Most Americans oppose allowing people to place bets on elections, military actions and government policy decisions through prediction markets, according to a new Reuters/Ipsos poll. The findings show skepticism toward a rapidly growing industry led by platforms such as Kalshi and Polymarket, which have expanded from sports and economic forecasts into markets linked to political and public events. Opposition crossed party lines, suggesting that the public debate is not simply a partisan dispute over regulation.
Election betting faces broad opposition
The poll found strong resistance to allowing wagers on U.S. election outcomes. Roughly 69% of Democrats and 61% of Republicans opposed the practice.
Only a small minority said they supported election betting, according to the survey.
Military-action markets are even more sensitive
Respondents were also strongly opposed to markets that allow bets on military operations or government decisions.
Critics argue that such contracts create disturbing incentives and could potentially reward people with access to sensitive information.
Prediction markets have grown rapidly
Platforms including Kalshi and Polymarket have attracted more users as traders bet on elections, interest-rate decisions, economic data and entertainment outcomes.
Supporters say market prices can aggregate information and sometimes forecast events more accurately than traditional polling.
Most Americans see them as gambling
The Reuters/Ipsos survey found that about three-quarters of Americans view prediction markets as a form of gambling.
That perception matters because the industry often argues that its products should be regulated as financial contracts rather than traditional betting.
Federal and state regulators disagree
The Commodity Futures Trading Commission has authority over certain event contracts at the federal level, while state gambling regulators argue that some prediction markets fall under their jurisdiction.
This conflict has created legal battles over whether federally regulated platforms can offer contracts that states would otherwise prohibit.
The Trump administration favors federal oversight
The administration has supported the CFTC’s role in regulating prediction markets, arguing for a consistent national framework.
State regulators worry that this could allow platforms to bypass local gambling laws.
Insider information is a central concern
Betting on government action creates obvious questions about officials or contractors who may know the outcome before the public.
For example, a person with advance knowledge of a military decision or regulatory announcement could theoretically profit from that information.
Lawmakers are considering restrictions
Congress has debated limits on political figures and government employees participating in certain event markets.
The challenge is designing rules that prevent conflicts of interest without banning legitimate forecasting tools.
Supporters argue markets provide useful signals
Prediction-market advocates say prices can reveal collective expectations in real time and help businesses or researchers measure uncertainty.
Economic contracts tied to inflation or interest rates can also serve risk-management functions similar to other financial derivatives.
Critics question social consequences
Opponents argue that turning elections, wars or public-health decisions into betting products can undermine trust in institutions and normalize financial speculation on harmful events.
The ethical concern becomes especially strong when markets involve death, conflict or national security.
The poll shows bipartisan skepticism
One of the most important findings is that opposition does not map neatly onto party affiliation. Majorities of both Democrats and Republicans opposed election betting.
That could make tighter regulation politically easier than many other issues in Washington.
The industry is likely to keep growing
Despite public skepticism, trading volumes on major platforms have increased and investors continue to fund the sector.
The next phase will depend on court rulings, CFTC policy and whether Congress sets clearer limits on which real-world events can become tradable contracts.
A regulatory identity crisis
The core issue is whether prediction markets are primarily gambling venues, financial exchanges or information tools. Different answers lead to very different legal frameworks.
The Reuters/Ipsos poll suggests the public is currently leaning toward the gambling interpretation, especially when politics and government decisions are involved.
Sources
- Reuters/Ipsos poll conducted Sept. 30-Oct. 5, 2026
- Reuters, Oct. 12, 2026
- Public CFTC and state-regulator debate on event contracts
Sports-style contracts are expanding the regulatory debate
Prediction-market platforms have also expanded into sports and entertainment, increasing overlap with industries traditionally regulated as gambling. State officials argue that federal event-contract rules should not automatically displace licensing systems built around consumer protection, age limits and problem-gambling controls.
Platforms counter that exchange-traded event contracts are structurally different from a sportsbook because participants trade against one another and prices can convey information. Courts and regulators will have to decide whether that distinction is legally meaningful when the underlying event is an election, a military decision or a sporting result.
