Money Rehab with Nicole Lapin - Senator Elizabeth Warren on The Fight to Ban Stock Trading in Congress (Pt 1)

Episode Date: September 29, 2025

Insider trading in Congress doesn’t just feel like an uneven playing field— it feels like a rigged game. Is the answer banning lawmakers from trading individual stocks? Senator Elizabeth Warren thinks so. Today, Nicole talks with Senator Warren about the new bipartisan Restore Trust in Congress Act that would ban Congressional stock trading, whether it will pass— and what it says about our leadership if it doesn’t. Plus, Senator Warren talks about the latest Fed drama and the important balance between Fed interference and Fed oversight. Make sure to come back tomorrow for part two, where Senator Warren and Nicole discuss whether trading should come with a warning label and the future of the Democratic party. This podcast is for informational purposes only and does not constitute financial, investment, or legal advice. Always do your own research and consult a licensed financial advisor before making any financial decisions or investments. All investing involves the risk of loss, including loss of principal. Brokerage services for US-listed, registered securities, options and bonds in a self-directed account are offered by Public Investing, Inc., member FINRA & SIPC. Public Investing offers a High-Yield Cash Account where funds from this account are automatically deposited into partner banks where they earn interest and are eligible for FDIC insurance; Public Investing is not a bank. Cryptocurrency trading services are offered by Bakkt Crypto Solutions, LLC (NMLS ID 1890144), which is licensed to engage in virtual currency business activity by the NYSDFS. Cryptocurrency is highly speculative, involves a high degree of risk, and has the potential for loss of the entire amount of an investment. Cryptocurrency holdings are not protected by the FDIC or SIPC.  *APY as of 6/30/25, offered by Public Investing, member FINRA/SIPC. Rate subject to change. See terms of IRA Match Program here: public.com/disclosures/ira-match.

Support for today's episode comes from Square, the easy way for business owners to take payments, book appointments, manage staff, and keep everything running in one place. On this show and in my books, I always talk about how important it is to have multiple streams of income. But how do you actually go from hobby to hustle? The answer, Square. I have seen it so many times in real life. Just this weekend at the farmer's market, there was a mom selling banana bread. We love banana bread. And I could not resist. In the past, I might have missed out because I never. carry cash, but with Square, she was able to take my card in seconds. I got my delicious treat. She got paid and neither of us had to stress. With Square, you can get all the tools to run your business with none of the contracts or complexity. And why wait? Right now you get up to $200 off Square hardware

at Square.com slash go slash MNN. That's square.com slash GO slash MN as in Money News Network. Run your business smarter with Square. Get started today. If you take only one thing away from today's episode, Money Rehabers, let it be this. In my not so humble opinion, public is the best brokerage for investing in bonds, stocks, ETFs, options, and even crypto. You can try it out for yourself and see why I love it so much at public.com slash money rehab. Public is legit the only platform I use to buy bonds. Before public, I used to buy government bonds the hard way. Slow websites, confusing interfaces, website designs straight out of the early 2000s. Just picture where fun goes to die. That was it. And then I found Public,

about five years ago, and I have not looked back. I can now finally buy bonds without wanting to rip my hair out. Public makes it so easy to buy bonds, whether you're into treasuries or corporate bonds, you can browse thousands of options right from your phone. But like I said, public isn't just all about bonds. You can also find stocks and ETFs. And they offer a high-yield cash account with a 4.1% APY, which is higher than the national. average. They even have retirement accounts. You can now open a traditional or Roth IRA or both right on public. So your future self covered. And for a limited time, you can earn a 1% match on all your IRA deposits, IRA transfers, and 401K rollovers. If you want an investing experience that's

both smart and simple, head to public.com slash money rehab. One more time, public.com slash money rehab. This is a paid endorsement for public investing, full disclosures, and conditions can be found in the podcast description. I'm Nicole Lapin, the only financial expert you don't need a dictionary to understand. It's time for some money rehab. Today, we're going to get into a topic that I am so, so heated about. Insider trading in Congress. And to break it all down, I have a very special guest who has long advocated for congressional stock trading to be banned, Senator Elizabeth Warren. You've seen Senator Warren in the headlines. She's been the senator of Massachusetts since 2013, and in 2020, she ran for the Democratic nomination for president, but withdrew, and as we know,

President Biden got the spot on that ticket. But before she was in Congress, she was one of the fiercest watchdogs for consumers during the 2008 financial crisis. In fact, she was the driving force behind the creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and whether you think Doge had a point in slimming the CFPB or not, it is true that the CFPB has helped return over $20 billion to Americans who were cheated over by big banks or shady lenders. She's also a former Harvard Law professor, and a little-known fact, even though she's a very vocal advocate for liberal issues, she was a registered Republican until the mid-90s. Okay, let's address the elephant in the room here.

No pun intended. I know that not all of you listening agree with Senator Warren politically, and that's okay. But here's why I think you should stay with me for this episode anyway. What we're talking about today is not red or blue. It is green. Because when members of Congress get to trade stocks on information the public does not have, that is not politics. That's a rigged system and you deserve to know about it. And tomorrow you'll hear the second part of our conversation where we dig into whether stock trading should come with a warning label. So whether you lean right or left or somewhere in between, listen to this conversation with an open mind and let me know what you think. You can always send feedback at hello at money newsnetwork.com. I am always open to any and all

conversations. All right. Let's get into it. Senator Warren, welcome to money rehab. Thank you. I am delighted to be here with you. So excited to have you. I know we only have you for a short time. So should we just get into it? You bet. I'm ready. I would love to talk about something that is really boiling my blood these days, which is potential insider trading in Congress. We just get right into it because we had Senator Dillibrand on the show. And when she was here, she said one in three members of Congress trade stocks, but only one in seven disclose it. And they beat the market 17%.

So I'm thinking either members of Congress are the greatest investors of our time or the system is rigged. That's right. I'm going to choose door two. Me too. Yeah. And this is just outrageous, just totally outrageous. just totally outrageous

that members of Congress and I want to do this both ways they not only get inside information we absolutely do we know what's going on I sit on the Senate Armed Services Committee for example you want to trade in defense stocks you've got an idea of what's happening but it's not only the insider information

it's that you can actually affect outcomes so go invest in crypto and then help move the crypto bill forward. So it's, they are in that sense, potentially, the inside traitors extraordinaire, absorbing information and actually changing the direction things go. And here's the deal. I have had legislation pending for years now, just to shut this down. It's not even very fancy. It just says, you remember of Congress? No. No buying. No. no selling, no trading on any individual stocks. You want to be in the stock market? Fine. Just get

indexed funds. So it's moving like everyone. And announce what they are. Make it all public. That you don't get, you don't get this constant, well, here's a place I could help myself. We just knock that out. And then we get to stand in front of the American public and say, The one thing you can count on, we may get it right, we may get it wrong, but that nobody here is voting based on their financial order. And right now it's a slap on the wrist, right? The violations of the Stock Act are only $200. Well, remember, the Stock Act, all it does is say tell. It doesn't stop it. And then the violation, as you say, just total slap on the wrist. That's insulting to American voters. Agreed. So what should it be right now the Restore Trust and Congress? Congress Act. This is bipartisan. So it proposes a blind trust plus potential 10% penalty. Is that what

you think? Yeah. I think it's the right direction. But like I said, I want to start, we'll hit, it's kind of like the 90% of the problems. We'll hit 90% of the problems by just saying you cannot buy, sell, or trade individual stocks. Full stop, period, we're done. You'll have so many days after you're elected to divest, and you're done. And then if you've got, I know, when there's some of this, well, you have business interests and a blah, blah, blah, set up a true blind trust, not a pretend blind trust. Where it's so you put the money in,

but you can kind of peek over the edge and see what's going on. You can set up a true blind trust. And that's where you start working down through the smaller and smaller details. You're part owner and a family business. How do you deal with that? There are. There's some places at the margins you've got to work through it. But let's just do the basics. And if we still have a problem, we can always come back and tighten those up. And the basics are get Congress, and I want to be clear for me, get Congress, get every head of every agency, get everybody who is named to the president's cabinet or deputies, these people in policymaking decisions. And drum roll, please, the President of the United States, all out of the business of trying to make money personally at the same time that they are serving in public office.

And it's a no-brainer. Yep. Should be. You said that you invest in mutual funds. I'm glad that you made the distinction of index funds because there's a lot of different kinds of mutual funds, of course. So you could be on the Armed Services Committee, but you could have defense mutual funds or you could have sector-specific energy funds or agriculture funds.

and that seems like a conflict as well. These have to be broadly held. S&P 500. That's right. S&P 500 approach. We've seen this on both sides of the aisle, though. That's been interesting in this. There are people who want to see the law going place on both sides,

and there are people who are resistant. And that's been a hard part about this. And part of what's made it harder has been Donald Trump. And whether you want to go into the politics or not, I'll just start with the, Opportunities here for buying, selling, and trading, particularly in crypto, has given Donald Trump the position in effect of being able to take what you sure look like bribes out in public. Someone just goes out and buys $400 million worth of his crypto coin.

He knows that, boosts the price up, and then asks for a present. pardon, or asks for better treatment for your country on a tariff deal, or asks for approval of a merger, all those things that it becomes a way to influence the decisions that the person in power, who's supposed to be working on behalf of the American people, but to influence those decisions to help those who line the pockets of the public official. And I just think that's wrong. We've got to put a stop to that. Yeah.

And we've seen it with the president. We've seen it with Marjorie Taylor Green. We've seen it also with Speaker Pelosi. And so we've seen just stop it. This bipartisan approach to literally say restore trust in Congress. This feels like if this doesn't pass, then is Congress basically admitting its own corruption? You know, look, I'm the one banging the drum over and over and over, pass this thing, pass this thing, pass this thing, but I want to put it this way.

If it doesn't pass, it does not mean that people like me should just give up. It means we got an election coming up in another 14 months, ask that question. Have you supported the bill that would stop trading and insults? or trading among public officials. I want to see us keep building the pressure, building the pressure, building the pressure. I do what I can on the floor of the United States Senate. But what I want to see is I want to see more people asking that question back home. Because it's only if we get the temperature high enough under this pot of water that we're actually going to get enough people to say, yep, time for some change.

I've got to talk about the Fed. Okay. I haven't seen this much drama with the Fed in quite some time. Do you think the Fed was going to turn into a major motion picture? Right. Wow. It feels like a reality show. The president has been leaning hard on Jay Powell to cut things.

Oh, you put that diplomatically. Come on. He has gone after the Fed. With just an all-out assault last February March, threatened to fire him, said he had the power of it, said he was going to fire him, and then when the markets blew up, kind of backed that one up, then went after him again over how much he was spending on repairs at the Federal Reserve's old building,

and then trying to knock off Lisa Cook, one of the governors of the Fed, and not just tried to fire, he has fired. Now, a court has said, no, you haven't. And then they took it up on appeal. And the second court said, no, you haven't. And now he's taking it to the Supreme Court so he can try to get her pushed out of that job. And there was an opening on the Fed, just to make this rounded on out. He puts in a guy who is the head of the Council of Economic Advisors.

Okay, that means economic credentials. Works literally in the White House. And here comes the best part. the guy is not giving up the option to return to the White House and continue working for Donald Trump. So he's going over to the Fed to be, I'm going to put this one in quotes, independent. And at the same time, he's holding on to, please Donald Trump, let me continue to be the head of the Council of Economic. There's nothing like it in history. So I would say with four major assaults on the Fed, Donald Trump has made it clear he wants to own the central bank in this country.

Do you think that could happen? Well, he's sure moving in that direction. What worries me is what the consequences would be. So Donald Trump's not the first person to figure out that if you could control the central bank, you could change your own. political fortunes. In Turkey, when the strong-arm guy in charge grabs control of the central bank, inflation goes to 80%. In Argentina, when the same thing happens, inflation goes to 200%. And the reason for that, for everybody who's listening to this, thinking, oh, my gosh, is that we have independence. We built it into our system because sometimes the Fed has to make really unpopular

decisions. Back in the 1980s, when inflation in this country went up to about 16 percent, the Fed actually put the interest rate up at 14 percent as a way to signal to everybody in this country and everybody around the world. We will bring inflation down, which meant to people around the world, you can invest in the dollar. It meant to Americans, okay, I'm not going to see crazy price increases. You know, the price of eggs will go up by another dollar next week and the price of cars will go up by another $1,000 next week. I can calm down on prices and start to budget. And sure not, it brought the economy under control. But, wow, talk about politically unpopular at the time. If the president,

of the time could have fired the head of the Fed, he would have. So when Donald Trump says he's going to seize the Fed and then use it to try to juice the economy, you don't push down interest rates, even if the numbers don't support it, what he's really playing with here is kind of medium term in the economy, what this is going to mean for prices for families, what this is going to mean for investment in jobs domestically, and what it's going to mean for the U.S. currency as the reserve currency around the world and the leader around the world, he's just burning all that down. And that means everybody in our country will pay a price. if Donald Trump successfully seizes control over the Fed.

That doesn't mean that all elected officials shouldn't talk to the Fed. You've written letters before he was renewed, right, as Fed chair. But there's a difference, or where is the line between oversight and interference? It's a great question. So let me start with the distinction here, because I have. I've gone after Jerome Palom. I mean, I just want to make clear, I'm out there defending the independence of the Fed when Donald Trump said he was going to fire Jerome Powell, I stood up and said, you cannot fire

your own pal. Can we just make clear here? I voted against him. I spoke against him. I can give you multiple reasons why I do not like him as the chairman of the Fed, but he retains his independence. So here's the deal. Independence doesn't mean they just get to hoop off and do anything than want. It means they are supposed to be focused on the economy. and what the economic numbers tell them is best. Well, dual mandate. That's right. Employment and inflation.

Employment and inflation. You've got it 100% right. In addition to that, they also do regulatory oversight of the giant banks. So that is what he's supposed to do. What my job is, I am now the ranking member on the Senate Banking Committee, is to push him back on the numbers, to say to him, as I did two years ago, loudly, Hey, the direction on inflation is down. The arrows are clearly on the down slope, lower those interest rates.

And yeah, I've dogged him and dogged him about that. Now, here's the interesting twist. He announced last month that he and the Fed would have lowered interest rates last February, but for the fact that Donald Trump's tariffs were just causing chaos in the economy and were likely to cause even more chaos, likely to make everything even worse. So stop and let that soak into your brain for a minute for everybody who has a credit card balance and paid higher interest rates, for everybody who took out a car loan, for anybody who had a variable rate mortgage of any kind, anybody who borrowed money over the last seven months, let's just be clear. You paid more because

Donald Trump was creating so much economic noise, chaos. Uncertainty. And uncertainty. I like your word. Uncertainty, the economy that the Fed kept interest rates high. Now, the Fed finally just lowered interest rates, as you know, just a couple of weeks ago. go. Modestly, they're talking about maybe lowering them some more. But now it's not because the news looks good, that is, inflation is coming down and employment stays strong. It's the other way around now. Inflation, not looking so great, ticking slightly. But historically, you mentioned the 80s. We're in a good range right now. I know. But the Fed is always looking directions, which way are the arrows pointing? But the part that's worrisome,

is the job market is looking weaker. So instead of a rate cut because the Fed says, woohoo, everything's going in the right direction, smooth sailing, this is a rate cut that's more along the lines of very worried about jobs. So we're trying to loosen up and get more money into the economy in the hopes that more businesses will survive, expand, and hire more people. Hold on to your wallets. Money rehab will be right back. And now for some more money rehab. Where do you think unemployment should be?

We're hovering around 4%, which is pretty much the target historically. I'm going to be really nerdy here. Steve, a place to be. I know that we look just at the top line. number. But it's important to pull the numbers apart. Unemployment for African Americans has ticked way up, and that's always a canary in the coal mine. Unemployment goes up first for black workers. That's happened in America for a long time. Second thing that's got me worry is young people coming out of college or other degree programs. Right now are having a much harder time getting

a foot in the door. I don't know how much that connects with AI, where the workers who are the newest and least experienced are the ones, some people speculate, the ones most likely you could replace with AI. But the point is, those are two groups that are now in a more vulnerable jobs position. So, look, I don't want anybody to lose their job. I don't feel better if someone else does. but it makes me very uneasy, again, directionally on where we're going on jobs. I think the Fed is right to be concerned and to be digging through those data as fast as they can. So I think the headline number is what we've seen for inflation and jobs are right around the ideal targets, but you're saying double-click, look beneath the headline number, which is the more,

more concerning leading indicators potentially to economic turmoil versus a vibe. I think people have a vibe session. We're not seeing the recession and the numbers, but they're not feeling great about the economy. Yeah. And remember, the Fed doesn't think we're at the right inflation number. They think it needs to be markedly lower. They want to see the full point lower than it is on inflation as well as wrong direction. But you know, you go to a really interesting point here.

And that is this question about averages versus clawing through the data, on average, our incomes that are going up every year. Yeah, but understand the billionaires are the ones who are looped into that average, and that makes it look a lot better. There was a time in America where the big gainers in incomes were the people who made the most modest incomes. And proportionally, they were getting more, and they were getting more. out of GDP. The worrisome parts now are to look at the debt levels that families are carrying. Go back to your point that unemployment across the board is fairly low and inflation is not giant. It's not like

it was 40 years ago, which was just wild. And yet, or even a couple years ago, or even a couple of years ago, absolutely, absolutely. And yet, America are carrying more and more household debt. So between 2018 and 2024, we have seen just the total number of dollars of debt that the American public is carrying rise by $4 trillion. And a big chunk of that is more people having to borrow to make it to the end of the month. Or people who already have some debt, the debt is just ballooning on them. They can't manage the interest payments, and the debt goes up and up. Those are worrisome signs.

And for me, the most worrisome signs are the survey data about how confident families are, about the economy, and that it's headed in the right direction. And here, families are giving lower reports. on the economy than they have at any time since the survey researchers first started collecting this back 45, 50 years ago. So where do you think interest rates should be? I think interest rates should be somewhat lower than they are now if inflation stays low enough to justify that. I want to see the interest rates come down, but it's got to come down in tandem

with inflation. We cannot say to America, interest rates are going to be low. You can go borrow that money, and inflation is going to shoot through the roof. That will turn millions of families upside down economically in this country. I just worry it's such a slippery slope because we live through 2008. Oh, I hear you. And rock bottom interest rates were very addicting. But we did that because we saw death in its eye. We were close to financial Armageddon. And so this. idea that we keep trying to go back to rock bottom interest rates is dangerous. I very much take your point on this. I do not dismiss the point, but let me now do it the other way. When we talk about the stress on American families, do you know one of the biggest expenses that's out there? We don't

count. And that is, how much you're spending on credit cards? How much are you paying on debt on student loans? How much are you paying? All your debt, it's actually left out. out of the calculation, that's nuts. And the difference between caring, as you know, $5,000 of debt at 5% and $5,000 of debt at 36% is the difference between whether you've got a shot at paying it down and whether or not you're just overwhelmed and you're going to be in debt for as far into the future as you can see. That's the first part of my conversation with Senator Elizabeth Warren.

Stay tuned to tomorrow's episode where we talk about the line between democratizing, investing, and regulation when it comes to trading, and whether Senator Warren will take another run at president. So stay tuned for tomorrow's episode. Money Rehab is a production of Money News Network. I'm your host, Nicole Lapin. Money Rehab's executive producer is Morgan Lavoy. Our researcher is Emily Holmes. Do you need some money rehab? And let's be honest, we all do.

So email us your money questions, money rehab at money newsnetwork.com, to potentially have your questions answered on the show or even have a one-on-one intervention with me and follow us on Instagram at Money News and TikTok at Money News Network for exclusive video content. And lastly, thank you. No, seriously, thank you.

Thank you for listening and for investing in yourself, which is the most important investment. you can make.