14 Prediction Market Bills and Counting Reveal Deep Divisions, Long Odds

A complete tracker of all 14 prediction market bills introduced in Congress so far in 2026, what each would do, and why passage remains unlikely.

More than 40 members of Congress on Monday urged federal regulators to address potential insider trading in prediction markets, warning that the platforms could allow government officials to profit from nonpublic information.

The letter, signed by 42 representatives and sent to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) and the Office of Government Ethics, capped off a busy month on Capitol Hill that saw 12 prediction market-related bills introduced in March alone.

The proposals span a range of approaches, from restricting trading by public officials to banning certain types of contracts tied to sports, elections, and sensitive government actions. The March measures bring the total number of bills this year to 14, representing 11 distinct proposals, with some introduced in both chambers. The surge reflects a growing push in Washington that is unfolding in parallel with the CFTC’s own efforts to more clearly define what is and isn’t permissible under existing federal law.

Why Congress is zeroing in on prediction markets now

The legislative push comes as prediction market platforms have grown rapidly in popularity, with rising trading volumes, expanding user bases, and increasing mainstream visibility drawing new attention to the space. That growth has brought prediction markets into the spotlight, prompting scrutiny from regulators and lawmakers at both the federal and state levels.

Recent headline-grabbing controversies around contracts tied to geopolitical developments, along with the growing popularity of sports event contracts, have raised questions about whether the products resemble gambling or create opportunities for insider trading.

Though some of the proposals include Republican participation, most of the bills introduced in March have been led by Democrats, who have increasingly framed prediction markets as an ethics and corruption concern ahead of the 2026 election cycle.

Congressional activity is unfolding alongside increased regulatory attention. The CFTC, which oversees event contracts and derivatives markets, has been working to more clearly define how event contracts are regulated, including considering potential rulemaking and soliciting public input, steps that typically precede formal federal regulations. Any resulting framework could address some of the concerns raised by lawmakers. Meanwhile, during remarks Tuesday at an NYU Law School event, CFTC enforcement director David Miller said that the agency will be “prosecuting cases against those who tip or trade with misappropriated information” based on existing law.

The CFTC’s oversight stems from the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA), the federal law governing derivatives markets in the United States. Prediction markets are treated as “event contracts” under that framework, placing them under the CFTC’s jurisdiction. As a result, most of the formally introduced March bills have been referred to the House and Senate Agriculture Committees, which have primary jurisdiction over the CFTC. 

Many of the proposals seek to amend or clarify how the CEA applies to prediction markets, particularly in defining permissible contracts and participation. Others extend beyond the CEA, incorporating ethics rules or consumer protection measures.

Tracking congressional prediction market bills in 2026

A total of 14 prediction market-related bills have been introduced in Congress in 2026, representing 11 distinct proposals. That total counts bicameral efforts as separate House and Senate bills. Below is a chronological tracker of those proposals.

Targeting who can participate in prediction markets

Lawmakers are largely approaching prediction markets from two directions: restricting who can participate and limiting what types of contracts can be offered, with some overlap.

A major focus is restricting trading by government officials and others with access to nonpublic information, reflecting concern that prediction markets could be used to profit from insider knowledge.

Several proposals take this approach, including the End Prediction Market Corruption Act from Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR) and Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), and the PREDICT Act from Rep. Adrian Smith (R-NE) and Rep. Nikki Budzinski (D-IL), both of which would prohibit members of Congress and federal officials from trading on contracts tied to government actions. While similar in intent, the proposals differ in scope, with some focused primarily on elected officials and others extending to a wider set of federal employees.

The push builds on earlier efforts. The Public Integrity in Financial Prediction Markets Act of 2026, introduced in January by Rep. Ritchie Torres (D-NY), was the first congressional bill this year targeting prediction markets and focuses on trading by individuals with access to nonpublic government information. A separate, more recent Senate proposal led by Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-MI), which shares the same name, would apply similar restrictions, but takes a different approach by embedding the rules within federal ethics law under Title 5 and establishing a broader enforcement framework. 

Unlike many of the other prediction market proposals, which have been referred to the House and Senate agriculture committees, the Torres and Slotkin measures were routed through committees focused on government conduct and oversight. Torres’ House bill was referred to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, while Slotkin’s Senate proposal was sent to the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. The split reflects how some measures are treating prediction markets not only as a market-regulation issue, but also as a government ethics issue.

“No one should be profiting off the information and knowledge gained as a public servant, period,” Slotkin said in a statement. “This bill is an important first step in placing common sense rules around prediction markets, and it has real teeth to ensure those who break these rules face real consequences.”

Limiting what types of prediction markets regulated platforms can offer

A second group of proposals focuses on limiting the types of contracts that prediction markets can offer, particularly those tied to sports, elections, war and government actions.

Several bills take a targeted approach. The BETS OFF Act, introduced by Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT) and Rep. Greg Casar (D-TX), would prohibit markets tied to military operations and other government activities, while the DEATH BETS Act, led by Sen. Adam Schiff (D-CA) and Rep. Mike Levin (D-CA), would explicitly ban contracts tied to death, violence, and national security events.

Others take a wider-ranging approach. The bicameral STOP Corrupt Bets Act, introduced by Sen. Merkley and Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD), would prohibit event contracts tied to elections, sports, and government activity, representing one of the most sweeping proposals introduced so far.

“The oligarchs and opportunists are using prediction markets like Kalshi and Polymarket to enrich themselves,” Raskin said in a news release announcing the bill. “But democracy isn’t about insider gambling on our common future, it’s about everyone making our common future together. Placing bets on public policy and political events informed by insider knowledge and insider manipulation spreads civic cynicism and distrust in our democratic institutions.”

Sports event contracts draw focus

While the STOP Corrupt Bets Act touches on it, some of the recent legislation is focused specifically on prohibiting sports prediction markets, though the proposals take slightly different approaches. 

The Prediction Markets Are Gambling Act, introduced by Sen. Schiff and Sen. John Curtis (R-UT), would bar federally regulated exchanges from offering sports event contracts by treating them as outside the scope of permissible contracts under federal law. The Fair Markets and Sports Integrity Act, introduced in February by Rep. Dina Titus (D-NV), would instead directly prohibit sports markets on those platforms.

The focus on sports reflects a broader jurisdictional debate. While prediction markets are regulated at the federal level, sports betting is governed by state law, creating tension over where the event contracts fit, which has led to numerous legal battles that have left nationwide availability in limbo.

“Sports prediction contracts are sports bets — just with a different name,” Schiff said in a statement announcing his legislation. “And yet, these contracts have been offered in all fifty states in clear violation of state and federal law. Rather than enforce the law, the CFTC is greenlighting these markets and even promoting their growth. It’s time for Congress to step in and eliminate this backdoor which violates state consumer protections, intrudes upon tribal sovereignty, and offers no public revenue.”

What’s next for Congress and prediction market legislation

Despite the volume of proposals, none of the introduced prediction market bills have advanced beyond committee referral, and no hearings or markups have been scheduled. That suggests the current wave of legislation remains in early stages, with unclear prospects for passage in the near term.

Still, the pace of activity points to sustained interest in the issue. A total of 12 bills were introduced between March 5 and March 26, a span of just three weeks, indicating that lawmakers are continuing to develop and refine their approaches.

It seems likely that additional proposals will emerge in the coming months as Congress, regulators, and industry participants continue to grapple with how prediction markets should be governed. Both chambers are scheduled to return from spring recess on April 13, when legislative activity is expected to resume.

For now, however, most analysts expect the legislative wave to break before it reaches a vote. TD Cowen’s Jaret Seiberg called the bills “messaging legislation” with no viable path to passage, and noted that President Trump, whose administration has actively championed prediction markets, would almost certainly veto any bill that did advance. The near-term battlefield may be regulatory and legal rather than legislative, leaving the CFTC’s rulemaking process and ongoing court battles over state jurisdiction as the more immediate forces shaping what prediction markets can and can’t do.

Mike Breen

Mike Breen has been a professional writer and editor covering a wide range of topics for more than 30 years. He’s been a freelance gaming industry writer since 2020, reporting on sports betting, online casinos, and more for various Catena Media sites, and he began reporting on prediction market industry news in 2025 for Prediction News. Prior to that, Mike was a founding editor at his hometown altweekly newspaper in Cincinnati, Ohio, where he extensively covered local arts, music and news.Mike’s published writing has received recognition and several awards from organizations like the Society of Professional Journalists and the Association of Alternative Newsmedia.When Mike is not working, he enjoys playing and listening to music, attending comedy shows, watching movies, and spending time with his family and three cats.