Hawley's stock trading ban sparks drama with White House
Add Axios as your preferred source to
see more of our stories on Google.
Sen. Josh Hawley speaks with reporters at the U.S. Capitol on June 28. Photo by Al Drago/Getty Images
Sen. Josh Hawley's (R-Mo.) proposed stock trading ban is turning into a GOP headache — with the White House raising alarm ahead of a committee vote on Wednesday, Axios has learned.
Why it matters: In order to move forward, the bill may now include the president and vice president, in addition to Congressional members, in its ban on certain investments.
- Hawley needs Democratic support to get the bill through the committee vote set for Wednesday due to opposition from Chair Rand Paul (R-Ky), at a minimum.
- So he agreed to include language that would subject the president and vice president to the ban, according to multiple sources familiar with the negotiations.
- The White House's Office of Legislative Affairs caught wind — and started pushing back, sources tell us.
Zoom in: Hawley's Preventing Elected Leaders from Owning Securities and Investments (PELOSI) Act bans members of Congress from trading or holding individual stocks.
- President Trump has expressed openness to supporting such a bill in the past.
- A similar bipartisan bill passed the committee last year, which also would have forced the president and VP to divest from certain investments.
- It's this language from last year's bill that is expected to replace the PELOSI Act ahead of the committee markup — though negotiations are still in flux. In response to White House pushback, Hawley also plans to make the ban effective only at the start of a member's or elected official's next term, per a source familiar with the plans. This means it would not apply to Trump.
A White House official told Axios the concern is over the change that would impact the executive branch, not necessarily over the Congressional stock trading ban.
- "This was a last-minute deal struck to include the Executive Branch equities without touching base with the White House to discuss potential Article II concerns," the official said.
- "Any pause comes purely from potential Article II infringement, not the Congressional ban."
The intrigue: Paul reiterated to Axios that he is opposed to the legislation, saying it could prevent people like Trump from being president and add another hurdle for people considering running for office.
- Asked why he would then schedule a vote on it in his committee, Paul hinted at an exchange, saying it was "to get two bills that I want passed through without being beleaguered by amendments."
- Paul declined to say whether the alluded-to filibuster would come from Hawley. "I'll just leave it at that," he said.
- Punchbowl News first reported the White House pushback.
Editor's note: This story has been corrected to reflect that the Office of Legislative Affairs (not Legal Affairs) pushed back against the bill.
