The Senate passed a resolution barring its members and staff from trading on prediction markets like Polymarket and Kalshi, acting by unanimous voice vote just before lawmakers left Washington for a weeklong recess. The rule change took effect immediately.
Sen. Bernie Moreno, R-Ohio, pushed the measure, which amends Senate rules to prohibit senators from entering agreements or transactions involving purchases, sales, payments, or delivery based on an event's outcome. An amendment by Sen. Alex Padilla expanded the ban to cover Senate staff and officers as well, AP News reported.
The bipartisan vote, no senator objected, came amid growing alarm that lawmakers with access to sensitive or classified information could profit by placing bets on wars, diplomatic developments, elections, or economic crises through fast-growing prediction-market platforms.
Washington does not produce many unanimous votes these days. That every senator present agreed to restrict their own financial activity tells you something about how radioactive the prediction-market issue had become on Capitol Hill.
Moreno framed the resolution as a matter of basic public trust. As Fox News Digital reported, the Ohio Republican said his legislation was meant to erase concerns about lawmakers running "side hustles" and to increase faith in the institution.
"United States senators have no business engaging in speculative activities like prediction markets while collecting a taxpayer-funded paycheck, period."
Moreno went further, telling reporters he believes senators should not trade stocks at all.
"I don't believe we should trade stocks at all. It's completely insane. I think we should focus on our jobs and have our voters go, 'Hey, this guy's voting this way, because this is the right thing for the state.'"
That is a welcome sentiment from a freshman senator. Whether the rest of the chamber, or the House, will follow through on the broader stock-trading question remains an open bet of its own.
The resolution did not emerge in a vacuum. Lawmakers acted against a backdrop of specific, troubling incidents that made the status quo untenable. A U.S. special forces soldier was recently charged with allegedly using classified information to win more than $400,000 on a prediction-market bet tied to the capture of Venezuelan leader Nicolas Maduro, the Washington Examiner reported.
Separately, suspiciously timed wagers connected to an Iran ceasefire drew scrutiny, raising further questions about whether people with insider knowledge were cashing in on world events through these platforms.
Prediction markets have exploded in popularity and political relevance over the past two years. Polymarket gained massive visibility during the 2024 presidential race. Kalshi has fought legal battles to expand the types of contracts it can offer. Both platforms now handle enormous volumes of money, and both sit at the intersection of politics and finance in ways that make the insider-trading problem almost inevitable for anyone with a security clearance or a seat in Congress.
The recent wave of Senate misconduct reviews only added pressure for the chamber to show it could police its own members before outside regulators forced the issue.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer lauded the vote on the Senate floor and wasted no time pointing across the Capitol. As reported by the Washington Times, Schumer called on House Speaker Johnson to adopt the same restrictions immediately.
"We must never allow Congress to turn into a casino where members representing the public can gamble on wars or economic crises or elections."
That line landed well on the Senate floor. But Schumer's party has been less eager to address the broader stock-trading scandal that has dogged members of both parties for years. The STOCK Act, passed in 2012, was supposed to curb insider trading by members of Congress. Enforcement has been widely regarded as toothless.
The prediction-market ban is narrower and easier to enforce, senators simply cannot use these platforms. Whether it signals real appetite for tougher financial restrictions on lawmakers, or whether it was a low-cost way to look responsive, will depend on what comes next.
The broader push for congressional accountability has produced strange alliances. Even members who rarely agree on anything have found common ground when the subject is lawmakers enriching themselves through privileged access.
Both major prediction-market companies signaled support for the Senate's move, a notable choice given that the ban removes a category of potential customers.
Polymarket posted on X: "We're in full support of this. Our Rulebook & Terms of Service already prohibit such conduct, but codifying this into law is a step forward for the industry. Happy to help move this forward however we can."
Kalshi co-founder Tarek Mansour struck a similar tone, writing on X that the company "already proactively blocks members of Congress and enforces against insider trading." He added: "This is a great step to increase trust in our markets by making it an industry standard."
Both companies have a clear incentive to embrace the ban. Prediction markets face ongoing regulatory scrutiny, and the last thing either platform needs is a headline about a sitting senator placing bets on legislation he helped write. Voluntary compliance is one thing; a formal Senate rule is a stronger shield against future scandal.
The Senate acted. The House has not. Rep. Ashley Hinson, R-Iowa, is leading an effort to bring a similar ban to the lower chamber. Hinson, who is running to replace retiring Sen. Joni Ernst, R-Iowa, has an obvious political incentive to champion the issue, but the policy merits stand on their own regardless of her ambitions.
The House faces a different dynamic. With a razor-thin majority and a leadership team juggling competing priorities, a prediction-market ban may not rise to the top of the calendar without sustained pressure. Schumer's public demand that Speaker Johnson act "immediately" is partly genuine and partly political, designed to put Republicans on the spot if the House delays.
Questions about ethics and independence in government have been a recurring theme this Congress, cutting across nominations, oversight hearings, and now market regulation.
The resolution amends Senate rules to bar members, staff, and officers from entering prediction-market transactions. It passed by voice vote and took effect the moment it was adopted. No bill number or formal legislative title has been widely reported, and the measure applies only to the Senate, it does not bind the House, the executive branch, or any other federal employees.
It also does not touch stock trading. Moreno said he believes senators should not trade stocks at all, but the resolution he shepherded through the chamber is limited to prediction markets. The broader stock-trading debate remains unresolved, despite years of public outrage over suspiciously timed trades by members of both parties.
Several open questions remain. Does the ban cover all prediction-market activity, or only bets that could be influenced by insider information? What enforcement mechanism exists if a senator or staffer violates the rule? And will the House act before the next scandal forces its hand?
The procedural dynamics of the current Senate made a unanimous voice vote possible in ways that might not translate to the more fractious House.
Moreno deserves credit for moving quickly on a real problem. A freshman senator getting a unanimous vote on anything is notable. Getting one that restricts his colleagues' financial behavior is more so. As Just The News reported, Moreno celebrated the passage on social media, writing: "Serving in Congress is an honor, not a side hustle. Americans deserve to know that their leaders are here for the right reason!"
He's right. And the principle extends well beyond prediction markets.
The real test is whether this vote marks the start of serious financial reform for Congress or whether it becomes the thing lawmakers point to when asked why they still haven't banned stock trading. A prediction-market ban is the easy part. The hard part, forcing every member of Congress to choose between public service and private profit, is still waiting.
Americans have watched their elected officials trade on inside knowledge for years. A unanimous Senate vote is a fine start. Now do the rest.
