A major ethics showdown is brewing on Capitol Hill as a Senate panel prepares to vote Wednesday on a long-overdue reform that would ban members of Congress from trading individual stocks—a move that’s gaining traction with both Republican and Democrat lawmakers, as well as President Donald Trump.

The bill, spearheaded by Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), is provocatively titled the Preventing Elected Leaders from Owning Securities and Investments (PELOSI) Act—a pointed jab at former Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), whose husband’s wildly profitable stock trades have long drawn public scrutiny and allegations of insider access.

“Members of Congress should be fighting for the people they were elected to serve—not day trading at the expense of their constituents,” Hawley said in April, when he first introduced the bill. “Americans have seen politician after politician turn a profit using information not available to the general public. It’s time we ban all members of Congress from trading and holding stocks and restore Americans’ trust in our nation’s legislative body.”

The legislation, if passed, would prohibit lawmakers and their spouses from buying, selling, or owning individual stocks while in office. Instead, they could invest in diversified mutual funds, ETFs, or U.S. Treasury bonds. Current members would have 180 days to divest, while new members would face the same timeline upon taking office.

Noncompliance could carry a financial price. According to Hawley’s office, any profits from trades made in violation of the law would be surrendered to the U.S. Treasury, and violators could face additional penalties from Congressional ethics committees.

Hawley says the proposal has strong backing from House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) and “many Republicans and even some Democrats”—with President Trump also supporting the original version of the bill. Trump, who has repeatedly blasted “Pelosi-style corruption,” has previously signaled openness to cracking down on insider profiteering in Washington.

However, the bill has hit turbulence in recent days. According to Punchbowl News, concerns were raised after changes were made to the bill’s language that added restrictions on stock trading by the president and vice president—changes reportedly not cleared with the Trump White House.

“This was a last-minute deal struck to include the Executive Branch equities without touching base with the White House to discuss potential Article II concerns,” an official from the White House Office of Legislative Affairs told Punchbowl. “Any pause comes purely from potential Article II infringement, not the Congressional ban.”

The additions prompted sharp pushback from Homeland Security & Governmental Affairs Chairman Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), who warned that the altered version could be used to block individuals like President Trump from seeking office or further complicate campaigns for outsiders.

Paul defended his decision to still allow the committee vote, telling Axios it was a tactical move “to get two bills that I want passed through without being beleaguered by amendments.” When asked whether Hawley might filibuster the revised version, Paul played coy: “I’ll just leave it at that.”

A similar bipartisan effort passed committee last year, and included a clause that would have required the president and vice president to divest from certain investments. According to Axios, that language may now be resurrected in place of the PELOSI Act’s current structure—though sources indicate Hawley is working on a compromise that would delay implementation until the start of an elected official’s next term.

The legislation’s name is no accident. Former Speaker Nancy Pelosi has become synonymous with D.C. insider privilege, as her husband Paul Pelosi’s uncanny success in the stock market has raised red flags for years. Though never charged with wrongdoing, the pattern of trades closely aligned with pending legislation has sparked outrage among voters—and inspired this very bill.

Whether the PELOSI Act emerges intact or gutted remains to be seen. But one thing is clear: the era of politicians profiting off their office may finally be coming to an end—if Trump and America First lawmakers have anything to say about it.