📝 The Readback: Stock trade ban goes off the rails

IN THIS EDITION

Stock trading ban debate sparks Senate chaos

Will Senate Republicans go nuclear on noms?

Kentucky Hemp Wars

A redistricting rodeo in Texas

THE TOP

Stock trading ban debate sparks Senate chaos

Welcome to The Readback, our weekend digest featuring the best of Punchbowl News this week – a quick roundup of all our scoops, analysis and Capitol Hill insight you won’t find anywhere else. We’ve also included a few of our favorite outside reads from the week.

The first 30 minutes of Wednesday’s Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee markup were a pretty staid affair. The committee sailed through a bunch of consensus bills, which had already been negotiated, with comfortable bipartisan votes and minimal fuss.

Then things went off the rails.

Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) teamed up with the panel’s Democrats to pass a bill that would ban stock trading for House members, senators, the president and the vice president. The drama? Every single Republican on the committee and the White House opposed the bill.

Hawley found himself on an island, sparring with his GOP colleagues in tense exchanges that you rarely see playing out among members of the same party. Hawley, who’s distanced himself from his party leadership quite a bit recently, is happy to have this fight.

The context: Hawley has long pushed to restrict members of Congress from trading stocks. In his eyes, it’s a political no-brainer given that a large section of the American public believes lawmakers are using special information to profit off their positions.

Hawley introduced a bill this Congress, named the PELOSI Act, that would ban members and spouses from trading stocks. That bill only had Republican sponsors, given the partisan name.

But last Congress, Hawley teamed up with Democratic Sens. Gary Peters (Mich.) and Jeff Merkley (Ore.) to clear a bipartisan stock trading ban — that also applied to the president and vice president— through HSGAC.

At the start of this week, we scooped that Hawley was likely to offer a version of this bipartisan bill in lieu of the PELOSI Act during the Wednesday markup. The White House got wind of this development and started to whip against the bill, angry that the executive branch was being looped into the regulation without proper heads-up.

Back to the markup: As I sat at the long, wooden press table in the HSGAC hearing room, I didn’t know what I was in for. The markup started innocuously enough at 10 a.m., with the committee reporting out over a dozen bipartisan bills without issue.

Then it was time for stock trading. Hawley asked to substitute the PELOSI Act for a different bill that he worked with Peters on. Staffers handed out physical copies of the substitute bill, and the committee recessed for just under ten minutes so the senators could read the new bill.

The process infuriated several newer senators, namely Sens. Bernie Moreno (R-Ohio) and Ashley Moody (R-Fla.). Moreno initially refused to vote after the debacle, saying the process was “stupid” and that he didn’t even know what he was voting on.

The barbs flew between Hawley and his fellow Republicans. It was a dispute made all the more interesting given that Hawley was sitting directly next to his GOP colleagues as they traded verbal blows.

Some highlights: Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.) accused Hawley of attacking wealthy Americans. Hawley was bemused at Scott’s opposition and noted that Scott supported a stock trading ban last Congress.

Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) called the bill “legislative demagoguery.” Moreno said it was just a publicity stunt.

Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.) got heated when Hawley suggested the Senate Ethics Committee didn’t have a good handle on regulating blind trusts.

Taking a step back, the optics of the debate are fascinating. Hawley advocated for a popular policy that is of intense interest to many Americans who are cynical of the political establishment. Hawley’s fellow Republicans fought him tooth and nail on it. Sounds like potential fodder for a run for higher office? Who could say!

What I’m reading: I spent last weekend visiting my grandparents, who are passionate Punchbowl News readers. My grandfather kindly gifted me his copy of “The Wise Men: Six Friends and the World They Made,” by Walter Isaacson and Evan Thomas. I’m excited to dig in and learn more about how the post-World War II foreign policy consensus emerged.

– Max Cohen

You can find The Readback in your inbox every Saturday at 8 a.m. And don’t hesitate to reach out to [email protected] with feedback. Enjoy The Readback.

Will Senate Republicans go nuclear on noms?

It’s not hyperbole to say that the Senate’s process for confirming presidential nominees is badly broken.

Both parties have made their unique contributions to the chaos. Under President Joe Biden, Republicans placed blanket holds on dozens of nominees. However, those were often resolved through a bipartisan deal to confirm a slate of nominees before a major recess. And who can forget Sen. Tommy Tuberville’s (R-Ala.) months-long blockade of senior military promotions?

But right now, it’s Senate Democrats who are the focus.

As Republicans have noted repeatedly, Democrats haven’t allowed a single nominee of President Donald Trump to be confirmed via unanimous consent or voice vote, which is highly unusual. Democrats maintain that Trump’s abuses of power, combined with an unqualified slate of nominees, require them to respond in an unprecedented way.

Yet that means the Senate is spending valuable floor time voting on lower-level and often non-controversial nominees, some of whom have never had their position subject to a roll-call vote or a cloture motion.

Both sides agree that the current pace is unsustainable and makes it impossible for any president, regardless of party, to staff their administration. On Wednesday, we described it as the Senate’s “race to the bottom.”

Now, Republicans are openly saying they would employ the same tactics the next time there’s a Democratic president and the GOP is the minority party in the Senate.

That’s led to renewed bipartisan conversations about reforming the Senate’s confirmation process. There have been several cross-party proposals put forward over the years, including some that would eliminate the Senate confirmation requirement for certain lower-level executive branch jobs.

Don’t be fooled, though. That won’t happen in the current environment. Democrats are not in the mood to cooperate with the GOP on anything, much less rubber-stamping a plan that would accelerate the confirmation of Trump’s picks.

Once Trump gets wind of a GOP push to change the rules, it’s safe to expect the president will be hounding Senate Majority Leader John Thune to get on it right away. In the meantime, Trump is prodding Senate Republicans to cancel the August recess to plow through his nominees.

Thune, however, seems to want to pull the trigger on a rules change, which would mean invoking the so-called “nuclear option” whereby one party votes with a simple majority to change the rules.

Thune even argued that the rules changes under discussion — shortening debate time, allowing for en bloc confirmation votes, and more — would eventually help a Democratic president, too.

Thune’s pitching specific proposals that have recently been championed by Democrats, including one from Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) that would allow up to 10 nominees to be grouped together for one floor vote if they came out of the same committee.

If Republicans go nuclear with a rules change, it won’t be the first time this has happened. Democrats did it in 2013 when they lowered the threshold for most nominees from 60 to a simple majority. Republicans followed suit in 2017 by extending that to Supreme Court justices. And in 2019, the GOP shortened post-cloture debate time on non-Cabinet nominees from 30 hours to two hours.

While further changes are routinely threatened, they’re not often acted on. This time, however, could be different.

What I’m watching: The MLB trade deadline came and went, and I’m not fully sold on the Phillies’ relatively small haul. We got an outfield bat and a flamethrower for a closer, which I’m not minimizing, but I’m not too confident that these trades will get us over that final hump.

— Andrew Desiderio

Kentucky Hemp Wars

I always learn something new when covering appropriations.

This week, it was about the hemp industry in Kentucky. It all started when Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) was holding up the appropriations minibus deal earlier this week.

Paul wanted to strip out language that would close a hemp regulatory loophole in the FY2026 Ag funding bill. It sounded like a simple enough ask, but there’s a history to the measure that leads back to Paul’s delegation partner, Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.).

McConnell and Paul have been considered a political odd couple in the Republican caucus. There have been some good times and some tough ones in their relationship.

How to regulate – or not – the hemp industry is just another example of the Kentucky Republicans sitting on the opposing sides of the issue. This time, they disagree over what to do and how it would impact the Bluegrass State.

So, here’s the story. Back in 2018, lawmakers legalized hemp federally in the farm bill, which McConnell had pushed for, but the measure unintentionally opened a loophole for intoxicating hemp-derived products. With the absence of a regulatory or tax structure, those products have flooded the market.

Flash forward to a few weeks ago, and McConnell had finally secured language in the appropriations legislation to close the loophole. Paul wasn’t happy. Paul argues the provision has the potential to “destroy” the hemp industry in Kentucky. McConnell and others in the hemp industry say the measure is a necessary step to keep out bad actors while maintaining the legalization of hemp.

Paul won this one, it seems, for now. Sen. John Hoeven (R-N.D.), who led the drafting of the Ag funding bill, said it was easier given the current time crunch to take the language out rather than try to find an agreement.

But Hoeven was hopeful Paul and McConnell could agree. McConnell wasn’t going to hold up the appropriations process over this issue, but this may come up again if lawmakers start farm bill negotiations in the fall.

Hoeven may be right. Ultimately, both Paul and McConnell want to see the hemp industry grow in Kentucky.

“We can do some work on it and get agreement on it at some point,” Hoeven said. “Mitch and Paul, they both come from Kentucky, so I think they want to see a market for hemp.”

What I’m watching: I’ll be catching up on my Dodgers this weekend. It’s been so fun to see Shohei Ohtani pitch this season.

– Samantha Handler

A redistricting rodeo in Texas

For weeks, political operatives, candidates and reporters waited anxiously as Texas Republicans blew up their congressional map for a rare mid-decade redistricting. On Wednesday, we finally got their plan.

The map answered many of our questions immediately. But it also raised many more.

Some Democrats had their districts erased. Others were drawn into the same district. Republicans gained tons of new territory that could leave them susceptible to primary challengers.

Democrats have vowed to do everything they can to block the map from going into effect. Their options, however, are limited.

Here are the biggest remaining unknowns:

1) Will we see a member vs. member primary in Austin?

Republican mapmakers created a new red district south of Austin near San Antonio and shoved Democratic Reps. Lloyd Doggett and Greg Casar into one Austin-based seat. We’ve been warning you about this potential primary, and now it might be here. Doggett, the 78-year-old dean of the Texas congressional delegation, said on CNN this week that he plans to seek reelection and that the 37th District has two-thirds of his voters.

Here’s what makes this interesting: Casar at 36 is the youngest ever chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. Doggett was the first House Democrat to call on Joe Biden to drop out of the presidential race. When asked on CNN about whether he should step aside for Casar, Doggett gave an eyebrow-raising answer:

Casar has not yet given many details on his plans and is focused on trying to block the map from passing.

2) What does Democratic Rep. Marc Veasey do in North Texas?

The new GOP map erased the Fort Worth portion from Veasey’s seat, leaving him with only his Dallas section. Veasey’s home base is in Fort Worth. He could run in a Dallas-based district, but he may choose not to seek reelection.

This would create an opening for Democratic Rep. Julie Johnson, whose Dallas-based district became deep red. Johnson, a freshman, is not ready to retire and could run for Veasey’s seat if it’s open.

3) Will Texas Democrats break quorum by fleeing the state?

Democrats are desperately looking for ways to combat the GOP’s Texas gambit. California Gov. Gavin Newsom is trying to shove through a new map in his state. Of course, Democrats will sue in federal court in Texas. But neither of those moves will happen quickly.

More immediately, Democrats in the Texas legislature are considering denying Republicans a quorum to pass the new map by leaving the state. This will be expensive — both because they will need food and lodging and also because they will be fined for skipping town. It also can’t last forever. But Democrats may do it anyway to show the base they are willing to fight.

What I’m reading: My quest to read 50 books in 2025 continues. I did finally finish my 30th and have moved on to book 31. I’m reading “Powder Days” by Heather Hansman, who examines the unique camaraderie, as well as the economic and ecological struggles, of U.S. ski towns. It’s got me ready for ski season. Thanks to Nick Wu for the rec!

– Ally Mutnick