As prediction markets push deeper into sports wagering and even political bets, tribal leaders say they keep hearing the same thing on Capitol Hill. Congress know there’s a legal problem, but they are reluctant to step into the prediction markets debate without political cover.

That particular frustration was front and center during a recent episode of The New Normal, the Indian Gaming Association’s policy webcast on Wednesday (February 25). Chairman David Z. Bean joined host Victor Rocha to talk through months of meetings with tribal governments, regulators and members of Congress across the country.

“It might be a shorter list to talk about what I haven’t been doing,” Bean said, reflecting on his travel schedule and outreach. Nearly everywhere he goes, he added, the conversation circles back to prediction markets. “There’s genuine concern. While this is a new topic, it is a complex topic… and tribes all around the nation are concerned.”

Bean described the rise of sports-related “event contracts” offered through federally regulated prediction platforms as a direct hit to tribal authority. In his view, the products sidestep the carefully negotiated framework that has governed Indian gaming for decades, slipping through gaps in federal oversight while avoiding the state and tribal compacts that define the industry.

He said many tribal leaders are still trying to grasp how quickly the market has moved. “Folks are just in awe, they’re in shock that this prediction, this illegal online unregulated prediction market sports betting, is able to grow so fast,” Bean said. He pointed out that Indian gaming took more than four decades to grow into a $43.9 billion annual industry. By comparison, prediction platforms have scaled up in just over a year.

Much of the anger is targeted at the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC). Platforms such as Kalshi are allowed to self-certify contracts, a process Bean argues would never fly in tribal gaming. “It’d be nice if we could certify, ‘Oh yeah, Uncle Sam, I paid my fair share of taxes,’” he said. “They have a system of checks and balances… with respect to these prediction market contracts, you can bet on anything.”

Congress hesitation on prediction markets frustrates advocates

The concern is no longer confined to tribal governments as more than 40 state attorneys general have signed onto amicus briefs challenging prediction market contracts. Bean called that show of support consequential, saying it demonstrates how widely the issue is resonating.

He has met with attorneys general in Idaho and reached out to Republican AGs nationwide. In his telling, partisan lines blur quickly once the legal questions come into focus. “This is not a red problem, it’s not a blue problem – it’s a legal problem,” Bean said.

Rocha pointed to Utah as an example. The state bans sports betting outright, yet it has taken an aggressive stance against prediction markets. “They’re awake now,” Rocha said. “They’re very aware that their state sovereignty is under attack.”

Still, Congress remains the sticking point. Bean said he has sat down with members of the Senate Agriculture Committee, which oversees the CFTC. In private conversations, he said, lawmakers concede the situation is troubling. But public action has not followed.

“One on one in their office, in a safe space, they’re going to tell you it’s a problem,” Bean said. “But that’s where it ends.”

According to Bean, some members are wary of tangling with the administration or with financial interests backing the platforms. “They simply are not prepared to take on the administration,” he said.

This caution comes as outside scrutiny grows. News reports have raised questions about insider trading and controversial contracts tied to geopolitical events. Some members of Congress have introduced bills aimed at blocking insider trading on prediction platforms. Senators have also urged the CFTC to rein in contracts linked to death, war and violence.

Rocha argued the pace of expansion is no accident. “They’re trying to move as fast as they can to cement their profits,” he said. In his view, companies are racing to establish themselves before tribes and states can coordinate a response.

Building a wider coalition

Bean and Rocha both said the answer lies in coalition building. They noted that tribes are increasingly aligned with state governments, commercial gaming operators and national Native organizations such as the National Congress of American Indians.

Bean labeled prediction markets an “existential threat” to tribal and commercial gaming alike. The success of Indian gaming, he argued, rests on a foundation of strict oversight and negotiated compacts. “We have grown because of strong regulation,” he said.

For tribal governments, the issue goes beyond revenue. Sovereignty sits at the core of the debate. Compacts between tribes and states outline where and how gaming can occur, often forming the backbone of local economies. If prediction markets can offer similar wagers nationwide under a different regulatory banner, tribal leaders fear that balance unravels.

He also raised alarms about consumer safeguards and the integrity of sports, especially at the college level. Without the regulatory structures that govern traditional sportsbooks, Bean said, athletes could face new risks. “That puts a lot of pressure on athletes,” he said. “When you’re a struggling student, someone offers you a few bucks — that’s very tempting.”

He suggested that looser oversight creates openings not only for harassment but for corruption. In communities where college sports loom large, even the perception of impropriety can do lasting damage.

Looking ahead, Bean said tribes are preparing for a fight on multiple fronts. Legislative fixes remain one avenue, but court battles appear increasingly likely as states challenge federal authority and the scope of the CFTC’s power. “We see this ending up at the Supreme Court,” he said, pointing to conflicting rulings and mounting resistance from state officials.

In the meantime, tribal leaders plan to keep pressing their case. Education campaigns, voter outreach and repeated meetings with policymakers are all part of the strategy. Bean said the message must be delivered consistently and publicly, not just behind closed doors. “We have to get a little louder,” Bean said. “This is about regulation. This is about tribal sovereignty. This is about state sovereignty.”

Rocha closed with a reminder that the current landscape is not fixed. Laws evolve, and markets can be reshaped. “Whatever can be done can be undone.”

Featured image: Screenshot from The New Normal

The post Congress knows prediction markets violate rules but won’t act without cover, says IGA chair appeared first on ReadWrite.