US ban on stock trading act bill proposal of 2025
US ban on stock trading act bill proposal of 2025
By Abdullah Alkayat
Insider trading is still an everyday issue in the United States, the first country in the world to define what constitutes inside information and make it illegal in 1934, after Congress enacted the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 following what is known as the 'Great Crash' of 1929, during which the stock market lost 89 percent of its value. Since that day, insider trading has been taken seriously by the public, and the SEC has pursued full enforcement.
However, practice has shown that there are some loopholes—particularly for elected members of the US Congress—who have access to inside information due to their roles. There have been insider trading investigations in which some Congress members were found to have violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by trading based on non-public information while in office, making profits or avoiding losses prior to any public announcements, at which point it is too late for the general public to participate and benefit.
To make the rules more strict for congressional trading and combat insider trading, President Obama signed the 'Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge (STOCK) Act of 2012' into law. This law prohibited members of Congress from trading on non-public information obtained during their work and required public disclosure of their stock trades within 45 days. The law also applies to the spouses of Congress members. Nevertheless, the law seemed like a paper tiger—it has not prevented insider trading from occurring. In fact, the 2020 congressional insider trading scandal showed that such practices were still happening.
The 2020 congressional insider trading scandal erupted after several US Senators were accused of selling large amounts of stock following a private Senate briefing about the emerging COVID-19 pandemic, weeks before the public fully grasped its severity. Among those scrutinized was Senator Burr, then-chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, who drew particular attention after reports revealed he sold between $600,000 and $1.7 million in stocks shortly after the briefing. Critics argued that these lawmakers may have used non-public information for personal financial gain while downplaying the threat of the virus publicly.
Although the Department of Justice and the Securities and Exchange Commission launched investigations, most were eventually closed without charges. Nevertheless, the scandal fueled public outrage, intensified scrutiny of the STOCK Act of 2012, and revived calls for stronger laws to prevent elected officials from trading individual stocks while in office. To make insider trading laws more strict, the Ban Congressional Stock Trading Act of 2025 bill is being introduced in the US Congress to address growing public concern over lawmakers
using non-public information for personal financial gain. Although the STOCK Act of 2012 requires members of Congress to disclose trades within 45 days and prohibits insider trading, it has proven inadequate due to weak enforcement and delayed or incomplete disclosures. The new bill seeks to close these loopholes by completely prohibiting members of Congress, their spouses, and dependent children from owning or trading individual stocks while in office. Instead, they must divest or place assets into blind trusts, removing the temptation to act on confidential information.
This reform is seen as essential to restoring public trust, enhancing transparency, and preventing conflicts of interest that undermine democratic accountability. With recent scandals and reports showing that some lawmakers' portfolios have outperformed the market, public demand for stronger ethical standards has intensified. The bill aims to eliminate both real and perceived corruption, simplify compliance and enforcement, and ensure that legislators focus solely on serving the public—not enriching themselves.
In Kuwait, the likelihood of introducing a bill similar to the US Ban Congressional Stock Trading Act is relatively low, primarily due to the unique characteristics of the Kuwaiti political and financial landscape. Kuwait has a much smaller and less complex capital market compared to the United States, and the number of elected officials in the National Assembly is limited to just 50 members—significantly fewer than the hundreds of legislators in the US Congress. This smaller scale reduces the systemic risk and public concern associated with insider trading by lawmakers.
Moreover, the overlap between legislative activity and private market influence is less pronounced in Kuwait, where political influence often centers around public-sector employment and budgetary matters rather than corporate regulation or securities. While ethical oversight and financial transparency remain important, the perceived urgency for legislation banning stock trading by elected officials has not gained the same traction, in part because the infrastructure and market depth necessary to facilitate such trading at a concerning scale are simply not present.
More importantly, under Kuwaiti law, the definition of an insider as presented in the glossary of the Capital Markets Authority (CMA) and codified in the CMA Law encompasses any person in a position that grants them access to material, non-public information concerning a listed company. This broad definition clearly includes members of the National Assembly of Kuwait. Therefore, if a member of Parliament exploits insider information in violation of the CMA Law, they are subject to immediate prosecution by the Capital Markets Authority.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Arab Times
2 days ago
- Arab Times
What's next for birthright citizenship after the US Supreme Court's ruling
WASHINGTON, June 28, (AP): The legal battle over President Donald Trump's move to end birthright citizenship is far from over despite the Republican administration's major victory Friday limiting nationwide injunctions. Immigrant advocates are vowing to fight to ensure birthright citizenship remains the law as the Republican president tries to do away with more than a century of precedent. The high court's ruling sends cases challenging the president's birthright citizenship executive order back to the lower courts. But the ultimate fate of the president's policy remains uncertain. Here's what to know about birthright citizenship, the Supreme Court's ruling and what happens next. Birthright citizenship makes anyone born in the United States an American citizen, including children born to mothers in the country illegally. The practice goes back to soon after the Civil War, when Congress ratified the Constitution's 14th Amendment, in part to ensure that Black people, including former slaves, had citizenship. "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States,' the amendment states. Thirty years later, Wong Kim Ark, a man born in the U.S. to Chinese parents, was refused re-entry into the U.S. after traveling overseas. His suit led to the Supreme Court explicitly ruling that the amendment gives citizenship to anyone born in the U.S., no matter their parents' legal status. It has been seen since then as an intrinsic part of U.S. law, with only a handful of exceptions, such as for children born in the U.S. to foreign diplomats. Trump's executive order, signed in January, seeks to deny citizenship to children who are born to people who are living in the U.S. illegally or temporarily. It's part of the hardline immigration agenda of the president, who has called birthright citizenship a "magnet for illegal immigration.' Trump and his supporters focus on one phrase in the amendment - "subject to the jurisdiction thereof' - saying it means the U.S. can deny citizenship to babies born to women in the country illegally. A series of federal judges have said that's not true, and issued nationwide injunctions stopping his order from taking effect. "I've been on the bench for over four decades. I can't remember another case where the question presented was as clear as this one is. This is a blatantly unconstitutional order,' U.S. District Judge John Coughenour said at a hearing earlier this year in his Seattle courtroom. In Greenbelt, Maryland, a Washington suburb, U.S. District Judge Deborah Boardman wrote that "the Supreme Court has resoundingly rejected and no court in the country has ever endorsed' Trump's interpretation of birthright citizenship. The high court's ruling was a major victory for the Trump administration in that it limited an individual judge's authority in granting nationwide injunctions. The administration hailed the ruling as a monumental check on the powers of individual district court judges, whom Trump supporters have argued want to usurp the president's authority with rulings blocking his priorities around immigration and other matters. But the Supreme Court did not address the merits of Trump's bid to enforce his birthright citizenship executive order. "The Trump administration made a strategic decision, which I think quite clearly paid off, that they were going to challenge not the judges' decisions on the merits, but on the scope of relief,' said Jessica Levinson, a Loyola Law School professor. Attorney General Pam Bondi told reporters at the White House that the administration is "very confident' that the high court will ultimately side with the administration on the merits of the case. The justices kicked the cases challenging the birthright citizenship policy back down to the lower courts, where judges will have to decide how to tailor their orders to comply with the new ruling. The executive order remains blocked for at least 30 days, giving lower courts and the parties time to sort out the next steps. The Supreme Court's ruling leaves open the possibility that groups challenging the policy could still get nationwide relief through class-action lawsuits and seek certification as a nationwide class. Within hours after the ruling, two class-action suits had been filed in Maryland and New Hampshire seeking to block Trump's order. But obtaining nationwide relief through a class action is difficult as courts have put up hurdles to doing so over the years, said Suzette Malveaux, a Washington and Lee University law school professor. "It's not the case that a class action is a sort of easy, breezy way of getting around this problem of not having nationwide relief,' said Malveaux, who had urged the high court not to eliminate the nationwide injunctions. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who penned the court's dissenting opinion, urged the lower courts to "act swiftly on such requests for relief and to adjudicate the cases as quickly as they can so as to enable this Court's prompt review" in cases "challenging policies as blatantly unlawful and harmful as the Citizenship Order.' Opponents of Trump's order warned there would be a patchwork of polices across the states, leading to chaos and confusion without nationwide relief. "Birthright citizenship has been settled constitutional law for more than a century," said Krish O'Mara Vignarajah, president and CEO of Global Refuge, a nonprofit that supports refugees and migrants. "By denying lower courts the ability to enforce that right uniformly, the Court has invited chaos, inequality, and fear.'
Arab Times
2 days ago
- Arab Times
Protesters gather in Bangkok to demand Thai PM resignation over leaked Cambodia call
BANGKOK, June 28, (AP): Hundreds of protesters gathered in Thailand's capital on Saturday to demand the resignation of Prime Minister Paetongtarn Shinawatra, part of the brewing political turmoil set off by a leaked phone call with former Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Sen. Paetongtarn faces growing dissatisfaction over her handling of a recent border dispute with Cambodia involving an armed confrontation May 28. One Cambodian soldier was killed in a relatively small, contested area. The recorded phone call with Hun Sen was at the heart of the demonstration Saturday and has set off a string of investigations in Thailand that could lead to Paetongtarn's removal. Outrage over the call mostly revolved around Paetongtarn telling Hun Sen, the current Cambodian Senate president, not to listen to "an opponent' in Thailand. It's believed to be a reference to the regional Thai army commander in charge of the area where the clash happened, who publicly criticized Cambodia over the border dispute. Protesters held national flags and signs as they occupied parts of the streets around the Victory Monument in central Bangkok. At a huge stage set up at the monument, speakers expressed their love for Thailand following the intensified border dispute. Many of the leading figures in the protest were familiar faces from a group popularly known as Yellow Shirts, whose clothing color indicates loyalty to the Thai monarchy. They are longtime foes of Paetongtarn's father, former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, who reportedly has a close relationship with Hun Sen. Yellow Shirts rallies turned violent and led to military coups in 2006 and 2014, which respectively ousted the elected governments of Thaksin and Paetongtarn's aunt, former Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra. Hun Sen on Saturday vowed to protect his country's territory from foreign invaders and condemned what he called an attack by Thai forces last month. At a 74th anniversary celebration of the foundation of his long-ruling Cambodian People's Party, Hun Sen claimed the action by the Thai army was illegal when it engaged Cambodian forces. He said the skirmish inside Cambodian territory was a serious violation of country's sovereignty and territorial integrity, despite Cambodia's good will in attempting to resolve the border issue. "This poor Cambodia has suffered from foreign invasion, war and genocide, been surrounded and isolated and insulted in the past, but now Cambodia has risen on an equal face with other countries. We need peace, friendship, cooperation and development the most and we have no politics and no unfriendly stance with any nation,' Hun Sen said in front of thousands of party members at the event in the Cambodian capital, Phnom Penh.
Arab Times
6 days ago
- Arab Times
Oil prices drop as stocks rally on Israel-Iran ceasefire hopes
NEW YORK, June 24, (AP): Oil prices are dropping further, and stocks are rallying worldwide on hopes that Israel's war with Iran will not damage the global flow of crude, even if a tentative truce seemed to fray under fire in the morning. The S&P 500 rose 0.7% Tuesday. The Dow Jones Industrial Average added 263 points, and the Nasdaq composite climbed 0.9%. Oil prices fell more than 4% and are below where they were before the Israel-Iran conflict began. That could give the Federal Reserve more leeway to cut interest rates to help the economy, but its chair was circumspect in prepared testimony he's set to give Congress. Stocks rallied and oil prices fell Tuesday after U.S. President Donald Trump announced what appears to be a shaky ceasefire in the Israel-Iran war. The tentative truce proposed by Trump remained uncertain after Israel said Iran had launched missiles into its airspace less than three hours after the ceasefire went into effect. It vowed to retaliate. Still, investors took heart after Trump said Israel and Iran had agreed to a "complete and total ceasefire' soon after Iran launched limited missile attacks Monday on a U.S. military base in Qatar, retaliating for the American bombing of its nuclear sites over the weekend. "The Middle East may still be smoldering, but as far as markets are concerned, the fire alarm has been shut off,' Stephen Innes of SPI Asset Management said in a commentary. The future for the S&P 500 gained 0.8% while that for the Dow Jones Industrial Average rose 0.7%. In morning trading Europe time, Germany's DAX leaped 1.8% to 23,693.13, while the CAC 40 in Paris added 1.2% to 7,625.20. Britain's FTSE 100 was up 0.3% at 8,784.68. Oil prices fell further, after tumbling on Monday as fears subsided of an Iranian blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, a vital waterway for shipping crude. Oil prices have now given up almost all their gains since Israel attacked Iran on June 13, wiping out a roughly $10 per barrel risk premium based on the outside chance of a blockade at the strait. The price of oil initially jumped 6% after trading began Sunday night, a signal of rising worries as investors got their first chance to react to the U.S. bombings. But it quickly shed all those gains, with U.S. benchmark crude falling 7.2%. It dropped further early Tuesday, giving up 3% to $66.49 per barrel. It had briefly topped $78. Brent crude, the international standard, shed 3% early Tuesday to $69.38. That was just a few cents above where it traded on June 12 ahead of the Israeli attack on Iran. With the global oil market well supplied and the OPEC+ alliance of producing countries steadily increasing production, oil prices could be headed down, said Carsten Fritsch, commodities analyst at Commerzbank. "The crucial question now is whether the ceasefire will hold and a lasting peace solution can be found," he wrote in a research note. 'If so, a further fall in the oil price could be expected." At their next meeting July 6, ministers from eight OPEC+ countries are expected to add another 410,000 barrels per day of production.
