Minority Leader Jeffries Urges Vote on Prediction Market Ban

Minority Leader Jeffries urges Speaker Johnson to swiftly hold a House vote on banning members and staff from trading on prediction markets.

Objective Facts

Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries is "supportive" of a House prediction market ban and would urge Speaker Johnson to bring a measure to the floor swiftly to ban Members of Congress from trading on prediction markets. Despite calls for a new House rule and at least 10 proposed bills on insider trading on prediction markets, the House has not moved on a rule change, though Speaker Mike Johnson told reporters a House ban is "an idea we're talking about" and he would be in favor of it. Johnson said it would take time to build "consensus." Rep. Ritchie Torres (D-NY) called the current situation indefensible and said there is "no justification for allowing members of a campaign or members of the government to bet on their own decision making." The Senate recently issued a chamber-wide prohibition on staff and Senators buying event contracts. In April, prosecutors charged a U.S. soldier with using classified information to bet and win more than $400,000 on the removal of Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro; in May, NPR reported that a political campaign staffer made "thousands" by betting on their own candidate using unreleased polling data.

Left-Leaning Perspective

NPR reported that Minority Leader Jeffries' spokeswoman Christiana Stephenson told NPR that Jeffries is "supportive" of a House ban and would urge Speaker Johnson to bring a measure to the floor swiftly. Rep. Ritchie Torres (D-NY) told NPR that "The status quo is indefensible" and called out that "There's no justification for allowing members of a campaign or members of the government to bet on their own decision making." Torres introduced a bill last week banning campaign staffers from betting on their own candidates using insider information and signed a bipartisan letter calling on House leadership to "end abuse in the use of prediction markets in our chamber immediately." Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer declared "We must never allow Congress to turn into a casino," asked the House to implement a similar measure and for the President to sign a comprehensive federal ban, and stated "Members and staff representing the public should never be able to gamble on wars, on economic crises, or on elections," adding "The very possibility that a member's vote could be influenced by a bet is reason enough to slam this door shut." Democratic Senator Kirsten Gillibrand told Newsweek the Senate rule is "a step in the right direction, but more work must be done" and introduced her own bill expanding insider-trading restrictions on prediction markets to cover executive branch officials including the president, which calls on regulators to clarify rules on insider trading for prediction markets and create mechanisms for rooting out the practice. Democracy Defenders Fund analysis found that nearly 52% of longshot military and defense-related bets on prediction markets won, suggesting widespread misuse of non-public information. Chris Swartz, senior ethics counsel at DDF, asked "How can the American public have confidence that government officials are acting in their best interest when an Army official can bet on the timing of a foreign capture and anonymous traders can make millions off strikes in Iran? The answer is simple: they can't." Left-leaning coverage emphasizes the national security risks of prediction markets and portrays delays in passing a House ban as allowing continued corruption.

Right-Leaning Perspective

Rep. Ashley Hinson (R-IA), who proposed a prediction market ban on House members and staff earlier in May, wrote to NPR: "Congress isn't a casino. Members shouldn't be able to profit off prediction markets—or stock trades—with insider knowledge. That is wrong and maybe the swampiest thing I've ever heard." The Senate passed Ohio Republican Bernie Moreno's resolution banning senators and staff from using platforms like Kalshi and Polymarket, with Moreno stating "United States Senators have no business engaging in speculative activities like prediction markets while collecting a taxpayer-funded paycheck, period. Serving in Congress should never be about finding new ways to profit; it should be about delivering results for the American people." House Administration Committee Chairman Brian Steil (R-Wis.) has a bill to curb stock trades by lawmakers, telling supporters "If you want a day trade, go to Wall Street. Come to Washington to lead this country." CNN reported that Republicans like Sen. John Curtis from Utah and Sen. Todd Young from Indiana—described as "serious conservatives"—have problems with what's happening in prediction markets. Right-leaning outlets have largely echoed concerns about insider trading but have noted, as reported on Fox News, that Democratic efforts to extend Congressional stock trading bans to the executive branch have caused some Republican hesitation, creating friction around the scope of any comprehensive ban.

Deep Dive

The push for a House prediction market ban represents rare bipartisan consensus on congressional ethics in an era of partisan division. Both Democrats and Republicans recognize that allowing members of Congress and staff to bet on prediction markets creates perverse incentives and ethical problems. The issue gained urgency after a U.S. soldier was charged with using classified information to win over $400,000 betting on Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro's capture, and NPR reported a campaign staffer made "thousands" betting on their own candidate using unreleased polling data. The Senate's unanimous passage of a similar ban provides a template. Where the consensus breaks down is on scope and speed. Jeffries' call for a "swift" vote reflects Democratic frustration with inaction—Torres noted that no one argues against a House ban and the main obstacle is political "inertia." Yet Speaker Johnson's demand for "consensus" suggests the GOP caucus has internal disagreement or hesitation, possibly over whether to expand restrictions beyond Congress. Democrats want to include the executive branch, which many Republicans oppose. This structural disagreement—over whether a ban should encompass the White House—may be what's truly blocking action rather than principled opposition to the core idea. What comes next depends on whether leadership can narrow the debate to a House-only ban that would allow passage, or whether Democrats insist on a broader measure that may stall in committee. Despite at least 10 proposed bills on insider trading in prediction markets, the House has not moved on any rule change. The May 19 call from Jeffries tests whether Democratic pressure and the Senate's precedent will finally force movement, or whether procedural and jurisdictional disputes will continue to delay action on what both sides claim to oppose.

OBJ SPEAKING

Create StoryTimelinesVoter ToolsRegional AnalysisPolicy GuideAll StoriesCommunity PicksUSWorldPoliticsBusinessHealthEntertainmentTechnologyAbout

Minority Leader Jeffries Urges Vote on Prediction Market Ban

Minority Leader Jeffries urges Speaker Johnson to swiftly hold a House vote on banning members and staff from trading on prediction markets.

May 19, 2026
What's Going On

Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries is "supportive" of a House prediction market ban and would urge Speaker Johnson to bring a measure to the floor swiftly to ban Members of Congress from trading on prediction markets. Despite calls for a new House rule and at least 10 proposed bills on insider trading on prediction markets, the House has not moved on a rule change, though Speaker Mike Johnson told reporters a House ban is "an idea we're talking about" and he would be in favor of it. Johnson said it would take time to build "consensus." Rep. Ritchie Torres (D-NY) called the current situation indefensible and said there is "no justification for allowing members of a campaign or members of the government to bet on their own decision making." The Senate recently issued a chamber-wide prohibition on staff and Senators buying event contracts. In April, prosecutors charged a U.S. soldier with using classified information to bet and win more than $400,000 on the removal of Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro; in May, NPR reported that a political campaign staffer made "thousands" by betting on their own candidate using unreleased polling data.

Left says: Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer declared "We must never allow Congress to turn into a casino" and called for Members and staff to be barred from gambling on wars, crises, or elections. Democrats emphasize that insider access creates an unethical advantage and erodes public trust in government.
Right says: Rep. Ashley Hinson (R-IA) stated "Congress isn't a casino" and called it "maybe the swampiest thing" she has heard that members can profit from insider knowledge through prediction market bets. Republicans frame the issue as about protecting Congress's integrity and preventing self-dealing.
✓ Common Ground
Rep. Ritchie Torres stated he hasn't heard "anyone" argue against a House prediction market ban, and noted that the only thing keeping the lower chamber from changing its rules is what he called political "inertia."
Congressman Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-IL) and Congressman Michael Cloud (R-TX) led a bipartisan group of House lawmakers in calling on Speaker Mike Johnson and Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries to adopt new House rules prohibiting Members of Congress, their families, and congressional staff from participating in prediction markets.
Kalshi and Polymarket themselves have received broad support for the ban, with Polymarket posting "We're in full support of this" and stating "Our Rulebook & Terms of Service already prohibit such conduct, but codifying this into law is a step forward for the industry."
CNN reported there are some Republican and bipartisan bills in both the House and Senate that would rein in the prediction market industry, and lawmakers on both sides want to crack down.
Objective Deep Dive

The push for a House prediction market ban represents rare bipartisan consensus on congressional ethics in an era of partisan division. Both Democrats and Republicans recognize that allowing members of Congress and staff to bet on prediction markets creates perverse incentives and ethical problems. The issue gained urgency after a U.S. soldier was charged with using classified information to win over $400,000 betting on Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro's capture, and NPR reported a campaign staffer made "thousands" betting on their own candidate using unreleased polling data. The Senate's unanimous passage of a similar ban provides a template.

Where the consensus breaks down is on scope and speed. Jeffries' call for a "swift" vote reflects Democratic frustration with inaction—Torres noted that no one argues against a House ban and the main obstacle is political "inertia." Yet Speaker Johnson's demand for "consensus" suggests the GOP caucus has internal disagreement or hesitation, possibly over whether to expand restrictions beyond Congress. Democrats want to include the executive branch, which many Republicans oppose. This structural disagreement—over whether a ban should encompass the White House—may be what's truly blocking action rather than principled opposition to the core idea.

What comes next depends on whether leadership can narrow the debate to a House-only ban that would allow passage, or whether Democrats insist on a broader measure that may stall in committee. Despite at least 10 proposed bills on insider trading in prediction markets, the House has not moved on any rule change. The May 19 call from Jeffries tests whether Democratic pressure and the Senate's precedent will finally force movement, or whether procedural and jurisdictional disputes will continue to delay action on what both sides claim to oppose.

◈ Tone Comparison

Democrats use language like "The status quo is indefensible" and invoke the "casino" metaphor to convey moral urgency. Republicans use populist phrasing like "Congress isn't a casino" and call the practice "the swampiest thing I've ever heard," suggesting anti-establishment values rather than partisan outrage.