CITE Act of 2026
- Sponsor
- Rep. Mackenzie, Ryan [R-PA-7]
- Committees
- Committee on House Administration (primary)
- Last action
- Jul 30, 2026
Bottom line
The bill seeks to prevent potential conflicts of interest and enhance public trust by requiring federal candidates to separate themselves from direct control over publicly traded investments.
What it actually does
This bill mandates that individuals running for President, Vice President, Senate, or House of Representatives, along with their spouses and dependent children, must either divest all publicly traded securities or place them into a qualified blind trust within 90 days of formally declaring their candidacy. It also prohibits the acquisition of new covered investments during the period of candidacy and directs relevant ethics offices to issue implementing regulations.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that this bill is essential for restoring public trust in government by eliminating even the appearance of conflicts of interest. They contend that elected officials and candidates should not be in a position where their personal financial decisions could be influenced by, or appear to influence, their public duties, thereby promoting greater transparency and accountability.
Opponents contend
Opponents might argue that such stringent requirements could deter qualified individuals with complex financial portfolios from seeking federal office, thereby limiting the pool of potential candidates. They may also raise concerns about the privacy implications for candidates and their families, as well as the administrative burden and costs associated with establishing and maintaining qualified blind trusts.
The bill is relatively short and clearly structured, making it accessible for an informed reader to understand its core provisions within a reasonable timeframe.
Section 2
Definitions of Candidate, Covered Investment, and Exempt Investments
This section defines key terms, establishing who is considered a 'candidate' for federal office (President, VP, Senate, House) and what types of assets are 'covered investments' (publicly traded securities, options, ETFs holding individual securities). Crucially, it also lists 'exempt investments' such as widely diversified mutual funds, broad market index funds, U.S. Treasury securities, and cash equivalents, which are not subject to the divestiture or blind trust requirements.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that clear definitions are vital for effective implementation and to ensure that the bill targets the specific types of investments most likely to create conflicts of interest while allowing for common, diversified holdings.
Critics contend
Critics might contend that the definitions, particularly for 'exempt investments,' could still allow for some perceived conflicts or create loopholes, depending on how 'widely diversified' or 'broad market index' is interpreted by regulators.
Tradeoffs
The provision balances the need for comprehensive coverage of potentially conflicting assets with the desire to avoid overly burdensome restrictions on common, low-risk investments.
Section 3(a) and (b)
Divestiture or Qualified Blind Trust Requirement
Within 90 days of formally filing for federal office, candidates and their spouses and dependent children must either sell all their 'covered investments' or place them into a 'qualified blind trust.' The trust must be managed by an independent trustee, prohibit the covered individual from having knowledge or influence over investment decisions, and prevent communication between the individual and trustee regarding assets, except for legal or tax purposes.
Section 3(d)
Spousal and Dependent Child Assets Provision
Candidates are required to make 'good faith efforts' to ensure their spouse's and dependent children's covered investments are also divested or placed into a qualified blind trust. If a spouse maintains legally independent finances and does not consent, the candidate must certify this fact to the supervising ethics office, which then has the authority to determine if an exemption is warranted.
Section 4
Prohibition on Acquisition of New Covered Investments
From the filing date until the individual is no longer a candidate or no longer holds/seeks federal office, covered individuals are prohibited from purchasing or acquiring any new covered investments. Exceptions are made for inherited investments (which must then be divested or placed in a blind trust within 90 days) and purchases made within an already established qualified blind trust.
Section 5
Rulemaking Authority for Ethics Offices
Within 180 days of the bill's enactment, the House Committee on Ethics, Senate Select Committee on Ethics, and the Office of Government Ethics are required to issue regulations to implement the Act. These regulations must include procedures for filing and reviewing certifications, standards for qualified blind trusts, and a process for hardship waivers in extraordinary circumstances, which must be made publicly available.
Includes 'widely diversified exchange-traded funds, including sector-based or thematic exchange-traded funds' as exempt investments.
Section 2(4)(C)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice for defining scope and exceptions within a definitions section.
Case for: Supporters would argue that this exemption acknowledges that not all ETFs pose the same conflict of interest risk as individual stocks, especially those that are broadly diversified, even if sector-specific. It reduces the burden on candidates while still aiming for transparency.
Case against: Critics might argue that even sector-based or thematic ETFs could present perceived conflicts of interest if a candidate's legislative work directly impacts that specific sector (e.g., a candidate on an energy committee holding an energy sector ETF). This could be seen as a potential loophole.
Estimated impact: This provision significantly broadens the scope of investments that candidates can retain without divestiture or blind trust placement, potentially affecting a large portion of candidates' existing portfolios.
Grants the supervising ethics office authority to determine whether an exemption is warranted if a spouse with legally independent finances does not consent to divestment or blind trust placement.
Section 3(d)
Why it matters:This is a practical legislative solution to a complex issue (spousal financial independence) and is placed logically within the section it modifies.
Case for: Proponents would argue that this provides necessary flexibility and a safety valve for situations where a spouse genuinely cannot or will not comply, preventing the bill from being overly punitive or creating undue marital strain. It allows for case-by-case review.
Case against: Opponents might argue that this discretion could lead to inconsistent application or be subject to political pressure, potentially undermining the strictness of the overall requirement. The criteria for such exemptions are not specified in the bill, leaving it to future regulations.
Estimated impact: This provision could significantly impact the financial privacy and autonomy of spouses of federal candidates, while also adding a new layer of review and potential complexity for ethics offices.