Rep. Marlon Stutzman, R-Ind., said Sunday that he believes all three branches of the federal government should be subject to a stock trading ban, arguing that lawmakers must maintain public trust through ethical standards.

"One of the things that I think is important for members of Congress is we have to live above reproach," Stutzman said during an appearance on NewsNation's "The Hill Sunday." "We have to stay above any sort of questions like that."

Stutzman said he has already sold all his publicly traded stocks personally, describing the move as a step toward avoiding conflicts of interest.

"I'm just staying out of it...it's not that important to me that I have to have it," he told host Chris Stirewalt. "I think other members, you know, should, you know, they need to decide for themselves."

When pressed on whether such restrictions should extend beyond Congress, Stutzman voiced support for a broader approach.

"I think so," he said when asked about including the executive branch. "I mean, in fact, I think any — take the three branches, take all of them."

What the Left Is Saying

Democratic lawmakers have long championed stricter ethics rules around stock trading by government officials. Rep. Abigail Spanberger, D-Va., who has co-sponsored legislation to ban members of Congress from trading individual stocks while in office, welcomed Stutzman's comments.

"This is exactly the kind of bipartisan agreement we should be able to reach," Spanberger said in a statement. "The American people deserve confidence that their elected representatives are working for them, not for their portfolios."

Government ethics advocates aligned with progressive groups argued that recent financial disclosures underscore the need for action. After the U.S. Office of Government Ethics released documents showing President Trump disclosed between $220 million and approximately $750 million in securities transactions earlier this year, Democratic lawmakers renewed calls for comprehensive reform.

"Disclosure alone has proven insufficient," said a spokesperson for Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. "When hundreds of millions of dollars in trades can occur while officials are making policy decisions that affect those same markets, the public interest demands stronger guardrails."

What the Right Is Saying

Some conservative voices have expressed reservations about sweeping trading bans, arguing they could infringe on property rights and personal freedoms.

"While I respect colleagues who want to address perceived conflicts, we must be careful not to overreach," said Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas. "Disclosure requirements already exist. Members are already required to report trades. The question is whether the federal government should be prohibiting its own employees from participating in the free market."

Others have questioned the practicality of enforcing restrictions across all three branches. A spokesperson for a conservative legal organization noted that judicial independence could complicate efforts to impose trading rules on the Supreme Court and lower courts.

"Any attempt to regulate the judiciary's financial activities raises serious constitutional questions about separation of powers," the group said in a statement. "These are issues that would likely need to be addressed carefully through the courts."

What the Numbers Show

Federal ethics disclosures released this month show President Trump reported securities transactions valued between $220 million and approximately $750 million during the first quarter of 2026, according to filings reviewed by The Hill. Transactions included securities linked to Oracle, Meta Platforms, Bank of America, Microsoft and Goldman Sachs.

Public polling consistently shows strong support for restricting stock trading by members of Congress. A 2024 survey from Morning Consult found 72 percent of voters favored prohibiting lawmakers from trading individual stocks while serving in office, including majorities across both parties.

Currently, members of Congress are required to report transactions exceeding $1,000 within 45 days under the STOCK Act of 2012, but no outright ban on trading exists. Similar restrictions apply inconsistently across the executive branch depending on an employee's position and access to classified information.

The Bottom Line

Stutzman's remarks represent a notable shift in Republican rhetoric around congressional ethics, traditionally a Democratic talking point. His call for bans extending to all three branches goes further than most existing proposals from either party.

Whether his comments signal the beginning of bipartisan momentum or remain an outlier position within the GOP remains unclear. Congress has repeatedly failed to advance stock trading legislation despite public support and high-profile incidents raising questions about potential conflicts of interest.

Watch for whether Stutzman introduces legislation following up on his statements, and whether other Republicans join him in supporting broader restrictions. The timing coincides with heightened scrutiny following the presidential disclosure filings.