A series of new federal bills targeting prediction markets has emerged in Congress, as lawmakers move to address the rapid growth of event contract trading in the United States.
Three separate measures were introduced in March within days of each other, joining two other prediction market bills filed earlier this year. Most of the proposals would amend the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA), the statute that gives the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) authority over prediction market platforms and the power to prohibit certain types of event contracts.
The bills introduced this year stem from a range of concerns about the expansion of prediction markets, from questions about insider trading to disputes over whether sports event contracts intrude on areas traditionally regulated by states.
Two of the most recent proposals were prompted by high-profile markets tied to Iran, including contracts allowing users to wager on developments involving the country’s leadership and potential military escalation. The markets drew criticism from several lawmakers who warned they could create incentives around violent events or allow traders with advance knowledge of government actions to profit. On Tuesday, Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) introduced the DEATH BETS Act, a measure designed to prohibit federally regulated exchanges from listing prediction market contracts tied to things like war and someone’s death.
The flurry of proposals reflects growing attention in Washington as prediction markets attract a larger audience and more scrutiny from policymakers. While the measures vary widely in scope, some proposals overlap. Together, they represent one of the first sustained attempts by Congress to address how federal law should apply to the rapidly expanding sector.
Early proposals target insider trading, sports markets
Two earlier bills introduced in January and February laid the groundwork for the recent surge of congressional attention.
The first came from Rep. Ritchie Torres (D-N.Y.), who introduced the Public Integrity in Financial Prediction Markets Act of 2026 (H.R. 7004) on Jan. 9. The bill would prohibit federal elected officials, political appointees and congressional staff from trading prediction-market contracts tied to government policy, government actions or political outcomes when they possess material nonpublic information.
Torres said the proposal was prompted by concerns that government insiders could profit from advance knowledge of geopolitical events or policy decisions. His office pointed to a controversial prediction market trade that paid out hundreds of thousands of dollars shortly after the capture of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, raising questions about whether the trader had prior knowledge of the operation.
“Using material nonpublic information to buy, sell, or trade event contracts is wrong, just as it is wrong for any other financial investment,” Torres said when announcing the legislation.
The bill was referred to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform and the House Administration Committee, where it remains pending.
A month later, Rep. Dina Titus (D-Nev.) introduced the Fair Markets and Sports Integrity Act (H.R. 7477), which would amend the CEA to prohibit federally regulated exchanges from listing contracts tied to sporting events or casino-style games.
Titus has argued that sports-related prediction markets effectively function as sports betting but operate outside state gambling regulations. “Consumers deserve transparency, accountability, and protections against predatory practices,” she said in announcing the measure.
The proposal was referred to the House Agriculture Committee, which oversees derivatives markets and the CFTC.
While both bills remain in committee, they helped set the stage for the burst of additional proposals introduced in March as lawmakers increasingly focused on prediction markets.
Schiff bill targets markets tied to war, death
The most recent proposal came March 10, when Sen. Schiff introduced the DEATH BETS Act (S.4035), legislation aimed at prohibiting federally regulated exchanges from listing contracts tied to violent events.
The bill would amend the CEA to bar contracts that “involve, relate to, or reference” terrorism, assassination, war, or the death of an individual. The restriction would apply to trading venues registered with the CFTC.
The CEA already gives the CFTC authority to prohibit event contracts deemed contrary to the public interest, a power added by the Dodd-Frank Act. Whether those contracts violate the standard is currently determined by the Commission. Schiff’s bill would instead prohibit those categories directly in statute and extend the ban to contracts tied to a person’s death.
“Betting on war and death creates an environment in which insiders can profit off of classified information, our national security is jeopardized, and violence is encouraged,” Schiff said in a statement announcing the legislation. “Congress must make clear that these death bets are unequivocally prohibited.”
The proposal follows controversy over prediction markets tied to Iran’s leadership. One high-profile contract asked whether Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, would be “out of office” by a specified date and drew more than $20 million in trading on Kalshi before being halted. After reports emerged that Khamenei had been killed, many traders expected the market to resolve to “Yes.” Instead, the exchange paused trading and later settled positions based on the last traded price before the death, citing an existing rule preventing traders from profiting directly from death. The episode triggered backlash from users and intensified debate among policymakers over whether markets tied to death should be allowed.
Kalshi signaled support of Schiff’s efforts on social media.
Schiff’s office said Rep. Mike Levin (D-Calif.) plans to introduce a companion measure in the House, making the legislation a bicameral effort. Schiff’s bill has been referred to the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry.
Merkley, Klobuchar target insider trading in prediction markets
Another March proposal takes a different approach, focusing not on which contracts can be listed but on who can trade them.
On March 5, Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) and Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) introduced the End Prediction Market Corruption Act (S.4017), legislation aimed at preventing senior government officials from trading on prediction markets. The bill would amend the CEA to prohibit the president, vice president and members of Congress from buying or selling event contracts. It would also bar senior executive branch officials from trading on markets tied to matters they oversee as part of their government duties.
Under the bill, the Attorney General could bring civil enforcement actions against violators, who could face penalties of up to $10,000 per violation and the return of any profits from the trade.
Merkley said the proposal was prompted by reports of unusually profitable prediction market trades tied to geopolitical developments and military actions.
“When public officials use nonpublic information to win a bet, you have the perfect recipe to undermine the public’s belief that government officials are working for the public good, not for their own personal profits,” Merkley said when introducing the bill.
The proposal overlaps with the earlier Public Integrity in Financial Prediction Markets Act introduced by Rep. Torres, which similarly targets insider trading risks tied to government officials and policy-related markets. Like Schiff’s bill, S.4017 was also referred to the Senate Agriculture Committee following its introduction.
Event Contract Enforcement Act seeks broader limits on event contract types
Introduced the same day as the Merkley/Klobuchar proposal, another March bill takes a broader approach to restricting prediction-market contracts themselves. The Event Contract Enforcement Act (H.R. 7840) was introduced on March 5 by Rep. Blake Moore (R-Utah) and Rep. Salud Carbajal (D-Calif.).
One provision of the bill would prohibit federally regulated exchanges from listing event contracts tied to elections or government actions. The lawmakers argue those types of markets are particularly vulnerable to insider information because government officials or other politically-connected people may have advance knowledge of decisions that could move contract prices. In a news release announcing the bill, Moore also said those markets expose “America to needless public safety and national security risks.”
The legislation also addresses sports event contracts, an area that has drawn growing criticism from state regulators and the sports betting industry. Rather than banning them outright, like Rep. Titus’ bill, the Event Contract Enforcement Act would allow states to “opt out of the enforcement of the gaming contract prohibition, allowing them to choose whether to allow sports-related contracts within their borders.”
H.R. 7840 has been referred to the House Committee on Agriculture.
Uncertain path forward for prediction market legislation
Despite the recent wave of proposals, the prospects for any of the bills advancing are uncertain.
Most of the bills introduced so far have come from Democratic lawmakers, with Rep. Moore’s proposal standing as the lone Republican-backed bill among the group. In a closely divided Congress and under a Republican administration that has generally emphasized financial innovation and lighter-touch regulation of emerging markets, legislation led primarily by Democrats could face an uphill path.
Another hurdle is the committee process. The recent proposals have largely been referred to the House and Senate agriculture committees. Legislation typically cannot advance unless committee leadership schedules hearings or markups. Those committees are currently chaired by Sen. John Boozman (R-Ark.) in the Senate and Rep. Glenn “GT” Thompson (R-Pa.) in the House, and neither has signaled plans to prioritize legislation targeting prediction markets.
The proposals also take different approaches to regulating prediction markets. Some seek to ban specific categories of contracts, such as those tied to war, death, elections or sports, while others focus on restricting who can trade them. With lawmakers pursuing different angles, consolidating support around a single legislative framework may prove difficult.
For now, the recent spate of bills appear more likely to shape the debate in Washington over prediction markets than to produce immediate changes to federal law.
