CFTC Chair Says Agency Is Watching Prediction Markets for Manipulation Ahead of Midterms
CFTC Chairman Michael Selig said on October 23 that the agency is closely monitoring prediction markets for manipulation ahead of the November 3 midterms, and that it is separately scrutinizing oil market trading tied to President Trump's announcements about the war in Iran. Combined midterm open interest on Kalshi and Polymarket stood at $250 million as of October 18, with Kalshi holding 84%. Selig acknowledged the agency often catches political figures attempting to trade 'oftentimes after the fact.' The remarks highlight the CFTC's dual and somewhat conflicting role as both the platforms' federal protector and their manipulation watchdog, at a time when the agency has shed enforcement staff.
CFTC Chairman Michael Selig said in a Bloomberg interview on October 23, 2026 that the agency is keeping a close watch on prediction markets for signs of manipulation ahead of the November 3 midterm elections. He also said the CFTC is scrutinizing oil market trading related to President Trump's announcements about the war in Iran, an inquiry that reportedly examined roughly 6 million barrels of trading activity. The remarks came as combined midterm open interest on Kalshi and Polymarket reached $250 million as of October 18, according to Dune Analytics data, with Kalshi accounting for 84% of the total. Selig did not identify a new election-related enforcement case; the comments describe a monitoring posture rather than a specific action.
The monitoring stance reflects the CFTC's unusual dual role in the prediction market dispute. The same agency that has sued multiple states to defend the platforms' federal jurisdiction, filed amicus briefs asserting exclusive authority over event contracts, and moved to classify event contracts as swaps, is also the agency responsible for policing those same markets for manipulation and insider trading. The two roles are not contradictory in principle — a regulator can both defend its jurisdiction and enforce within it — but they create a tension in practice. The CFTC's defense of the platforms rests partly on the argument that federal regulation provides better oversight than state gambling law would; that argument is only credible if the CFTC actually conducts rigorous oversight. Selig's public emphasis on monitoring ahead of the midterms is, in part, a demonstration that the agency is fulfilling the oversight role that justifies its claim to exclusive jurisdiction.
The agency's capacity to conduct that oversight is a genuine question. Reporting notes that the CFTC has shed staff and that its enforcement caseload has shrunk since 2024, at the same time that prediction market volume has exploded to record levels and the number of individual markets has grown into the tens of thousands. Selig's acknowledgment that the agency often catches political figures attempting to trade 'oftentimes after the fact' is a candid admission of the limits of real-time surveillance: with hundreds of thousands of trades across thousands of markets, detecting manipulation as it happens is difficult, and the agency's enforcement record is largely retrospective. The CFTC's past prediction market enforcement — fines and three-year trading bans against Gabriel Perez and former Congressman George Santos, the latter for making material misrepresentations on social media about his plans while trading positions that benefited from the resulting price moves — illustrates both that the agency does act and that it acts after the fact rather than preventing the misconduct in advance.
The oil-trading inquiry adds a dimension beyond prediction markets. The CFTC's scrutiny of oil market trading tied to Trump's Iran announcements suggests the agency is concerned about the same information-integrity problem — trading on advance knowledge of government actions — across both traditional commodity markets and prediction markets. This parallels the Pentagon's October 20 memo barring Department of Defense personnel from trading on non-public information, and together the two actions reflect a federal government increasingly alert to the risk that advance knowledge of geopolitical and military decisions is being monetized through financial markets, prediction markets included. For the prediction market sector, Selig's monitoring posture is a double-edged signal. It demonstrates that the CFTC takes its oversight role seriously, which supports the platforms' argument that federal regulation is adequate. But it also publicly acknowledges that manipulation and insider trading are real risks in these markets, especially around elections and geopolitical events — which is precisely the argument that state regulators and the NFL have made in urging that the markets be restricted. The midterms will be the largest test to date of whether the CFTC's monitoring is sufficient to maintain integrity in markets where the incentives to trade on non-public information are at their highest.
Operators mentioned in this article
Recent updates
Pentagon Bars Personnel From Trading on Military Information After $400K Prediction Market Scandal
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth issued an October 20 memo barring Department of Defense personnel from making financial transactions using non-public information, explicitly naming Polymarket and Kalshi. The directive follows the prosecution of a Special Forces soldier accused of making more than $400,000 on Polymarket by betting on a mission to capture Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro. Hegseth's rationale is a national-security concern: a bet on a military outcome creates a market signal that adversaries can read. 'Our enemies watch movements in these markets,' the memo states.
Crypto.com and Novig Sue Missouri as Market Leaders Hold Back — Eighth Circuit Now in Play via Iowa
Crypto.com and Novig filed federal lawsuits on October 16 challenging Missouri's cease-and-desist orders, arguing their sports event contracts fall under exclusive CFTC jurisdiction. The suits came as Missouri's 30-day compliance window closed. Notably, the market leaders — Kalshi, Polymarket, Robinhood, and Underdog — have not sued; Missouri said it is in 'ongoing discussions' with Kalshi. The outcome is tied to the Eighth Circuit, which is now weighing the same preemption question in Kalshi's appeal of a preliminary injunction denial in Iowa — the fourth federal circuit to take up the prediction market question.
Ohio Escalates Post-Sixth Circuit — Cease-and-Desist to 10 Operators, but Platforms Keep Operating
Emboldened by its Sixth Circuit win, Ohio escalated enforcement against prediction markets. Governor Mike DeWine and the Ohio Casino Control Commission issued cease-and-desist letters dated October 2 to 10 operators, including Polymarket and Robinhood, with an October 16 compliance deadline and penalties up to the value gained from contracts. Kalshi was excluded because a court order already covers it. As of October 20, platforms were continuing to operate in Ohio despite the deadline passing. Polymarket has sued the Commission and Ohio AG Andy Wilson on Commerce Clause and CEA-preemption grounds; Wilson is expected to sue non-compliant operators.