Sen. Adam Schiff has introduced new legislation aimed at shutting down a controversial corner of the fast-growing prediction market industry: contracts tied to war, assassinations, terrorism, and individual deaths. The proposal, called the DEATH BETS Act, comes as lawmakers and regulators face mounting pressure over whether financial exchanges should be allowed to list event contracts linked to violent or deadly outcomes. Schiff says the bill is designed to close a dangerous gap in federal law and prevent markets from profiting from human tragedy.
What the DEATH BETS Act Would Do
The bill’s full purpose is to explicitly 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 announced the measure on March 10, 2026, framing it as a direct response to concerns that existing law does not clearly prevent such markets from emerging on regulated platforms.
The legislation targets a specific category of event contracts, often described as prediction markets. These contracts allow traders to buy and sell positions based on whether a future event will happen. In recent years, the sector has expanded beyond economics and elections into sports and other headline-driven outcomes, raising broader questions about where financial innovation ends and gambling begins.
Schiff’s office said the bill would make clear that federally regulated derivatives venues cannot offer contracts tied to deadly events. That matters because the current legal framework has already been tested in disputes over political and sports event contracts, with the CFTC and exchanges such as Kalshi at the center of the debate.
Why Schiff Introduces ‘DEATH BETS’ Act to Ban Wagering on War and Assassinations
The push behind the bill is both ethical and national-security focused. Schiff argues that markets tied to war or assassination could create incentives for profiteering from violence, while also opening the door to trading based on nonpublic or classified information. His office said such contracts could undermine public trust and create perverse incentives around catastrophic events.
That concern is not purely theoretical. In a February 2026 advisory, the CFTC’s Division of Enforcement warned about misuse of nonpublic information and fraud in certain prediction markets traded on KalshiEX, a designated contract market. While that advisory was not limited to war- or death-related contracts, it underscored the regulator’s concern that event-based markets can be vulnerable to insider misuse.
The legal backdrop also helps explain the timing. Court fights over event contracts have narrowed the scope of what regulators can block under existing law, especially after litigation involving political contracts. Schiff’s bill appears intended to remove ambiguity by writing a more explicit prohibition into statute rather than relying on case-by-case regulatory interpretation.
The Broader Fight Over Prediction Markets
Prediction markets have moved from niche products to mainstream retail offerings. Robinhood says it offers event contracts through its derivatives business and exchange partnerships regulated by the CFTC, and its support materials describe how customers can trade those contracts much like other market products.
That expansion has drawn scrutiny from both federal and state authorities. In early 2025, Robinhood said it received a formal request from the CFTC to halt Super Bowl-related contracts shortly after launch, highlighting the unsettled regulatory line around sports and event-based trading. At the state level, regulators in places such as Nevada and New Jersey have also challenged event contracts offered through federally regulated exchanges.
For supporters, prediction markets can improve price discovery and aggregate public expectations. For critics, some contracts look less like hedging tools and more like packaged gambling products. The dispute has become more urgent as platforms make these markets easier for everyday users to access.
What Existing Law Says
Under the Commodity Exchange Act, the CFTC has authority to review certain event contracts and has historically treated some categories, including terrorism, assassination, war, and gaming, as especially sensitive. But the exact reach of that authority has been contested in court, and recent litigation has exposed how difficult it can be for regulators to draw bright lines without clearer statutory language.
That is the gap Schiff is trying to address. Rather than leaving the issue to interpretation, the DEATH BETS Act would expressly prohibit listed contracts tied to deadly or violent events on CFTC-registered venues. In practical terms, that would give regulators a firmer legal basis to reject or remove such products before they reach the public.
According to the CFTC’s recent enforcement advisory, the agency is already watching prediction markets for fraud and misuse of confidential information. Schiff’s proposal would go further by saying some categories of contracts should not exist on regulated exchanges at all.
Impact on Exchanges, Traders, and Regulators
If enacted, the bill would likely have its biggest immediate effect on exchanges and broker platforms that have expanded event-contract offerings. They would need to ensure that no listed product directly or indirectly references war, assassination, terrorism, or an individual’s death. That could also affect how platforms design adjacent contracts touching geopolitical crises or security events.
For traders, the measure would narrow the menu of available contracts but could also reduce legal uncertainty. One of the industry’s recurring problems has been the lack of a stable boundary between permissible forecasting markets and prohibited wagering. A clearer rule may help platforms avoid launching products that later face regulatory or political backlash.
For regulators, the bill would provide a more direct enforcement path. Instead of relying on broad interpretations of existing law, the CFTC could point to explicit statutory language. That may matter as event contracts continue to spread across retail trading apps and as more firms test the limits of what can be listed.
Supporters and Critics See Different Risks
Supporters of the bill argue that some markets should be off-limits regardless of demand. Their case rests on two main points:
- Ethics: Markets tied to death or war can appear to monetize suffering.
- Security: Traders with privileged information could profit from violent events.
- Market integrity: Public confidence may erode if exchanges list contracts seen as morally extreme.
- Regulatory clarity: Explicit rules can prevent years of litigation and uncertainty.
Critics of broader restrictions on prediction markets often argue that these contracts can reveal useful information and improve forecasting. Some also warn that if regulated U.S. venues are blocked, activity may simply move to offshore or less transparent platforms. Still, even many defenders of prediction markets have acknowledged that contracts involving assassination, terrorism, or war present unusually difficult legal and ethical questions.
What Comes Next in Congress
The DEATH BETS Act enters Congress at a moment when event contracts are already under intense scrutiny. Schiff, a member of the Senate Agriculture Committee, is positioning the bill as a targeted fix rather than a broad attack on prediction markets as a whole. Its progress will depend on whether lawmakers see the issue as a narrow moral boundary or part of a larger fight over the future of event-based trading in the United States.
The measure may also influence the regulatory debate even if it does not move quickly. Congressional attention alone can shape how exchanges, brokers, and the CFTC approach new listings. Firms considering aggressive expansion into geopolitical or mortality-linked contracts may now face greater political and reputational risk.
Conclusion
Schiff Introduces ‘DEATH BETS’ Act to Ban Wagering on War and Assassinations at a pivotal moment for U.S. prediction markets. As event contracts spread from specialized exchanges to mainstream retail platforms, the line between financial innovation and unacceptable speculation has become harder to ignore. Schiff’s bill seeks to draw that line clearly by banning contracts tied to war, assassination, terrorism, and death on federally regulated venues. Whether Congress advances the proposal or not, the legislation has already sharpened a central question for regulators and the industry: should any market be allowed to profit from the prospect of human catastrophe?
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the DEATH BETS Act?
It is legislation introduced by Sen. Adam Schiff on March 10, 2026, to explicitly prohibit CFTC-registered entities from listing contracts involving terrorism, assassination, war, or an individual’s death.
Why did Schiff introduce the bill?
Schiff said the measure is meant to stop markets from profiting from deadly events and to address risks tied to insider information, public trust, and national security.
Does the bill ban all prediction markets?
No. Based on Schiff’s announcement, the bill is targeted at contracts linked to war, assassination, terrorism, and death, not all event contracts.
Who regulates these contracts now?
The Commodity Futures Trading Commission regulates event contracts offered on registered exchanges and has recently issued enforcement guidance related to fraud and misuse of nonpublic information in prediction markets.
Why is this issue getting attention now?
Prediction markets have become more visible through platforms such as Kalshi and broker integrations, while legal disputes over political and sports contracts have exposed uncertainty in the current regulatory framework.
What happens next?
The bill must move through the legislative process in Congress. Even before any vote, it may influence how exchanges and regulators handle controversial event contracts.
