Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Prediction Markets Are Gambling, Despite What They Tell The Government

Opinion

Prediction Markets Are Gambling, Despite What They Tell The Government
person using smartphone

“Kalshi Offers $1 Billion for a Perfect March Madness Bracket.” The company’s recent website headline is exactly what you would see on a sportsbook ad to lure in zealous gamblers and soon-to-be gamblers. But despite the marketing blitz aimed at the public, in legal circles and before government regulators, Kalshi and competitor Polymarket claim to be financial exchange platforms. For everyday Americans, the pitfalls are troubling.

Prediction market companies like Kalshi are selling their services as investment tools, prodding Americans to use their knowledge of world events, political dynamics, sports, and other topics to pad their pockets.


There was a fair amount of attention to these markets when reports came out showing how a small handful of users made large sums of cash, $2.4 million in one case, wagering on operational details of President Trump’s military actions against Iran.

For Americans with much less insider knowledge, the rapid rise of these platforms represents a new and unsettling “get-rich-quick” scheme that is separating families from their hard-earned money at a time when they can least afford it.

The prediction platforms allow users to place wagers on the outcomes of various sporting contests and events within games. Users can wager on point spreads, “over/unders”, and player proposition bets (“props”).

At the same time, the platforms present sports betting as “investing,” lowering users’ guard and masking the risks. The unassuming user would have no idea that they are using a platform that isn’t held to the same regulatory standards as legal sportsbooks. Even the user interface mirrors a sportsbook.

The sheer volume of this unregulated activity is enormous. During this year’s opening round of the Men’s and Women’s March Madness college basketball tournaments, Kalshi alone saw more than $800 million wagered on its "contracts."

Indeed, the overwhelming majority of activity on U.S. prediction markets is just plain old sports gambling.

Meanwhile, the platforms are wrapping themselves in financial terminology before regulators to claim their products are akin to financial derivatives tied to commodities like wheat and copper futures. Regulators at the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) have lent their credibility to this view.

In addition to the platforms' faulty substantive claims, the CFTC lacks the commensurate resources to govern the rapidly evolving prediction market space. For example, the Chicago enforcement division of the CFTC recently went from 20 trial attorneys to zero—not an especially encouraging sign for the agency.

The CFTC decision suddenly made prediction markets available to anyone 18 or older anywhere in the country—even in states that have not legalized sports betting.

In states that have legalized sports betting, prediction market platforms can now avoid age restrictions, gambling taxes, requirements for responsible gaming resources, and other regulations that lawmakers and voters established as part of decisions to greenlight sports betting in their jurisdictions. Prediction markets completely lack the consumer safeguards that apply to legal sportsbooks.

By magnifying the problem for users, this regulatory backdoor is paving the way for an alarming lack of transparency, allowing prediction market platforms to mislead people into believing they are making financial investments while providing a wild-west of gambling options.

Of course, prediction market platforms say they are providing an innovative service and increasing access to financial opportunities for normal people. That would be nice, except for the discrepancies between what they say to policymakers and how they present themselves to consumers, which show otherwise.

Wrapping gambling activity in investment terminology serves only to mislead Americans. Muddying the distinctions between these two activities allows platforms to prey on Americans with lower levels of financial literacy and lower incomes—populations where even relatively small financial losses can have significant long-term consequences.

True innovation in the financial services industry should be about expanding pathways for wealth creation and opportunity.

With the economic effects of tariffs, war, and inflation, families across the country are increasingly facing substantial headwinds as they struggle to pursue the American dream.

Without meaningful regulatory change, users will continue to be too easily lured into repeatedly funneling more money into their accounts, diverting funds from real investments, such as savings, education, or other long-term financial goals.

Policymakers need to close the regulatory gap between how prediction markets actually function and how they are marketed once and for all, starting with putting the brakes on so-called “sports event contracts,” sports betting by another name.

The lines between gambling and investing are being blurred to an indistinguishable degree, leaving everyday Americans, especially those who are financially vulnerable, at risk.

Mario H. Lopez is the president of the Hispanic Leadership Fund, a public policy advocacy organization that promotes liberty, opportunity, and prosperity for all.


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