President Donald Trump has become an unavoidable figure in the debate over sports event prediction markets. Former White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney said the industry's future is more likely to be decided by regulators and the courts than by the president himself.
- Mick Mulvaney said prediction markets' future will likely be decided by regulators and the courts, not Trump.
- Speakers cautioned against overstating Donald Trump Jr.'s advisory role with Kalshi as evidence of direct White House involvement in prediction market policy.
- Panelists said the broader legal fight centers on federal commodities law, states' rights, and whether sports event contracts should remain subject to state gaming regulation.
Speaking during a fireside chat at the National Council of Legislators from Gaming States' Summer Meeting earlier this month, Mulvaney cautioned against assuming Trump's administration is actively shaping prediction market policy, even as the issue has drawn increased political attention because of Donald Trump Jr.'s advisory role with Kalshi.
"I don't think the president spends five minutes a month thinking about prediction markets," Mulvaney said. "This is just not something that's on his radar."
Other presidential priorities
The comments offered an inside perspective from one of Trump's most prominent former advisers as prediction markets become one of the most closely watched legal and regulatory battles in U.S. gaming. Kalshi has argued its sports event contracts fall under federal commodities law, while states contend the contracts amount to sports betting subject to state gaming regulation.
Those legal battles have fueled speculation that political considerations could influence the outcome. Trump Jr.'s role as a strategic adviser to Kalshi and Polymarket, combined with the president's appointments to the CFTC, has prompted questions about whether the administration could steer policy in the company's favor.
Mulvaney now leads the Gambling is Not Investing advocacy group, which works to prevent prediction markets from offering sports event contracts that are unregulated at the state level. A former member of Congress before serving as Trump’s chief of staff in 2019 and 2020, Mulvaney asked state lawmakers and gaming executives in attendance not to overstate the connection between the second Trump administration and the president’s son’s involvement in prediction markets.
"People assume because Donald Trump Jr. is involved that Donald Trump must be involved," Mulvaney said. "That's just not how this White House works."
Instead, he said personnel decisions at independent agencies often receive little attention from the Oval Office, leaving commissioners and staff with substantial autonomy once appointed.
"The president has much bigger things to worry about," Mulvaney said. "He hires people he trusts and expects them to do their jobs."
Legal scholar weighs in
That question has taken on growing significance as Kalshi continues to prevail in some federal courts while defending lawsuits brought by states including Nevada, New Jersey, and Maryland. Earlier in the conference, multiple attorneys general predicted the expanding litigation could reach the U.S. Supreme Court in 2027 if conflicting federal appellate decisions emerge.
Professor I. Nelson Rose, a longtime gaming law scholar, agreed politics has become increasingly intertwined with the prediction market debate but said the legal questions ultimately will determine the industry's future. Speaking at a different panel during the conference, Rose noted presidential appointments can influence regulatory priorities at the CFTC but said the courts are still likely to resolve the central legal dispute over whether federal commodities law preempts state gaming laws.
Rose said the involvement of Donald Trump Jr. has added another layer of public interest but cautioned against assuming it will determine the outcome of the litigation.
"Donald Trump Jr. is not the president," Rose said. "The courts are not going to decide this case based on who somebody's adviser is."
Legal questions
Instead, speakers said the industry now finds itself at the intersection of gaming regulation, commodities law, and constitutional questions over federalism. States maintain sports event contracts resemble sports betting and should be licensed and regulated under state gaming laws, while the leading prediction markets argue Congress placed those products under the exclusive jurisdiction of the CFTC.
The outcome could have implications well beyond sports. Throughout the NCLGS Summer Meeting, regulators repeatedly warned that a broad interpretation of federal authority could allow prediction market operators to expand into additional wagering products without obtaining state gaming licenses or complying with state consumer protection standards.
Nevada Gaming Control Board chairman Mike Dreitzer told conference attendees the state welcomes innovation but believes prediction-style products should operate within existing gaming frameworks that include licensing, responsible gambling safeguards, and regulatory oversight. Several attorneys general echoed those concerns during the conference, arguing the cases represent a broader fight over preserving state authority rather than opposing innovation itself.
For now, Mulvaney said the industry's future is more likely to be shaped by judges interpreting decades-old federal statutes than by political headlines.
"The lawyers are going to have a lot more to say about this than the politicians," Mulvaney said. "In the end, that's who's going to decide where prediction markets go from here."
