The Restore Trust in Government Act adds a new Subchapter IV to chapter 131 of Title 5 that forbids Members of Congress, the President, the Vice President, their spouses, dependent children, and certain related trustees from owning or trading ‘‘covered investments’’ while in office. Covered investments are broadly defined to include securities, commodities, futures, and synthetic exposures such as options and warrants, with narrow statutory exemptions (widely held diversified funds, U.S. Treasuries, municipal and state bonds, small-business and certain family farm interests, certain residential real estate LLCs, and Alaska Native settlement stock).
The bill creates an operational regime: fixed divestment deadlines (180 days for current covered individuals; 90 days for those who become covered), a procedure for certificates of divestiture that maps to IRS section 1043 for tax purposes, rules for trusts and family exemptions, an occupational exception for spouses/dependents acting in their primary job, and penalties (a 10% fee plus disgorgement of illicit trading profits). Supervising ethics offices must issue guidance, can grant narrow extensions, and must publish assessed fines and rationales publicly.
For compliance and enforcement this law shifts many practical burdens onto ethics offices, financial intermediaries, and the covered individuals themselves.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill prohibits covered officials and many immediate family-controlled vehicles from owning or trading a broad set of financial instruments, and requires divestment within set deadlines or through approved exemptions. It empowers supervising ethics offices to issue certificates of divestiture, grant limited extensions, and publish enforcement actions.
Who It Affects
Directly affects Members of Congress, the President, the Vice President, their spouses and dependent children, trustees holding assets for those people, and the supervising ethics offices that regulate them. Indirectly affects financial advisors, mutual funds, custodians, and small business owners with familial ties to covered individuals.
Why It Matters
By legally forbidding ownership of many asset classes rather than relying on disclosure alone, the bill aims to eliminate conflicts of interest and the appearance of insider advantage. That creates new compliance tasks for ethics offices and reshuffles where covered individuals can keep wealth (bonds, diversified funds, small business interests, and certain residence LLCs).
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
This bill replaces a disclosure-and-reliance model with a near-complete divestment rule for covered officials and closely related family interests. It defines ‘‘covered investments’’ to sweep in direct holdings (stocks, bonds, commodities) and indirect or synthetic exposures (options, derivatives, warrants, futures), while carving out typical diversified retail vehicles and certain government and municipal debt.
The statutory definition also preserves a path for small-business, family-farm interests and specific Alaska Native settlement stock.
Operationally, the law requires covered individuals to stop purchasing covered investments and to divest existing holdings according to a two-tier timetable: 180 days for people who already hold covered status on enactment, and 90 days for anyone who becomes covered later. If a covered individual receives an asset other than by purchase (inheritance, marriage settlement, divorce), they have 90 days to divest that asset.
Supervising ethics offices administer the process: they verify divestments, issue certificates of divestiture (which the bill aligns with IRS section 1043 for tax treatment), identify eligible properties for certificate relief, and may grant limited extensions where liquidity or contractual vesting prevents timely sales.Trusts receive special treatment. Qualified blind trusts do not provide a safe harbor; the bill requires divestment of those holdings within the statutory deadlines.
Family trusts can be exempted only if the covered individual has not been a grantor, contributed assets, or retained appointment/replacement authority over the trustee, and the trust’s grantor is a family member. The bill also contains an occupational carve-out allowing a spouse or dependent to trade covered investments only when that trading is part of their primary employment and the asset is not owned by the covered individual.Enforcement tools include a penalty structure that requires a fee equal to 10% of the asset’s value and disgorgement of illicit profits; the statute bars the use of certain public or campaign funds to pay penalties.
Supervising ethics offices must publish each fine, the reason, and the result on public websites. The law disallows income-tax deductions for losses stemming from transactions that violate the divestment rule.
Finally, the supervising ethics offices must issue interpretive guidance on undefined terms, placing significant rulemaking and factfinding responsibilities on those offices.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill defines ‘‘covered investments’’ to include securities, commodities, futures and synthetic exposures (options, warrants, derivatives), not just equities.
Existing covered officials must divest covered investments within 180 days of enactment; anyone who becomes a covered official after enactment has 90 days. Assets acquired other than by purchase (inheritance, marriage, divorce settlement) must be divested within 90 days.
Qualified blind trusts are not a permanent exception—the bill requires divestiture of those trust holdings under the same deadlines. Family trusts can be exempted only if the covered individual is not a grantor, did not contribute the asset, and has no authority to appoint or direct the trustee.
Penalties require a payment equal to 10% of the value of the covered investment and disgorgement of illicit profits; those penalties must be published publicly and cannot be paid from Members’ Representational Allowances, Senators’ office accounts, or campaign contributions. , The bill maps its certificates of divestiture to IRS section 1043 treatment (so divestitures can be recognized for tax purposes) and disallows tax deductions for losses arising from transactions that violate the divestment rule.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Establishes the act’s short title: "Restore Trust in Government Act." This is a formal clause with no operational effect but frames the statute for citation and cross-references.
Adds Subchapter IV to chapter 131
Inserts a new Subchapter IV to chapter 131 of Title 5 and updates the table of contents to include three new sections (definitions; trade and ownership rules; penalties). This structurally places the new divestment regime alongside existing ethics provisions and signals that enforcement will be integrated with current supervisory offices defined elsewhere in chapter 131.
Definitions (who and what the rule covers)
Provides detailed definitions: ‘‘covered individual’’ (Members of Congress, President, Vice President, spouses, dependent children, and certain trustees), ‘‘covered investment’’ (broadly securities, commodities, futures, and synthetic exposures), and enumerated exclusions such as diversified publicly traded funds, U.S. Treasuries, state/municipal bonds, small-business and qualifying family-farm interests, residential real-estate LLCs used as personal residences, and Alaska Native settlement stock. The practical effect is to focus the prohibition on liquid and market-sensitive instruments while preserving certain personal and family property classes.
Trade and ownership rules, divestment mechanics, and trust exceptions
Contains the operational core: prohibits purchase or ownership of covered investments by covered individuals, sets divestment deadlines (180 days for existing covered individuals; 90 days for new ones), and creates a separate 90-day window for assets received other than by purchase. It requires supervising ethics offices to verify divestment and issue certificates of divestiture mapped to IRS section 1043, allows narrow family-trust exemptions only under strict non-control conditions, invalidates qualified blind trusts as a permanent shelter (they must be unwound under the deadlines), and creates an occupational exception that permits spouses/dependents to trade only when the trading is part of their primary job and the asset owner is not the covered individual. Supervising ethics offices may grant short extensions for liquidity, vesting, or contractual constraints and must issue interpretive guidance on undefined terms.
Penalties, payment bans, and public reporting
Imposes civil penalties for violations: a fee equal to 10% of the asset’s value plus disgorgement of unlawful trading profits, payable to the U.S. Treasury. It forbids Members from using specified official or campaign funds to satisfy penalties (Members’ Representational Allowances, Senators’ office accounts, campaign contributions). Supervising ethics offices must publish each fine, the rationale, and the outcome on public websites. The section also removes tax deductibility for losses from prohibited transactions, increasing the financial sting of noncompliance.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Government across all five countries.
Explore Government in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Supervising ethics offices — gain explicit statutory authority to require divestiture, issue certificates tied to IRS treatment, publish enforcement actions, and grant narrow extensions; the bill gives them clear statutory hooks for enforcement and public accountability.
- Retail mutual funds and ETFs that meet the statute’s ‘‘diversified’’ definition — the law channels covered individuals toward widely held, publicly traded diversified funds and government and municipal bonds, potentially increasing demand for those vehicles.
- Small-business owners, family farms, and certain Alaska Native corporations — timely exemptions preserve the ability of covered individuals to retain bona fide family-run small-business and farming interests and specified settlement stock, avoiding forced sales of non-liquid local enterprises.
- Tax authorities and Treasury — the linkage to section 1043 and the ban on deducting losses from illegal trades simplify tax treatment of divestitures and ensure penalties flow to the Treasury.
- The public and stakeholders concerned with government ethics — stand to gain from a clearer, enforceable separation between policy-making and market positions, and from the statute’s public reporting requirements that make enforcement transparent.
Who Bears the Cost
- Covered individuals (Members, President, Vice President, spouses, dependent children, related trustees) — must divest liquid holdings within short windows, potentially crystallizing capital gains or realizing losses, and bear legal, financial-advisory, and administrative costs.
- Supervising ethics offices — must perform valuation reviews, issue certificates tied to IRS treatment, adjudicate exemption requests, publish enforcement details, and write interpretive guidance, all of which increase administrative workload and require expertise and resources.
- Financial intermediaries and advisors — will face a surge in divestiture orders, requests to restructure family trusts, and demands for rapid valuation and execution; custodians may need to redesign account structures for covered clients.
- Managers of qualified blind trusts and family trusts — may have to unwind holdings or restructure governance quickly, incurring transaction costs and potential conflicts with trust instruments and beneficiary expectations.
- Markets for thinly traded or privately held assets — could face price pressure if multiple covered individuals must divest similar holdings within a limited period, producing short-term liquidity and valuation challenges.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is balancing the policy goal of eliminating conflicts of interest (and the appearance of insider advantage) against the property and practical burdens the law imposes on officeholders and their families: a rule strong enough to remove market-sensitive exposure necessarily narrows where officials may keep wealth, forces potentially costly divestitures, and places heavy administrative and valuation responsibilities on ethics offices—so the law trades clearer conflicts rules for significant practical and distributive strains that will be hard to eliminate in implementation.
The bill resolves the transparency problem by imposing a bright-line divestment rule, but that clarity creates implementation frictions. Valuation at ‘‘fair market value’’ for illiquid or private assets is ambiguous in the statute and will frequently require subjective determinations; those valuations drive both the divestment process and the penalty calculations, creating dispute points that supervising ethics offices must be prepared to adjudicate.
The 180/90-day windows work for liquid holdings but threaten to force realizations of private business interests, potentially harming small family enterprises even where exemptions exist. While the statute preserves small-business and family-farm interests, the exemption depends on narrow fact patterns (grantor status, trustee control) that may not match complex estate planning arrangements.
Enforcement and avoidance are other tension points. The bill expands the definition of covered investments to include synthetic exposures, which helps block simple derivative-based concealment, but enforcement will hinge on accurate surveillance of brokerage, derivative platforms, and off-shore arrangements.
The occupational exception for spouses and dependents creates a real loophole if the line between ‘‘primary occupation’’ and financial activity is fuzzy; similarly, family trusts that meet the statutory criteria could be structured to shift economic benefits while satisfying the text. Finally, assigning major interpretive and operational duties to supervising ethics offices without a parallel appropriation or staffing plan risks uneven enforcement across offices and executive/legislative branches; the statute’s transparency rules will expose uneven application and could produce political friction even if the substantive enforcement is consistent.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.