A new Senate proposal is putting prediction markets back at the center of Washington’s regulatory debate. On March 10, 2026, Sen. Adam Schiff introduced legislation aimed at explicitly banning contracts tied to war, terrorism, assassination, and an individual’s death, arguing that such products create national security, ethical, and market integrity risks. The move comes as federal regulators review how far event-based trading should be allowed to go, and as platforms offering politically sensitive contracts draw growing scrutiny from lawmakers and watchdogs.
What the Senate bill would do
The measure, called the DEATH BETS Act, would bar any Commodity Futures Trading Commission-registered entity from listing contracts that involve, relate to, or reference terrorism, assassination, war, or an individual’s death. Schiff’s office said the bill is designed to remove regulatory ambiguity by writing a clearer prohibition into law rather than leaving the issue to agency discretion. A companion bill is expected in the House from Rep. Mike Levin of California.
Under the Commodity Exchange Act, the CFTC already has authority to prohibit certain event contracts if it determines they are contrary to the public interest. Existing law specifically references contracts involving terrorism, assassination, war, gaming, or unlawful activity. But the new Senate proposal goes further by explicitly addressing contracts tied to death more broadly, which Schiff’s office says is not clearly spelled out in current statute.
That distinction is central to the bill’s rationale. Supporters argue that prediction markets have evolved faster than the legal framework governing them, creating room for contracts that may not fit neatly into older categories but still raise the same public-interest concerns. Schiff said Congress should act because the CFTC is reconsidering how it approaches event contracts, making the scope of future enforcement uncertain.
Why prediction markets are under pressure
Prediction markets allow traders to buy and sell contracts based on whether a future event will happen. Supporters say these markets can aggregate information efficiently and produce useful forecasts. Critics counter that contracts tied to violence, military conflict, or political upheaval can create perverse incentives, especially when traders may have access to sensitive information or the ability to influence outcomes.
The latest push in Congress follows heightened attention to contracts linked to geopolitical instability and leadership changes. Schiff’s office pointed to a Kalshi market on whether Iran’s Ali Khamenei would be “out as Supreme Leader,” saying the contract had reached $54 million in trading volume before it was paused. The office also cited offshore markets that referenced military strikes, battlefield developments, and political removals from power.
Lawmakers backing tighter rules say these products are not just distasteful but potentially dangerous. In a February 23, 2026 letter to the CFTC, a group of senators warned that contracts referencing terrorism, assassination, war, or similar activity could enable people with confidential or operationally sensitive information to profit from violence or instability. The letter also highlighted concerns about minimal transparency and oversight in some offshore venues.
US Senate bill targets prediction markets on war and assassinations amid CFTC debate
The timing of the legislation matters because the CFTC has been wrestling with the broader boundaries of event contracts for several years. In 2023, the agency reviewed Kalshi’s proposed congressional control contracts, opening a public comment period and exposing deep divisions over whether such products are legitimate forecasting tools or a form of gambling that can undermine public trust.
That debate has only intensified. Congressional hearing records from 2025 and 2026 show senators pressing CFTC leadership and nominees on whether the agency should permit contracts touching politics, war, assassination, or terrorism. Those exchanges suggest that event contracts are no longer a niche regulatory issue; they have become part of a broader argument over financial innovation, public morality, and the limits of market design.
According to Sen. Adam Schiff, the concern is not theoretical. In announcing the bill, he said betting on war and death can create an environment in which insiders profit from classified information, national security is jeopardized, and violence is encouraged. Rep. Mike Levin made a similar case, saying current gaps leave open the possibility that traders could profit from the outbreak of war or the deaths of U.S. service members.
Still, advocates of prediction markets have long argued that regulated exchanges can improve transparency compared with offshore betting venues. Some economists and market participants say event contracts can generate useful price signals and help businesses, researchers, and the public understand probabilities around uncertain events. That argument has been especially visible in debates over election-related contracts, though the same logic is often extended to other event categories.
What the bill means for exchanges and traders
If enacted, the legislation would have direct implications for CFTC-regulated exchanges such as Kalshi and for any future platform seeking to list contracts tied to armed conflict, assassinations, or deaths. It would reduce the agency’s discretion by making those categories explicitly off-limits, potentially narrowing the range of event contracts that exchanges can bring to market.
For traders, the practical effect would be straightforward: contracts tied to these subjects would be unavailable on regulated U.S. venues. That could push some activity offshore, where U.S. oversight is weaker and enforcement more difficult. Supporters of the bill acknowledge that risk but argue that the answer is not to normalize such contracts domestically.
For regulators, the bill would also clarify a politically sensitive area at a time when the CFTC faces pressure from both sides. One camp wants the agency to permit more event contracts under a transparent rule set. The other wants Congress and the CFTC to draw firmer lines around products seen as corrosive or dangerous. The Senate proposal is a clear sign that at least some lawmakers want those lines written directly into statute.
The broader policy and ethical stakes
The fight over these contracts is about more than one bill. It raises a larger question about whether markets should be allowed to price events that involve human death, armed conflict, or political violence. Critics say such contracts commodify tragedy and can distort incentives. Supporters of broader event markets say the key issue should be regulation, surveillance, and market structure rather than blanket bans.
There is also a legal and institutional dimension. Congress can leave the CFTC with broad discretion, or it can legislate more precise boundaries. Schiff’s bill favors the second approach, reflecting skepticism that agency-by-agency interpretation is enough in a fast-moving market environment. That could influence future debates not only on war and assassination contracts, but also on political, policy, and social event markets more broadly.
The immediate outlook is uncertain. As of March 11, 2026, the bill has been announced but still faces the normal legislative path in Congress, including committee consideration and possible House action. Even so, its introduction adds momentum to a growing campaign in Washington to tighten the rules around prediction markets that touch violence, national security, and death.
Conclusion
The new Senate proposal marks one of the clearest attempts yet to draw a hard legal boundary around prediction markets tied to war, assassinations, terrorism, and death. Supporters say the bill closes dangerous loopholes and protects the public interest. Critics of broad restrictions are likely to argue that regulated markets can be supervised more effectively than offshore alternatives. What is clear is that the debate has moved beyond theory: Congress is now weighing whether some events should be permanently off the trading screen.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the US Senate bill targets prediction markets on war and assassinations about?
It refers to legislation introduced by Sen. Adam Schiff on March 10, 2026, that would explicitly prohibit CFTC-registered entities from listing contracts involving war, terrorism, assassination, or an individual’s death.
What is the name of the bill?
The bill is called the DEATH BETS Act, according to Schiff’s office.
Why are lawmakers concerned about these prediction markets?
Lawmakers say such contracts could let insiders profit from classified or sensitive information, create incentives around violence, and undermine the public interest. Those concerns were outlined in Schiff’s announcement and in a February 2026 Senate letter to the CFTC.
Does current law already restrict these contracts?
Yes. The Commodity Exchange Act already gives the CFTC authority to prohibit certain event contracts involving terrorism, assassination, war, gaming, or unlawful activity if they are deemed contrary to the public interest. The new bill seeks to make the ban more explicit and broader in scope, especially around contracts tied to death.
Which companies or platforms could be affected?
Any CFTC-registered exchange that lists or seeks to list these types of event contracts could be affected. Schiff’s office specifically referenced Kalshi in discussing recent market examples, while also pointing to offshore platforms in its broader criticism.
What happens next?
The bill must move through the standard congressional process, including committee review and votes in both chambers, before it could become law. A companion House bill is expected from Rep. Mike Levin.
