Senator Adam Schiff (D-CA) introduced a bill that would ban predictive market contracts linked to terrorism, war, assassinations, and death, directly challenging market regulator CFTC’s move toward looser regulation of event-driven trading.
The bill, called the DEATH BETS Act, would strip the agency of any discretion over whether to authorize such contracts and write explicit prohibitions into law, putting Schiff on a collision course with CFTC Chairman Mike Selig’s deregulatory agenda.
Schiff, a member of the Senate Agriculture Committee that oversees the CFTC, is well-positioned to press the issue at the legislative level as the agency’s new rules take shape.
Under the Commodity Exchange Act, the CFTC already has the authority to block contracts related to war, terrorism or assassination if it determines that they are contrary to the public interest. But enforcement depends on the regulator’s judgment, meaning the scope of protection evolves depending on the agency’s direction.
Schiff’s bill would eliminate that flexibility. This would prohibit any exchange registered with the CFTC from listing contracts involving, relating to, or referencing terrorism, assassination, war, or the death of an individual. The ban extends to contracts that could be “construed as being closely related” to a person’s death, a particularly broad standard.
“Betting on war and death creates an environment in which insiders can profit from classified information, our national security is threatened, and violence is encouraged,” Schiff said in a statement. “There is no justification for betting on lives, or for the public to profit from such a market.”
Rep. Mike Levin (D-CA) will introduce companion legislation in the U.S. House of Representatives, according to a release from Schiff’s office.
The proposal comes as the CFTC, under Selig’s leadership, rewrites its approach to regulating prediction markets.
In February, the agency withdrew a proposal for 2024 that would have largely banned political prediction markets, with Selig criticizing the previous effort as regulatory overreach.
