Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Congress Renews Talks on Prediction Market Reform As Some Companies Operate Under Loopholes

News

a house subcommittee convenes about the sports prediction market

The House Subcommittee on Commodity Markets, Digital Assets and Rural Development met to hear from sports prediction market experts about U.S. regulations and protections on Tuesday, July 21, 2026.

WASHINGTON – Lawmakers considered whether the federal government needs to increase its regulation of sports prediction markets last Tuesday, just days after the end of the World Cup, the largest event ever for companies like Kalshi and Polymarket.

Traditional sports betting has grown exponentially in recent years, even though 11 states still ban it. But people in all 50 states can use prediction markets to win money on the outcome of certain events. The federal government regulates such trades, many of which surround sporting events.


Most members of the subcommittee raised concerns that existing regulations fail to protect users from exploitation and risks associated with prediction markets, such as gambling addiction. Members explored whether and how markets should implement privacy protections, require age verification and ensure the integrity of the games. The Commodity Futures Trading Commission, which governs these markets, has faced legal challenges over whether states can regulate or ban prediction markets or if federal regulations preempt the states.

So far, in states like Alabama, where sports betting is illegal, residents can still wager money on Kalshi and Polymarket because the companies argue that the commission’s federal jurisdiction supersedes state gambling laws. Rep. Shomari Figures, D-Ala., who sits on the subcommittee, highlighted the distinctions between prediction markets and sports gambling.

While similar, sports gamblers make bets at fixed odds against a bookmaker, and states have authority to regulate them. In prediction markets, participants use apps and websites to compete against one another by predicting outcomes, and the federal government regulates this type of trading.

map of the united states showing legal and illegal sports betting loopholes A map of sports betting in the United States - red is illegal and blue is legal.CBS Sports

“I think predictive markets—they are unique. There are certainly some similarities to traditional sports betting, but there are certainly some differences,” Figures said to Medill News Service after the hearing. ”I think part of today's hearing is giving us the opportunity to explore some more of those differences so that we can craft some legislation and promote a regulatory framework that recognizes those realities.”

Experts described a turf war underway between states and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission over who has the right to regulate prediction markets.

“Are (prediction markets) merely sports gambling by another name, or are they really future markets, just like oil, just like wheat, just like gold, silver?” said Bob Jarvis, a professor of law at Nova Southeastern University who has been focused on gambling law for the past decade. “So far, the CFTC has said the prediction markets come under our jurisdiction, and because we are a federal agency enforcing a federal law under the U.S. Constitution' s supremacy clause, states have to give way because whenever there is a federal agency and a federal statute, state laws are preempted to the extent that the federal law ousts state law.”

In 2018, the Supreme Court overruled a federal ban on sports betting, arguing that it violated states’ rights. The Supreme Court’s ruling allowed states to self-regulate sports betting. But the case also allowed that Congress could bring a new gambling ban in the future. Jarvis said he expected the Supreme Court to take up the issue of state or federal regulation of prediction markets.

“You can legislate and regulate sports betting, but the argument is that this is not sports betting. This is different, and this gets federally regulated,” said Melinda Roth, a professor in sports law at Washington and Lee University. “And that is being litigated in so many different states that are in different federal circuit courts.”

Meanwhile, Alabama has taken center stage in the fight to legalize traditional sports betting. The Sports Betting Alliance is a national organization that advocates for legalizing gambling so that it can be regulated. Some of their goals are to implement privacy protections, require age verification and ensure the integrity of the games.

“Remember — legalized betting would not invent gambling in Alabama, it would just bring it out of the illegal market,” the Sports Betting Alliance said in a statement to Medill News Service. The Sports Betting Alliance has pumped over $2.4 million into Alabama congressional political action committees, which do not disclose which candidates they support, according to data from Transparency USA.

“You’re looking for new markets, and Alabama is one of those places that doesn’t really have gambling, so people putting money into congressional races, gubernatorial races, other races in Alabama, they want to have a lottery,” Jarvis said. “They want to have sports gambling. They want to have all the other types of gambling that other states have.”

The Department of Government Efficiency cut over 20% of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission’s staff last year. Figures raised concerns that if Congress seeks to expand the regulatory powers of the commission, it must be equipped with the proper resources and personnel.

“As these markets continue to evolve, Congress has a possibility to ensure that CFTC has the resources, staffing and authorities necessary to protect consumers while also preserving the integrity of markets,” Figures said.

At the hearing, members of Congress argued for bipartisan efforts to bring regulatory frameworks and protections for users on prediction markets.

Republican chairman of the subcommittee Dusty Johnson, R-S.D, said he welcomes bipartisan efforts to better regulate prediction markets and sports betting across the country. He said he expects more hearings on prediction markets in the near future.

“Today's discussion will help us better understand (prediction markets) – wherein the law is working, where it may be falling short and whether Congress has more work to do,” Johnson said. “We have a terrific panel of witnesses today, and I'm certain to have no shortage of optimal discussion and likely debate; in fact, I'm kind of looking forward to that part.”

Jacques Abou-Rizk and Olivia Ardito are graduate student journalists at Northwestern Medill.


Read More

An empty grocery cart in a market.

NYC Mayor Zohran Mamdani proposes five city-run grocery stores. See the arguments for and against, from food deserts to bodega concerns and the $70M cost.

Getty Images, Kwangmoozaa

Government-Owned Grocery Stores: Accessible Nutrition or Government Overreach?

Issue Introduction

Over the past few years, affordability has become the most central issue affecting Americans and the quality of life in the United States. The prices of groceries and basic necessities have risen 25-30% since the COVID-19 pandemic and are projected to rise another 3.2% in 2026. At the same time, the exodus of grocery chains from rural and low-income areas has scattered food deserts throughout individual states. Recent mass closures include Grocery Outlet’s shuttering of 36 stores and continued shut-downs of many Albertsons locations. These factors have led politicians to make affordability a major campaign issue.

During his progressive campaign for mayor of New York City, Zohran Mamdani raised the idea of opening grocery stores owned and operated by the city government to provide New Yorkers with affordable groceries. In his April 2026 public address that marked his first 100 days in office, Mayor Mamdani announced plans for the first of five city-run grocery stores. Mamdani’s proposed initiative will use $70 million in capital funding to build five city-owned municipal stores–one in each borough–and place them under control of the New York City Economic Development Corporation (NYCEDC). NYCEDC will then select third-party operating staff in accordance with city standards for affordability and proper labor practices. Public opinion following the announcement continues to be divided between uproar and support.

Keep ReadingShow less
​U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth

U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth testifies during a Senate Committee on Appropriations hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., on July 21, 2026. Hegseth is crafting a strong and masculine identity for his audience as he reportedly contemplates a presidential run.

(Alex Wroblewski/AFP/Getty Images/TNS)

Politicians Can’t Just ’Give the People What They Want’

For reasons that will baffle my many detractors, I am often asked for advice about being an opinion journalist. One of my standard responses is: You have to be willing to disappoint your biggest fans.

What I mean is that if you start to see your job as telling fans what they want to hear, you risk becoming an entertainer rather than a thinker, and eventually you become a caricature. I’ve seen it happen numerous times. Patrick Buchanan was a brilliant columnist and a serious person. But over the course of his career, he listened too much to the people who said, “Go Pat, go!” and too little to friends who said, “I think that’s taking it too far.”

Keep ReadingShow less
White marble exterior of the United States Capitol, often called the Capitol Building, is the home of the United States Congress and the seat of the legislative branch of the U.S. federal government

Congress approval is at a record-low 10%. Moderation and consensus-building, not partisan theatrics, are how Washington gets problems solved.

Richard Sharrocks / Getty Images

Reclaiming the Politics of the Possible

Washington is stuck in a cycle of performative conflict. The incentives seem to reward outrage, not outcomes that last; purity tests, not problem‑solving. So it’s no surprise that after three shutdowns in less than a year, public approval of Congress collapsed to just 10 percent this spring. (Gallup, April 2026.) But the country we live in — where many middle-income families report persistent financial strain and businesses are navigating unprecedented technological upheaval — cannot be governed by theatrics. Breaking this cycle requires moderation, consensus‑building, and a cooperative approach to governance.

This is not a call for centrism as an ideology. Instead, this is a call for transformative leaders to embrace moderation as their governing strategy, recognizing that in a pluralistic country of nearly 350 million people durable solutions require broad and stable alliances. Ultimately, this is a call for the 240 million of us who are eligible to vote in November to elect consensus-builders instead of bomb-throwers, and healers instead of arsonists.

Keep ReadingShow less
Adult man holds a microphone while asking a question during a town hall meeting.

Congress ignored 90% of public support for background checks. Learn how citizen assemblies and sortition helped Ireland break gridlock and could work in the US.

SDI Productions/Getty Images

Consensus Without Power: How Sortition Could Break America's Legislative Gridlock

In April 2013, four months after the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting killed twenty children, the US Senate voted on the Manchin-Toomey Act to expand background checks and to include gun-show and internet sales of firearms. Roughly nine in ten Americans, including a majority of gun owners, supported the bill—a figure that has held steady across more than a decade of polling. It fell short of the 60-vote threshold by six votes. This was not an outlier. On complex issues, representatives often fail to translate public consensus into reality. Research shows that legislators consistently vote in line with donor and interest group preferences over constituent opinion. Before the vote, the National Rifle Association (NRA) warned every senator it would “rate” their vote on its annual rating system, and a low NRA rating could cost senators their next primary. Consequently, the bill died 54-46, and the majority of Americans watched, powerless, as their consensus was overridden by self-interested representatives.

Liberal democracies need a method to bypass electoral incentives that run counter to public opinion. One already exists: Ireland faced the same stalemate on complex issues before it instituted a process called sortition. The beauty of sortition lies in its removal of the primary pressure that misaligns representatives’ interests from public interest: reelection. Much like jury duty, citizens are randomly drawn from the population. An independent body then stratifies the pool, so the final group mirrors the country by age, gender, geography, and income. The group meets over weeks or months, hearing from experts and the public, as well as debating frequently. At the end, it issues a recommendation that parliament may then put to a referendum or pass into law.

Keep ReadingShow less