During a tense Senate Agriculture Committee hearing on Wednesday (November 19), Michael Selig, President Donald Trump’s pick to lead the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), repeatedly avoided taking a clear stance on sports-related prediction markets. Lawmakers from both sides pressed him directly on whether these markets should be considered illegal gambling, but he seemingly dodged the questions every time.
By not giving a straight answer, the US Securities and Exchange Commission’s Crypto Task Force Chief Counsel essentially left the current regulatory gray area intact, which happens to be the same gray area prediction platforms have been operating in. And that didn’t sit well with the senators, who made their frustration obvious as the hearing went on.
Selig avoids answering questions on prediction markets
From the start, Democratic Senator Tina Smith pointed out that since the Supreme Court’s 2018 ruling, states have had the authority to legalize sports betting. As she noted, people in Minnesota are already placing bets through what she called “so-called prediction market platforms.”
CFTC Chair nominee Mike Selig answers question about prediction markets, which he would oversee. Defers to courts. pic.twitter.com/tX43bHCi6c
— Fairplaygov (@fairplaygov) November 19, 2025
She argued that these companies are operating on tribal land without tribal oversight and said the distinction between sports wagers and event contracts may be “a semantics difference without an actual practical difference.” Smith pointed out that “current CFTC regulations clearly prohibit event contracts related to gaming” and asked Selig if he would enforce that prohibition.
However, Selig refused to give a commitment. He responded that “these are complex issues as to interpretation of what it means to constitute gaming” and that he would “adhere to the law and follow what judicial decisions tell me to follow.” Selig’s response echoed a theme he stuck to throughout the hearing. Rather than viewing the issue as something the agency should regulate, he framed it as a question for the courts to decide.
Smith challenged that approach, pointing out that the law banning gaming contracts is “pretty unambiguous.” But Selig didn’t budge. Lawmakers may have expected some careful phrasing, but his level of evasiveness stood out.
Recent sporting gambling scandals puts focus on betting behavior
“With over half of the country’s chief law enforcement officers saying these contracts break state laws that we’re seeing, it’s just frustrating that the CFTC hasn’t acted, and I’ll let that be my real question to you after my statements.” – Senator Cory Booker
Senator Cory Booker then shifted the focus to the integrity of sports. He brought up recent FBI indictments involving pro athletes accused of rigging games for profit and stated that it was regulated sportsbooks that flagged the behavior. His concern was that prediction markets don’t have the same protections. Booker reminded the room that CFTC rules require contracts to be protected from manipulation and warned that prediction markets risk becoming a backdoor for betting without the accountability that licensed sportsbooks are required to uphold.
Once again, Selig said only that courts would decide if these are gaming contracts. He added that if the markets are legally trading, the CFTC’s role would be to make sure they aren’t being manipulated. Booker pressed him to say whether he’d shut down platforms if courts ruled they violated state gambling laws. Selig repeated that he would follow the courts’ lead.
If sports event contracts are self-certified under CFTC rules, it’s vital that they aren’t manipulated, Selig said.
— Lydia Beyoud (@ElleBeyoud) November 19, 2025
The back-and-forth made it clear that lawmakers were looking for a regulator who would actually regulate. Selig repeatedly signaled that he’d wait for someone else to make the call.
Senator Elissa Slotkin of Michigan spoke about the economic significance and regulatory expectations in her state, which she described as the “No. 2 online casino and sports betting state.” She asked whether sports event contracts should be listed. Selig said it was “ultimately a question for the courts.”
“As a chairman of an agency, I will always look to the views of the courts and to Congress, as the Supreme Court has said, in the Loper Bright decision. You know, the deference of the agency is limited. We have to look to the courts.” – Michael Selig, CFTC chairman nominee
Slotkin then raised the issue of potential political pressure by pointing to President Trump’s recent announcement of a new platform called Truth Predict, which would support event contracts. She asked Selig directly how he would respond if Trump personally requested a regulatory exception.
Selig answered that he would “always uphold the law” and treat any application the same as others. Slotkin warned him to be “very careful about exceptions and the perception of graft.” Her line of questioning reflected broader concerns, particularly among Democrats, that the Trump administration could try to sway federal regulation of these markets for political or financial gain.
The definition of gaming
Rep. Adam Schiff took a different tack from his colleagues, asking Selig whether placing a bet on a Bills vs. Texans game through Kalshi would count as gaming. Selig wouldn’t answer. Schiff then tried a simpler version: what if that same bet were placed in a casino, would that be gaming? Again, no response. Pushing even further, Schiff asked the most basic version of the question that if he and Selig made a personal bet on the game’s outcome, would that be gambling? Still, Selig declined to say and pointed once again to the courts.
At one point, Schiff asked if he should understand Selig to be “a blank slate” with no preexisting opinion on whether betting on a game constitutes gambling. Selig said yes and that he would come in without prejudging the issue.
Schiff’s frustration flagged a deeper concern with Selig’s approach. By refusing to acknowledge even the most basic definition of gambling, Selig was both avoiding hypotheticals, as well indicating that he intends to leave the entire question open-ended. The stance benefits prediction markets by keeping things ambiguous, allowing them to keep operating while legal battles unfold. It also means the CFTC is unlikely to take any enforcement action unless a court forces its hand.
Senator Amy Klobuchar closed the hearing by raising concerns about resources. She asked whether the CFTC even has the staffing and expertise needed to oversee a fast-growing market of event-based contracts. Selig said he took the issue seriously and would evaluate the agency’s needs if confirmed. Her comments pointed to a likely future debate in Congress over whether the CFTC needs more funding to do its job effectively.
The main takeaway from the hearing was clear. Selig avoided every key question about prediction markets. He wouldn’t define gambling. He wouldn’t say whether existing rules should be enforced. He wouldn’t clarify whether state gambling laws apply. And he wouldn’t share his own view on whether betting on sports outcomes counts as gaming. Instead, he leaned heavily on the idea that these are legal questions for the courts to decide and not for the agency Congress created to regulate the derivatives markets.
Featured image: US Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry
The post CFTC nominee Selig dodges senators’ grilling, keeping sports prediction markets in legal limbo appeared first on ReadWrite.
