Trump backs CFTC on prediction markets, calls four leaders ‘SCUM’

President Donald Trump on May 26 defended the Commodity Futures Trading Commission’s authority over prediction markets and thanked CFTC Chair Mike Selig for expanding oversight of event contracts.

Trump posted on Truth Social that control of prediction markets is part of a competition with foreign jurisdictions for leadership in Bitcoin and other financial technologies. He noted Selig is the only sitting commissioner at the normally five-member CFTC.

Prediction markets let traders buy and sell contracts tied to the outcomes of future events. Trading volumes in the sector have risen to more than $20 billion monthly, up from roughly $1.2 billion in early 2025. One platform, Kalshi, reached a $22 billion valuation in a May 2026 funding round.

The regulatory dispute involves whether prediction markets fall under federal commodities law or state gambling statutes. The CFTC has filed suits against Arizona, Connecticut, Illinois, New York and Wisconsin, arguing federal regulation should preempt state gambling laws for federally registered trading venues.

Thirty-eight state attorneys general signed a letter backing Massachusetts in its lawsuit against Kalshi; New York Attorney General Letitia James joined that effort. In his post, Trump named Chris Christie, Letitia James, Tim Walz and J.B. Pritzker and used the word “SCUM” to describe them.

The CFTC has said federal oversight is needed to provide a clear legal framework for event contracts and to prevent states from applying gambling rules that could limit access to federally registered platforms. State officials and their supporters argue that state gambling laws cover some prediction-market activities and that states have authority to enforce those laws.

The dispute centers on how courts interpret the Commodity Exchange Act and where federal authority ends and state regulation begins. Legal observers expect the cases to move through the courts and possibly reach the U.S. Supreme Court.

Until courts issue definitive rulings, firms and investors face uneven regulatory treatment across states. Industry participants continue to operate while awaiting court decisions that could determine how prediction markets are regulated nationwide.