Senate Democrats push ban on prediction market bets tied to war and death

Sen. Adam Schiff (D-CA) has introduced proposed legislation that would ban prediction market contracts tied to terrorism, war, assassination, and death, directly challenging market regulator CFTC’s shift toward looser regulation of event trading.

The bill, dubbed the DEATH BETS Act, would strip the agency of discretion over whether to permit such contracts and write explicit prohibitions into law, putting Schiff on a collision course with CFTC Chair Mike Selig’s deregulatory agenda.

Schiff, a member of the Senate Agriculture Committee that oversees the CFTC, is positioned to press the issue legislatively as the agency’s new rule making takes shape.

Under the Commodity Exchange Act, the CFTC already has authority to block contracts tied to war, terrorism, or assassination if it determines they are contrary to the public interest. But enforcement hinges on the regulator’s judgment, meaning the scope of protection shifts with agency leadership.

Schiff’s bill would eliminate that flexibility. It would prohibit any CFTC-registered exchange from listing contracts that involve, relate to or reference terrorism, assassination, war or an individual’s death. The prohibition extends to contracts that could be “construed as correlating closely” to a person’s death, a notably broad standard.

“Betting on war and death creates an environment in which insiders can profit off of classified information, our national security is jeopardized, and violence is encouraged,” Schiff said in a statement. “There is no justification for gambling on lives, or public benefit to be derived by such a market.”

Rep. Mike Levin (D-CA) will be introducing companion legislation in the U.S. House of Representatives, according to a release from Schiff’s office.

The proposal arrives as the CFTC, under Selig, rewrites its approach to regulating prediction markets.

In February, the agency withdrew a 2024 proposal that would have broadly banned political prediction markets, with Selig criticizing the earlier effort as regulatory overreach.