House Democrats Ask CFTC Why It Hasn't Cracked Down On Offshore Prediction Market War Bets
Progressive policy ambitions meet practical realities as Americans weigh costs and consequences.
House Democrats suddenly sound eager for a tougher CFTC, but the framing is selective. They treat “war bets” as the scandal and assume Washington can neatly police offshore platforms with a stern letter and a statute citation. That skips the harder question: why regulators keep letting gray-market finance grow until it becomes a political prop.
New Republican Times Editorial Board
Seven House Democrats sent a letter Monday to Commodity Futures Trading Commission Chair Michael Selig , asking why the agency has not acted against offshore war bets tied to U.S. military actions in Venezuela and Iran.
The letter, led by Reps. Jim McGovern and Seth Moulton , cites “high-profile instances of alleged insider trading” on platforms like Polymarket and Kalshi , and argues the CFTC already has authority under the Commodity Exchange Act to act.
They want to know why it hasn’t. Polymarket is an offshore company, but the letter points out that the Commodity Exchange Act allows the agency to regulate when "swap activities outside the United States have a direct and significant connection with activities in, or effect on, commerce of the United States." The Trump Family ...
Full sto...
Original source:
Read at BenzingaHow We See It
New Republican Times Editorial Board
House Democrats suddenly sound eager for a tougher CFTC, but the framing is selective. They treat “war bets” as the scandal and assume Washington can neatly police offshore platforms with a stern letter and a statute citation. That skips the harder question: why regulators keep letting gray-market finance grow until it becomes a political prop.
Conservatives should be wary of prediction markets tied to U.S. military action, not because they offend sensibilities, but because they can invite manipulation and leak incentives. If there is credible evidence of insider trading or Americans evading safeguards, the answer is rule of law, not performative outrage. Enforce existing lines or admit they are outdated.
Still, expanding agency reach abroad demands care. Public trust, national security, and institutional stability depend on clear jurisdiction, consistent enforcement, and a serious focus on bad actors, not headlines.
Commentary written with AI assistance by the New Republican Times Editorial Board.