Gabriel Perez, a longtime teleprompter operator for President Donald Trump, is in talks with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission after reports alleged that he used advance knowledge of Trump’s speeches to place wagers on prediction markets tied to what the president would say.
The activity was reportedly flagged by the prediction market platform where the trades were placed and then referred to regulators for review. The case, if substantiated, would place a White House support staff member at the center of a growing regulatory fight over whether event-based betting platforms are being used by people with privileged access to profit from information that is not available to the public.
Perez allegedly placed multiple wagers over a three-month period, including trades linked to Trump’s January appearance at the World Economic Forum in Davos. Reports said he adjusted or cancelled positions during speeches when Trump departed from prepared remarks, suggesting that his access to the teleprompter script may have given him an advantage over other traders.
The CFTC has not confirmed whether it has opened a formal enforcement case. A spokesperson said the agency could not comment on or deny the existence of an investigation, while adding that it routinely reviews market activity for possible violations of trading rules.
White House Communications Director Davis Ingle said ethics rules remain in place for all staff members. Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said Perez has been placed on paid administrative leave while inquiries continue.
The allegations arrive as prediction markets are expanding rapidly, drawing large volumes of money into contracts tied to politics, elections, economic data, corporate events and public policy decisions. The same growth that has made these markets more popular has also made them a more serious concern for regulators, who are increasingly treating misuse of confidential information on event platforms in the same way they treat insider trading in traditional financial markets.
Allegations center on speech access
The core issue in the Perez matter is whether a person with early access to presidential remarks used that information to trade on outcomes that depended on the contents of those remarks.
Prediction markets allow traders to buy and sell contracts based on whether a specific event will occur. In political markets, contracts may relate to whether a public official will mention a country, announce a policy, use a particular phrase or make a statement on a certain topic. Prices move as traders reassess the probability of an outcome.
Someone with access to a prepared speech could have a major edge if the contract is tied to that speech. A teleprompter operator may see the final text before it is delivered, and may also know when a speaker changes direction, skips prepared lines or adds remarks in real time.
Reports said Perez’s trading pattern raised questions because of the timing of his orders and changes during live speeches. The platform involved reportedly detected the activity through internal surveillance tools and passed the information to regulators.
No public charging document has been released, and Perez has not been publicly found to have violated any law or regulation. Negotiations with the CFTC do not necessarily mean a settlement will be reached or that charges will be filed.
Still, the allegations have drawn attention because they involve the White House, presidential communications and a market category that regulators are still trying to define.
CFTC scrutiny increases
The CFTC oversees derivatives markets in the United States, including certain event contracts. Its role in prediction markets has become more prominent as platforms have grown from niche venues into high-volume marketplaces.
For years, event-based contracts occupied a gray area between financial trading, gambling and public forecasting. Supporters say these markets can help aggregate public expectations about elections, economic releases and policy outcomes. Critics say they create incentives for people with private information to turn official duties, corporate data or political access into trading profits.
That concern has become more urgent as volumes have climbed. Figures cited in market reports show that global trading on leading prediction platforms rose sharply, from about $5 billion last September to roughly $24 billion by April. Other industry figures cited for the second quarter of 2026 put total digital forecasting volume at an all-time high of $113.8 billion.
Such numbers have turned prediction markets into a larger target for federal oversight. Larger markets produce larger payouts, more complex order flows and more opportunities for abuse. They also create a bigger trail of data for regulators to examine.
Recent federal actions show that authorities are no longer treating questionable trades on event platforms as small or informal bets. Instead, watchdogs are increasingly looking at whether the same principles that apply to stocks, futures and swaps should apply when traders use confidential information to profit from political or business events.
An enforcement official identified in reports as Miller, who directs enforcement for the commodities regulator, has said that catching illegal use of nonpublic information remains a priority. Investigative teams are also using more advanced tracking tools to connect high-volume digital accounts, payment rails and platform activity with real-world identities.
Prediction markets face a trust test
The Perez allegations could become an important test for the prediction market industry because they involve the kind of information advantage that is difficult for ordinary traders to detect on their own.
In a normal market, traders may disagree about the probability of an event. Some may follow public news more closely. Others may build models or monitor speeches, court filings, regulatory calendars or campaign schedules. Those advantages are generally considered acceptable when they are built on public information.
The problem arises when a trader uses information obtained through a job, government position, confidential memo, internal chat log or private database. In that case, the trade may no longer reflect analysis or public forecasting. It may reflect privileged access.
That distinction is now central to the regulatory debate. Prediction markets often promote themselves as tools for measuring public expectations. But if people closest to the information can quietly trade ahead of everyone else, confidence in those prices can weaken.
For political markets, the risk is especially sensitive. Government workers, campaign staff, contractors and support personnel may come into contact with nonpublic information before a speech, nomination, executive order, foreign policy announcement or legislative action. If those people are allowed to bet on the result, other traders may see the market as tilted against them.
The same issue applies in corporate markets. Employees may know about product launches, earnings results, merger discussions, layoffs, regulatory filings or data breaches before the public does. If contracts allow wagers on those events, internal information can become a trading weapon.
Recent cases broaden the warning
The Perez matter follows other enforcement actions involving alleged misuse of confidential information in prediction-style or event-linked markets.
Earlier this year, a U.S. Army soldier was charged with using confidential information to earn about $400,000 on a prediction tied to the Venezuelan presidency. In another case, a software engineer was accused of making roughly $1.2 million through trades based on internal corporate data.
Those cases have strengthened the view inside Washington that prediction markets require stricter surveillance, clearer compliance standards and stronger penalties for people who trade on information obtained through work.
They have also ended the assumption that using digital platforms, online wallets or pseudonymous accounts can shield traders from enforcement. Regulators now routinely examine platform records, payment histories, device identifiers, blockchain-linked activity where relevant and communications data when they suspect misconduct.
That shift matters because early prediction market activity often carried a sense of informality. Many users treated these venues like online betting sites rather than regulated financial markets. As volumes increased, that distinction became harder to maintain.
When a trader uses confidential government or corporate information to profit from an event contract, regulators may view the conduct through the same lens as traditional insider trading or commodities fraud. The venue may be new, but the alleged abuse is familiar.
White House response and ethics concerns
The White House has sought to contain the issue by emphasizing that ethics rules apply to staff members and support personnel.
Ingle said existing rules remain in effect for all staff. Leavitt said Perez is on paid administrative leave while the matter is reviewed. The administration has not publicly released further details about Perez’s duties, the specific contracts allegedly traded or the size of the wagers.
The case raises broader questions about who inside government should be barred from trading on certain event markets. Senior officials are often subject to financial disclosure rules, conflict-of-interest rules and restrictions on using nonpublic information. But prediction markets may expose gaps involving lower-level staff, contractors, technical workers and communications personnel.
A teleprompter operator may not make policy decisions. Yet that person may see sensitive material before it becomes public. The same could be true for speechwriters, schedulers, information technology staff, translators, legal aides and advance teams.
As event contracts become more specific, even narrow access can become valuable. A trader does not need to know an entire policy strategy if a market is asking whether a president will mention tariffs, sanctions, a foreign leader or a central bank decision in a speech.
Lawmakers move to restrict official trading
Lawmakers have started responding to the growth of event contracts with proposals aimed at government-related trading.
Legislation has advanced that would prohibit elected officials and certain government employees from trading on prediction markets centered on policy decisions or official actions. The Senate has also enacted internal rules preventing members from engaging in such activity.
The goal is to reduce conflicts of interest and prevent public officials from profiting from decisions they can influence or information they receive before the public. Even where no wrongdoing occurs, the appearance of trading on official knowledge can damage trust.
The issue is not limited to elected officials. If legislation expands, it may include agency employees, congressional staff, political appointees and contractors with access to sensitive information.
Prediction markets tied to elections, legislation, court rulings, central bank decisions and geopolitical events are likely to remain under close review. Contracts that depend directly on government action may face the tightest restrictions because officials can influence or anticipate the outcome.
Platforms add surveillance tools
Major U.S.-based prediction platforms have introduced new safeguards aimed at detecting and preventing insider trading. These systems include enhanced monitoring of suspicious timing, unusual order sizes, rapid cancellations, repeated success around confidential events and links between accounts.
Platforms have also improved their compliance systems so irregular activity can be escalated to regulators. In the Perez case, the platform reportedly flagged the trades before sending information to the CFTC.
That kind of self-reporting is becoming more important. Regulators cannot monitor every market in real time without cooperation from the venues that host the trades. Platforms hold the order books, account records and transaction histories needed to identify suspicious behavior.
Still, surveillance remains difficult. Event markets can move quickly, especially during live speeches, news conferences and breaking news. A trader may place, cancel or adjust positions within seconds. Detecting whether that behavior reflects sharp public analysis or hidden information can require a detailed review of access, timing and communications.
The challenge grows as contracts become more granular. A broad market on who will win an election may be liquid and widely followed. A narrow market on whether a leader will use a specific phrase in a speech may be more vulnerable to someone with inside access.
A larger market brings larger risks
The rapid expansion of prediction markets has changed the regulatory stakes.
When these venues handled smaller sums, enforcement may have seemed less urgent. Now, with billions of dollars moving across political, economic and corporate contracts, the potential harm is much larger. A single trader with privileged information can extract significant profits from others who are relying on public data.
The growth also means that legal and compliance teams are likely to compare anonymous or pseudonymous orders against company announcement schedules, government calendars and internal access records. In practice, this means traders who use workplace information may leave a record that is easier to trace than they expect.
For market participants, the message from recent cases is clear: trades should be based on public information, not private work materials. Using internal memos, confidential briefings, draft speeches, unreleased data or restricted chat logs can create serious legal exposure.
The CFTC’s oversight of event-based markets is still evolving, but the direction is becoming more defined. As prediction platforms grow, regulators are demanding stronger surveillance, clearer rules and faster reporting of suspicious activity.
The Perez allegations remain unresolved. But the case has already become part of a wider shift in how Washington views prediction markets: not as casual side bets, but as financial venues where confidential information can be misused, traders can be harmed and market integrity must be protected.
Curious about regulation and prediction markets? Learn how upcoming rules could reshape crypto by reading this guide now.
Disclaimer: The content on this page is provided for general informational purposes only and does not represent the views or financial advice of Toobit. We make no guarantees regarding the accuracy or completeness of this information and shall not be held liable for any errors, omissions, or outcomes resulting from its use. Investing in digital assets involves risk; users should independently evaluate their financial situation and the risks involved. For further details, please consult our Terms of Service and Risk Disclosure.
