Anthony Scaramucci Says Congress Gets 'Insider Information,' Calls for Sweeping Stock Trading Reform
Former White House communications director Anthony Scaramucci reignited the debate over congressional stock trading, arguing that lawmakers benefit from access to insider information and calling for sweeping ethics reforms modeled after Singapore.
Scaramucci Questions Congress Stock Trading Ethics
On Wednesday, in a post on X, the founder of SkyBridge Capital criticized members of Congress for being allowed to trade stocks while serving in office, claiming lawmakers can profit from nonpublic information.
"Members of Congress earn $180,000 a year, so when you give them insider information, and they’re legally allowed to trade on it, they take it," Scaramucci wrote.
He also questioned the investment performance associated with former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, saying, "Nancy Pelosi’s stock market performance outperforms the S&P and Warren Buffett. Remarkable in a way that defies explanation."
Scaramucci referenced Peter Schweizer’s 2011 book Throw Them All Out, which alleged members of Congress benefited financially from their positions.
He further claimed Congress had previously banned the practice before "quietly reinstat[ing] it by voice vote."
Scaramucci also argued that lawmakers face financial pressures because they are expected to maintain residences both in their home districts and in Washington while earning congressional salaries.
Congress Stock Trading Ban Debate
Earlier, Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) criticized House Republican leaders for tying a congressional stock trading ban to a voter ID provision, arguing the ban could have been passed through a simple rules change.
He disputed Speaker Mike Johnson’s claim that Democrats opposed ending "shady stock trading," calling the added provision a "poison pill."
The House passed the Stop Insider Trading Act in a 232-198 vote, banning future individual stock purchases by lawmakers, spouses and dependent children while allowing existing holdings and other investments.
Critics said the bill’s scope was limited, while supporters argued it was a step toward greater congressional ethics reforms.
Disclaimer: This content was partially produced with the help of AI tools and was reviewed and published by Benzinga editors.
Photo courtesy: Al Teich On Shutterstock.com