House Lags Senate on Prediction Market Trading Ban

Members of the House continue to bet on prediction markets that allow billions in wagers each week on elections, policy outcomes and other events, even as evidence mounts that insiders with access to nonpublic information are profiting from those platforms. Unlike their Senate counterparts, House lawmakers and staff face no formal prohibition, and recent efforts to close that gap have stalled short of any rule change.

The issue gained urgency after a series of scandals. In April federal prosecutors charged a U.S. soldier with using classified material to win more than 400,000 dollars betting on the removal of Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro. Last month reports surfaced of a political campaign staffer earning thousands by wagering on their own candidate with unreleased polling data. These cases follow a 30,000-dollar bet placed earlier this year on Maduro's capture that drew public scrutiny over possible misuse of inside information.

Rep. Ritchie Torres, a New York Democrat, has emerged as a leading voice for tighter controls. He introduced legislation last week that would bar campaign staffers from betting on their own races and would impose criminal penalties, including up to five years in prison, for using campaign funds on prediction markets. Torres also joined a bipartisan letter urging House leadership to adopt an immediate rule change. "The status quo is indefensible," he told NPR. "There's no justification for allowing members of a campaign or members of the government to bet on their own decision making."

At least a dozen bills aimed at regulating prediction markets have been filed this year, according to the Congressional Research Service. None has advanced meaningfully. Platforms such as Kalshi and Polymarket have taken limited steps to restrict suspicious activity, and the Senate has already moved to bar its members and staff from participating. The House, however, has shown little appetite for parallel action.

Critics argue the delay reflects a broader reluctance among lawmakers to police conduct that could benefit those with privileged access to government information. Prediction markets have grown rapidly, drawing participants who treat political and policy developments like commodities. When the people closest to those developments can also place bets, the line between informed analysis and outright insider trading blurs. Public trust in institutions already strained by repeated ethics controversies risks further erosion if Congress appears unwilling to address the problem in its own ranks.

Torres's measure targeting campaign funds represents one narrow fix, but broader proposals to prohibit all congressional participation have not yet received a vote. House leadership has offered no timetable for consideration. In the meantime, the same lawmakers who routinely decry conflicts of interest in other sectors continue to enjoy an exemption that lets them wager on the very outcomes they help shape.

Advocates for reform say the pattern mirrors past episodes in which Congress moved slowly on emerging technologies, from cryptocurrency oversight to artificial intelligence guardrails, only to confront larger scandals later. Each new revelation of improper betting, they contend, underscores the cost of that hesitation. Without swift rules, the perception that government decision makers can monetize nonpublic knowledge will persist, further distancing the public from a process already viewed by many as tilted toward insiders.