hold on there's just too much going on in Congress lmao...
Bans House members/staff from betting on future events/policies.
Sponsored by Rep. Dina Titus (D-NV).
In committee, no House vote yet.
This resolution seeks to amend the Rules of the House of Representatives. It would prevent Members of Congress, delegates, resident commissioners, and House staff from participating in certain prediction markets, which are agreements whose outcome depends on specific future events. The bill was introduced by Representative Dina Titus, a Democrat from Nevada. It has been referred to multiple committees, which means it is currently under review before any potential vote.
Introduced Apr 30, 2026
This bill was introduced in the House of Representatives on April 30, 2026. It has been referred to the Committee on Ethics, the Committee on the Judiciary, and the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. For the bill to move forward, one or more of these committees would need to consider it, potentially hold hearings, and vote to send it to the full House for a vote. It has not yet received a vote on the House floor.
If this bill becomes law, Members of the House and their employees would be prohibited from entering into financial agreements that hinge on the outcome of specific future events or contingencies, often referred to as prediction markets. This measure is intended to ensure that lawmakers cannot financially profit from events they might influence through their legislative actions, thereby bolstering public trust. Importantly, the bill explicitly states it would not apply to purchasing insurance or placing legal sports wagers, so those activities would remain unaffected for anyone.
Supporters Say
Supporters would argue this bill enhances ethics and prevents potential conflicts of interest for those in power.
Critics Say
Critics might suggest the current rules are sufficient or that such markets are not a significant problem.
Those in favor of the bill would likely emphasize the importance of maintaining public trust in government by preventing any appearance of impropriety, ensuring that lawmakers are not profiting from information or decisions they control. They might also point to the 'Sense of the House' section, which encourages other branches of government to adopt similar restrictions, highlighting a broader ethical concern. Potential critics could argue that existing ethics rules already cover such situations or that prediction markets are not widely used by lawmakers, making the bill unnecessary.