petition, which requires 218 signatures to be successful. 

Some Democrats who haven’t signed onto the petition agreed with Jeffries. 

House Administration Committee ranking member Joseph Morelle (D-N.Y.) told The Hill he won’t sign Luna’s discharge petition, arguing the ban needs to include the president, the vice president, the Cabinet and members of the court.

“The president clearly has much more of an ability to affect the markets, and this president has shown he’s perfectly willing to take advantage of that inherent conflict. So if Republicans are going to make the decision that they’ll only do it to members of Congress and not the biggest offender, I think it speaks volumes about what they value,” Morelle said.

The House Administration Committee, led by Chair Bryan Steil (R-Wis.), held a hearing last month to address the issue of stock trading, though no final proposal emerged from the discussion.

Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) echoed similar sentiments, saying the “corruption” coming from the White House “is so intense, it would make Richard Nixon blush.” He noted any ban extending to the executive branch would include future Democratic presidents, as well.

“I appreciate Rep. Luna moving in this direction. I just think it’s deficient because it doesn’t include the White House,” he said. 

President Trump holds substantial ownership stakes worth billions of dollars across a range of publicly traded companies, including Trump Media & Technology Group Corp., Blue Owl Capital Corp., and Broadcom Inc., according to U.S. News & World Report.

“If we don’t pass an anti-corruption bill that addresses the corruption of Trump, then I think we haven’t fulfilled the limits of what we need to address,” said Rep. Julie Johnson (D-Texas), who added Tuesday that she hasn’t looked at the petition yet.

When asked about the concerns, Luna told The Hill the bipartisan bill “starts the conversation.” She said “to do nothing” is “part of the problem.”

She also responded to Jeffries’s accusation that she had “parachuted” into the middle of the issue, telling reporters Wednesday, “Accusing me of parachuting after they’ve been promising to reform it and have done nothing — I’m just being proactive. Now, I’m happy to negotiate with him.”

Magaziner told The Hill there’s been ongoing conversations on a possible path forward. He said that Roy has been negotiating with Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) and Steil to possibly pass the bill through regular order, while Magaziner has been trying to work through Democratic concerns about an extension on the executive branch. 

“As far as the discharge petition goes, I’m grateful for Luna’s support of our bill. She moved the discharge a little sooner than we wanted,” Magaziner said.  

Any stock trading ban that applies to the executive branch is unlikely to pass the Republican-controlled House or the Senate. Some Democrats acknowledge those legislative hurdles and say they shouldn’t stand in the way of progress on the issue, even if the bill isn’t perfect.

“The corruption we’re seeing at the White House and with this administration is unprecedented, and it should be part of any story, but of course, like you know, it doesn’t mean that this Congress should not take the lead on banning members from trading individual stock,” said Rep. Greg Landsman (D-Ohio), who signed the petition.

Rep. John Larson (D-Conn.) said he thinks a ban should extend to the executive branch, but is still willing to sign the petition. 

“We don’t have any control over the executive branch. We do to the extent that we can pass legislation, but certainly and practically and straightforwardly, it ought to apply to us first,” Larson said. “I believe it should apply to them, as well. And will they be willing to write legislation on that? Probably not, but … if we based everything on what President Trump is going to do, we’d never have any legislation.”

He added that, “What I think the public despises most is when they see excuses. Now, sometimes there is validity to holding out, and one should. … But I think it sends the wrong message when you say, ‘Well, I would have signed it, but Trump’s not going to.’”

Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) said there needs to be a “sweeping ethics reform that affects the legislative, executive and the judicial branch,” but he doesn’t think “we should hold this process up.”

“This is a crisis moment, but we should set the example. We’re the lawmaking branch of government, and his job is to take care of the laws, faithfully executed. He doesn’t do that. He distorts the law. He avoids the law, but we should be obeying the law, and we should be leading by example in fighting corruption,” Raskin said.