New DEATH BETS Act Would End War and Death Wagering

A new bill in Congress aims to shut down a controversial corner of the prediction market industry: contracts tied to war, assassination, terrorism, and an individual’s death. Senator Adam Schiff introduced the DEATH BETS Act on March 10, 2026, saying the measure would explicitly bar Commodity Futures Trading Commission-regulated platforms from listing contracts that let traders profit from violence or loss of life. The proposal arrives as lawmakers and regulators debate how far event-based markets should be allowed to go in the United States.

What the DEATH BETS Act would do

The New DEATH BETS Act Would Stop Betting on Wars and Death, Say US Lawmakers by amending the legal framework around event contracts overseen by the CFTC. According to Schiff’s office, the bill would explicitly prohibit any CFTC-registered entity from listing a contract that “involves, relates to, or references” terrorism, assassination, war, or an individual’s death. Representative Mike Levin is set to introduce companion legislation in the House, making the effort bicameral from the outset.

The proposal is designed to close what supporters describe as a regulatory gap. Existing federal law already gives the CFTC authority to block certain event contracts that are contrary to the public interest, including contracts involving war, terrorism, and assassination. But lawmakers backing the new bill argue that current rules do not clearly and comprehensively address contracts that resolve based on a person’s death or closely related physical harm.

That distinction matters because prediction markets have expanded rapidly in recent years. Platforms have offered contracts on elections, economic data, weather events, and other real-world outcomes. Supporters of event contracts say they can serve as hedging tools or information markets. Critics counter that some categories create moral hazards, invite manipulation, or undermine public trust when the subject matter is violence, democratic processes, or human life.

Why lawmakers say the issue is urgent

Schiff framed the bill as a national security and public interest measure. In announcing the legislation, he said betting on war and death can create incentives for insiders to profit from classified or nonpublic information, while also encouraging harmful conduct. His office argued that regulators need a clearer statutory mandate as the CFTC revisits the rules governing event contracts.

The urgency of the debate has increased because federal regulators are already dealing with misconduct concerns in prediction markets. In late February 2026, the CFTC’s Division of Enforcement issued an advisory after two enforcement cases involving misuse of nonpublic information and fraud tied to certain prediction markets traded on KalshiEX, a designated contract market. The advisory did not say all event contracts are improper, but it underscored the agency’s concern that these markets can be vulnerable to abuse.

Lawmakers have also pointed to examples outside the traditional U.S. regulated framework. In a February 23, 2026 letter to the CFTC chair, Schiff urged the agency to make clear that contracts resolving upon or closely correlating to an individual’s death are prohibited. That letter cited a January 5, 2026 Wall Street Journal report that an unknown trader had placed $20,000 on a Polymarket contract tied to whether Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro would be removed from power by January 31, 2026. Schiff’s office used that example to argue that markets tied to violent or destabilizing outcomes can attract speculative activity with troubling incentives.

The legal backdrop at the CFTC

The fight over the New DEATH BETS Act Would Stop Betting on Wars and Death, Say US Lawmakers is unfolding against a broader legal and regulatory battle over event contracts. Under the Commodity Exchange Act, the CFTC can determine that certain categories of contracts are contrary to the public interest. In a 2024 proposed rulemaking, the agency reiterated that contracts involving terrorism, assassination, or war may not be listed for trading.

The CFTC has also previously moved against political event contracts. In September 2023, then-Chair Rostin Behnam said the agency’s order blocking certain congressional control contracts on Kalshi rested on findings that the contracts involved gaming and activity unlawful under state law, and were contrary to the public interest. That decision became part of a larger national debate over whether prediction markets are legitimate financial tools or simply a new form of gambling wrapped in derivatives law.

Since then, the issue has only broadened. Some lawmakers have focused on election contracts, while others have turned to contracts tied to violence or mortality. Senator Jeff Merkley, for example, has argued against election gambling and has promoted separate legislation aimed at banning it. The DEATH BETS Act is narrower, but it reflects the same core concern: that some markets may be legal in form while still being socially or politically corrosive in practice.

Impact on prediction markets and traders

If enacted, the bill would likely narrow the range of contracts that CFTC-regulated exchanges can offer. For platforms seeking to expand event-based trading, that could remove a category of contracts that lawmakers now view as beyond the bounds of acceptable market design. For traders, it would draw a clearer line between contracts tied to measurable public events and those tied to violence, death, or armed conflict.

The practical effect may be felt most strongly in compliance and product review. Exchanges and clearing entities would need to assess whether a proposed contract directly references prohibited subjects or is structured in a way that effectively tracks them. That could include contracts that do not explicitly mention death or war but resolve based on outcomes closely linked to those events. Schiff’s February letter suggests lawmakers want regulators to look beyond labels and examine economic substance.

For the broader industry, the bill may also shape investor perception. Prediction market advocates often argue that these platforms improve price discovery and aggregate information. Opponents say the most sensational contracts damage the credibility of the entire sector. By carving out war and death-related contracts, Congress could be signaling that event markets may continue to develop in the U.S., but only within tighter ethical and public-interest boundaries.

Supporters’ case and likely counterarguments

Supporters of the bill argue that markets tied to death and war are fundamentally different from contracts on inflation, weather, or interest rates. They say these contracts can create perverse incentives, raise the risk of insider trading based on sensitive information, and normalize speculation on human suffering. According to Schiff’s office, there is “no justification” for gambling on lives and no public benefit from such markets.

Critics of tighter restrictions, however, are likely to argue that event contracts can serve legitimate hedging or forecasting functions. Some legal and market participants have long maintained that prediction markets can provide useful signals about geopolitical risk, policy outcomes, or operational disruptions. They may also argue that existing law already gives the CFTC enough authority, making new legislation unnecessary. Those arguments have surfaced in adjacent debates over political event contracts and the scope of the agency’s power.

The central policy question is whether the public-interest standard should be interpreted narrowly or broadly. A narrow view would permit most contracts unless they clearly violate existing statutory categories. A broader view would allow regulators and lawmakers to block markets that may be technically innovative but socially harmful. The DEATH BETS Act clearly adopts the broader approach for contracts linked to violence and mortality.

What comes next

The bill has only just been introduced, so its path through Congress remains uncertain. Still, the timing is notable. Schiff sits on the Senate Agriculture Committee, which has jurisdiction over the CFTC, and the measure arrives as the agency faces growing scrutiny over how it handles event contracts. Companion House legislation from Levin could help keep the issue active in both chambers.

Even if the bill does not move quickly, it may influence the regulatory debate. Congress often shapes agency behavior not only through enacted statutes but also through hearings, letters, and public pressure. Schiff’s February 2026 letter and the March 2026 bill together send a clear message that at least some lawmakers want the CFTC to take a harder line now, not later.

For now, the New DEATH BETS Act Would Stop Betting on Wars and Death, Say US Lawmakers stands as one of the clearest attempts yet to define the outer limits of America’s growing prediction market industry. Whether Congress passes it or regulators act on their own, the debate is likely to shape how the U.S. draws the line between financial innovation and betting on tragedy.

Conclusion

The DEATH BETS Act reflects a broader shift in Washington’s approach to event contracts. Rather than debating prediction markets in the abstract, lawmakers are now focusing on specific categories they believe cross an ethical and regulatory line. By targeting contracts tied to war, terrorism, assassination, and death, the bill seeks to remove some of the most controversial products from CFTC-regulated markets. Whether that becomes law or remains a marker in a larger policy fight, it has already sharpened the national debate over what should never become a tradable wager.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the DEATH BETS Act?
It is a bill introduced by Senator Adam Schiff on March 10, 2026 that would explicitly prohibit CFTC-registered entities from listing contracts involving terrorism, assassination, war, or an individual’s death. Representative Mike Levin is expected to introduce a House companion bill.

Why are lawmakers pushing this bill now?
Supporters say prediction markets tied to death or war create ethical problems, national security risks, and opportunities for misuse of nonpublic information. The push also comes amid broader scrutiny of event contracts and recent CFTC enforcement activity.

Does current law already restrict these kinds of contracts?
Yes, federal law already allows the CFTC to block certain contracts that are contrary to the public interest, including those involving war, terrorism, and assassination. Backers of the new bill say the law should more clearly cover contracts tied to an individual’s death.

Would the bill ban all prediction markets?
No. Based on the bill announcement, it targets a specific set of contracts tied to violence and death, not all event contracts. Other categories, such as some economic or weather-related contracts, are not the focus of this legislation.

How could this affect companies like Kalshi or similar platforms?
If enacted, the bill would likely force CFTC-regulated exchanges to avoid listing any contract that directly or indirectly references prohibited subjects such as war or death. It would also likely increase compliance scrutiny around how contracts are structured.

What happens next in Congress?
The bill must be introduced, referred to committee, and then advance through both chambers before it can become law. Its immediate impact may be political and regulatory, even before any final vote.