A Democratic bill with 2 Democratic cosponsors · See all 2 cosponsors
Last activity — Read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
In committee
Introduced and handed to a committee in the chamber it started in.
The committee holds it, and most bills are never heard from again. A hearing or a committee vote would be news; silence is the usual outcome, and it kills the bill without anyone voting against it.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- In Committee
What this bill would do
This bill, known as the NO PROFIT Act, aims to stop people from making financial trades using special, early information found on social media accounts controlled by government officials. Under Section 3, it is illegal for anyone to trade securities, commodities, or other financial contracts if they know that information came from a government social media account before the public saw it. Section 3 also bans people from passing this early information to others who might trade on it. Section 4 makes it unlawful for social media platforms to sell or provide special early access to these government accounts. Finally, Section 4 allows the government to fine social media platforms that break this rule by taking away all the money they made from giving out that special access.
Yes· 3 of 6
- Scored +7
Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see?
The bill increases transparency by preventing unfair advantages through non-public social media access.
- Scored +6
Does this put more rules on large technology companies?
The bill regulates social media platforms by prohibiting prioritized access to government communications.
- Scored +5
Does this give people more protection from unfair business practices?
The bill protects investors from unfair advantages derived from non-public government information.
The opposite· 3 of 4
- Scored -2
Would high-income households be better off under this?
May restrict certain high-frequency or prioritized information advantages.
- Scored -2
Would people with substantial wealth be better off under this?
May restrict certain high-frequency or prioritized information advantages.
- Scored -2
Would the very wealthiest people be better off under this?
May restrict certain high-frequency or prioritized information advantages.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Section 3: Stops folks from using secret or early government social media posts to make unfair financial trades, which helps keep the financial markets honest for everyday investors.
-
Section 4: Stops social media companies from selling special, early access to government accounts, making sure that regular people get to see government information at the exact same time as everyone else.
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- Section 4: Allows social media platforms to give early access to government accounts to public agencies, first responders, and the public during emergencies and disasters, which could create confusion or arguments over who gets to see critical safety information first.
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Tap or hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see? — The bill increases transparency by preventing unfair advantages through non-public social media access. Does this give the federal government more power? — The bill expands the regulatory reach of the SEC and CFTC over social media communications.
- Education And Technology
- Does this put more rules on large technology companies? — The bill regulates social media platforms by prohibiting prioritized access to government communications.
- Economy And Finance
- Does this give people more protection from unfair business practices? — The bill protects investors from unfair advantages derived from non-public government information.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — Promotes a more level playing field in financial markets. Would middle-income households be better off under this? — Promotes a more level playing field in financial markets. Would billionaires be better off under this? — May restrict certain high-frequency or prioritized information advantages. Would high-income households be better off under this? — May restrict certain high-frequency or prioritized information advantages. Would people with substantial wealth be better off under this? — May restrict certain high-frequency or prioritized information advantages. Would the very wealthiest people be better off under this? — May restrict certain high-frequency or prioritized information advantages.
- 9/24/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 8/7/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 8/3/2026
- Read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
- Introduced in Senate
One bill Congress.gov lists as related to this one — companions in the other chamber, earlier versions, and bills this one absorbed or was folded into.
Lisa Blunt RochesterDemocrat · Delaware
Ruben GallegoDemocrat · Arizona