NO PROFIT Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Himes, James A. [D-CT-4]
- Committees
- Energy and Commerce Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Aug 20, 2026
Bottom line
The NO PROFIT Act aims to prevent insider trading based on early access to government officials' social media communications and to ensure equitable access to such information for all market participants.
What it actually does
This bill prohibits individuals from trading securities, commodities, or speculative information market contracts while aware of nonpublic, material information obtained through "prioritized access" to social media accounts controlled by government officials. It also makes it unlawful for social media platforms to knowingly offer or provide such prioritized access, with specific exceptions for legitimate data uses and public safety communications.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue this bill enhances market fairness and integrity by closing a potential loophole that allows privileged individuals to profit from early access to market-moving government information. They contend it promotes transparency and reduces the perception of corruption by leveling the playing field for all investors, ensuring that no one gains an unfair advantage from government communications.
Opponents contend
Opponents might argue that the bill is overly broad, potentially chilling legitimate communication by government officials or creating undue burdens on social media platforms to monitor and enforce "prioritized access." They could also contend that existing insider trading laws are sufficient to address such issues, and that this bill introduces unnecessary complexity or expands regulatory reach beyond appropriate bounds.
The bill is relatively short and clearly structured, making it accessible for an informed reader to understand its core provisions and implications within a reasonable timeframe.
Section 1
Short Title
This section establishes the official short title of the Act as the "No Preferential Release Of Federal Information for Transactions Act" or the "NO PROFIT Act." This title clearly communicates the bill's intent to prevent profit from preferential information, making it easily identifiable and understandable in public discourse and legislative tracking.
Supporters argue
A clear and concise title helps in public discourse and legislative tracking, making the bill's purpose immediately understandable to lawmakers, stakeholders, and the public.
Critics contend
No specific opposition is typically raised against short titles, as they are primarily for identification and do not contain substantive policy.
Tradeoffs
None apparent for the short title itself, as its function is purely descriptive.
Section 2(4)
Definition of "Covered Government Official"
This provision broadly defines "covered government official" to include the President, Vice President, Members of Congress, congressional employees, executive branch employees, judicial officers, and judicial employees. Crucially, it extends this definition to individuals for 180 days after they leave such positions, ensuring a cooling-off period during which they remain subject to the bill's prohibitions.
Section 2(12) and 2(13)
Definitions of "Prioritized Access" and "Prioritized Covered Information"
"Prioritized access" is defined as any service or method allowing a person to receive a communication from a covered social media account before it's generally available, or on materially different terms (timing, latency, delivery), excluding non-discriminatory accessibility accommodations. "Prioritized covered information" is material information obtained through such prioritized access that is not yet generally available. These precise definitions are central to the bill's prohibitions, establishing the specific conditions under which trading is restricted.
Section 3(a)
Prohibition on Trading While Aware of Prioritized Covered Information
This section makes it unlawful for any person, directly or indirectly, to purchase, sell, or transact in securities, commodities, or speculative information market contracts while aware of prioritized covered information and before it is generally available. It also prohibits causing others to enter such transactions or communicating such information if the person knows the recipient is likely to trade on it before general availability. This directly targets the act of profiting from early access.
Section 3(c)
No Breach of Fiduciary Duty Required for Violation
This crucial clause specifies that a violation of the trading prohibition does not require proof that the prioritized covered information was obtained or communicated through a breach of a fiduciary duty, a relationship of trust or confidence, or any other duty of trust or confidence. This significantly distinguishes it from traditional insider trading law, which often relies on such breaches as a foundational element.
Section 3(d) and 3(e)
Enforcement Authority for Securities and Commodities Regulators
These subsections grant the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) the authority to enforce violations of the Act within their respective jurisdictions (securities/security-based swaps and commodities/futures/options/swaps/speculative information markets). They specify that violations will be treated as violations of existing insider trading statutes, allowing the commissions to use their full range of existing powers and remedies.
Section 4(a)
Prohibition on Social Media Platforms Offering Prioritized Access
This section makes it unlawful for social media platforms to knowingly offer, provide, sell, or license prioritized access to communications from covered social media accounts. It includes several important exceptions, such as algorithmic content ranking, public health/safety communications, and non-discriminatory programmatic or data-licensing access that does not confer a timing advantage. This aims to prevent platforms from facilitating the very access the bill seeks to prohibit.
Section 4(b)
Civil Penalties for Social Media Platforms Violating Prioritized Access Prohibition
A social media platform that violates the prohibition on offering prioritized access is subject to a civil penalty in an amount equal to the total revenue received by the platform for the prioritized access that gave rise to the violation. The Attorney General is authorized to bring civil actions in federal court to recover these penalties, providing a direct financial disincentive for non-compliance.
Extends the definition of "covered government official" to include individuals for 180 days after they separate from their government position.
Section 2(4)(B)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice for defining terms, but the inclusion of a post-employment period is a substantive policy choice that could be overlooked if not specifically sought out.
Case for: Proponents argue this cooling-off period is crucial to prevent former officials from immediately leveraging privileged access or knowledge gained during their service for personal financial gain through social media information, maintaining market integrity.
Case against: Critics might argue that a 180-day period is arbitrary and could unduly restrict the post-government employment opportunities or activities of former officials, especially if their social media accounts are primarily personal.
Estimated impact: Extends the scope of the bill's prohibitions to thousands of former federal employees and officials for a significant period after their service, impacting their post-government financial activities.
Allows social media platforms to offer programmatic, API, or data-licensing access to covered social media account communications, provided it's on reasonable, non-discriminatory terms, doesn't make information available before general availability, and doesn't confer a timing/latency advantage based on payment or restricted membership.
Section 4(a)(2)(D)
Why it matters:This is a technical carve-out intended to balance the prohibition with legitimate data access needs for various industries, a common legislative drafting technique to prevent unintended consequences.
Case for: Supporters argue this exception is vital to allow legitimate data analytics, research, and news aggregation services to continue, provided they do not create the "prioritized access" problem the bill aims to solve. It prevents overreach that could harm innovation and information flow.
Case against: Critics might argue that even with these conditions, such programmatic access could still be exploited for marginal timing advantages, or that the "reasonable terms" clause is too vague, creating potential loopholes for sophisticated actors.
Estimated impact: Shapes how data from government social media accounts can be legitimately accessed and used by third-party services, potentially impacting data analytics, financial news, and research industries.