By Michael Phillips | Thunder Report
As the AI-and-semiconductor boom powered markets through 2025, it also reignited one of Washington’s most stubborn credibility problems: members of Congress (and often their spouses) trading the same tech stocks dominating Wall Street. Public disclosures under the STOCK Act don’t reveal precise profits—only value bands and delayed reports—but even with those limits, a pattern was hard to miss.
Lawmakers again appeared unusually well-positioned for the year’s biggest winners. That reality—combined with new academic research and mounting bipartisan support for reform—pushed congressional stock trading back to the top of the ethics agenda as 2025 closed.
What the disclosures show (and what they don’t)
The STOCK Act requires reporting of many trades over $1,000 within 30–45 days, but the system relies on broad dollar ranges and light penalties for late filings. As a result, watchdog sites and analysts estimate gains by pairing disclosure dates with post-trade performance. The math is imperfect, but it’s the only window voters have.
The “Pelosi effect,” with receipts
No name draws more scrutiny than Nancy Pelosi. In 2025, her family’s disclosed positions again leaned heavily into AI and big tech—often via options—fueling what markets have dubbed the “Pelosi effect,” where prices jump after high-profile disclosures.
Concrete 2025 examples made the narrative stick:
- Tempus AI (TEM) call options disclosed in January 2025 preceded a surge of more than 150% later in the year.
- NVIDIA (NVDA) and Broadcom (AVGO) options benefited from the AI build-out and post-split enthusiasm.
- Additional exposure to Amazon, Alphabet, Vistra, and Palo Alto Networks rounded out a tech-first posture.
Even supporters concede this doesn’t prove misconduct. But optics matter: repeated wins in the market’s hottest sector invite skepticism, especially when disclosures lag.
Trading at scale: volume leaders (as of mid/late-2025)
Performance grabs headlines; volume shows exposure. Based on disclosures reported through mid-to-late 2025 (figures continue to update as filings arrive):
| Lawmaker | Party | Approx. Disclosed Volume* | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Richard Blumenthal | D | ~$80M | Hundreds of trades across sectors |
| Michael McCaul | R | ~$75M | Equities, bonds, ETFs |
| Ro Khanna | D | ~$56M | Tech-heavy; thousands of transactions |
| Josh Gottheimer | D | ~$44M | Repeated Microsoft & financials |
| Jefferson Shreve | R | ~$30M | High activity by count and size |
*Approximate totals from public trackers as of mid/late-2025; amounts reflect disclosure ranges and may include spousal/family trades.
Two emerging names also drew attention in 2025:
- Rob Bresnahan Jr. (R) for sheer trade count early in his term.
- Cleo Fields (D) for sizable tech bets in Microsoft, NVIDIA, and Palantir.
High volume doesn’t equal wrongdoing—but in a bull market, it magnifies upside.
The party proxy—and its limits
Investors now track congressional trends through party-based ETFs. The Democratic-trade proxy NANC and the Republican-trade proxy GOP (formerly KRUZ) offer a lagged, disclosure-based snapshot.
- Cumulative performance (Feb 2023–Aug/Sep 2025):
- Democrats/NANC: ~+73%
- Republicans/GOP: ~+41%
These figures are through mid-2025 and are proxies, not precise portfolios. They reflect sector allocation as much as timing: Democrats tilted toward mega-cap tech during an AI-driven rally; Republicans diversified more into financials, energy, and industrials. For context, the S&P 500 delivered a strong—but lower—return over the same window.
New research changes the debate
A November 2025 NBER working paper, “Captain Gains” on Capitol Hill, sharpened the ethics argument. Using transaction-level data (1995–2021), the authors found:
- Before ascending to leadership, future leaders performed like peers.
- After becoming leaders, they outperformed matched peers by up to 47 percentage points annually.
- The advantage appears tied to power and access—not superior stock-picking skill.
That finding reframes the issue: the problem isn’t Congress writ large; it’s concentrated among those with the most influence.
Reform in 2025: momentum without passage
Pressure built all year, but no ban crossed the finish line by December 29, 2025.
- HONEST Act (Senate): Advanced out of committee in July 2025, proposing broad restrictions on trading by senior officials.
- Restore Trust in Congress Act (House): Introduced September 3, 2025, with 80+ cosponsors, banning members, spouses, and dependents from owning or trading individual stocks.
- Late-2025 developments: Discharge-petition talk and leadership signals pointing to a 2026 floor vote.
Notably, Nancy Pelosi herself shifted in mid-2025 to publicly support a ban—an acknowledgment that disclosure alone no longer satisfies public trust.
A center-right case for a clean line
You don’t have to assume corruption to support reform. Free markets work best when referees aren’t betting on the game. Delayed, range-based disclosure doesn’t solve the appearance problem—especially when spouses can trade actively and penalties are minimal.
A narrowly tailored ban would protect legitimacy, not punish success. Judges recuse. Auditors separate from clients. Regulators avoid conflicts. Congress should do the same.
Forward look: With public support hovering around 86%, 2026 could finally deliver a ban—or yet another round of explanations for why Washington can’t police itself.
Keep This Reporting Free
If this work matters to you, please consider supporting it.
Your contribution helps fund independent reporting across our entire network.
Discover more from RIPTIDE
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
