A White House Teleprompter Operator Is Fined for Betting on Trump's Speeches
The Commodity Futures Trading Commission has ordered Gabriel Perez, a former White House teleprompter operator, to pay more than $172,000 for using inside information to bet on President Donald Trump's speeches. The CFTC ordered Perez to surrender profits of $107,539.02 and pay a civil penalty of $65,000. BBC News
Perez placed trades on what President Trump would say during addresses between December 2025 and February 2026 on Kalshi, a prediction markets platform. Prediction markets let users buy contracts that pay out based on the outcome of future events — in this case, whether Trump would use certain words or phrases. The CFTC said Perez had "misappropriated" his prior knowledge of Trump's speeches to place bets "in breach of his duty of trust and confidence." Perez's civil penalty was reduced due to his "exemplary co-operation" with the investigation. BBC News
Perez was banned from trading for three years. He had operated Donald Trump's teleprompter since 2016. AP News
Kalshi analysts noticed unusual betting on "mention markets" — contracts where users predict whether a speaker will use common terms — in March. Kalshi used account data to find that the user was a federal employee operating White House teleprompters, and reported the activity to the regulator. BBC News
Kalshi's lead lawyer Bobby DeNault welcomed the CFTC decision, writing on X that violating rules or federal law would bring consequences. In July, the White House Management Office sent a letter to aides telling them not to place bets on prediction markets. BBC News
In July, then-press secretary Karoline Leavitt said Perez was on unpaid leave and would not return to his post. BBC News Reuters reported that Perez was fired after allegedly using advance knowledge of Trump's speeches to place bets. Reuters
The broader context here involves how regulators treat prediction markets and what counts as material non-public information. The CFTC's enforcement action applies a framework typically used in traditional commodity and derivatives markets to prediction market contracts. The charge of misappropriation, as framed by the regulator, rests on the breach of a duty of trust and confidence owed by Perez to the White House — essentially, converting advance access to speech text into a financial advantage.
This case also raises questions about insider information in markets where the underlying asset is political rhetoric rather than corporate earnings or commodity supply. Prediction markets like Kalshi, which offer contracts on political events and speech content, create an environment where knowing something before the public does carries direct financial value. Think of it like a sports bettor who knows the outcome of a game before it is played. For market participants and regulators, the enforcement action draws a line between legitimate participation and the exploitation of positional advantage.
From a regulatory perspective, the $65,000 civil penalty, reduced for cooperation, suggests the CFTC sought a proportional response — one that acknowledged Perez's assistance while still establishing a deterrent. The three-year trading ban further restricts Perez's access to these markets.
Looking at what this means for prediction market integrity, the detection and reporting by Kalshi's internal analysts played a central role. The platform's ability to identify unusual betting patterns through account data and subsequently self-report to the CFTC points to a compliance mechanism operating within the prediction market ecosystem.
The institutional response from the White House, including the July letter from the Management Office to aides, reflects an effort to set boundaries for federal employees regarding prediction markets. The guidance prohibits betting on these platforms, addressing the potential for conflicts of interest and information leakage.
For the CFTC, this enforcement action provides a concrete example of applying its regulatory authority to prediction markets. The case establishes a precedent that advance access to political speech content, when used for financial gain on a regulated platform, constitutes misappropriation subject to civil penalties. The distinction between public knowledge and proprietary access to information remains the core issue.
