U.S. Senators Elizabeth Warren and Jeff Merkley have asked the White House to explain how it is preventing staff from using confidential government information to trade prediction-market contracts, following a regulatory settlement with President Donald Trump’s former teleprompter operator. The lawmakers want answers from White House Counsel Will Scharf by November 23.
The inquiry centres on Gabriel Perez, who agreed in August to pay $172,539.02 to settle Commodity Futures Trading Commission findings that he used advance access to Trump’s prepared speeches to trade on Kalshi. The two Democrats are asking whether other employees engaged in similar activity, what internal investigation took place and what additional safeguards have been introduced since the case became public.
In their November 10 announcement of the letter, Warren and Merkley argued that the White House had not publicly demonstrated sufficient follow-up. That criticism is the senators’ assessment, not a regulatory finding that current White House policies violate the law. The request itself does not establish wrongdoing by other employees.
Senators seek staff-trading records and ethics safeguards
The letter, dated November 9, asks Scharf whether other White House employees have used nonpublic information for bets, trades or similar transactions for personal gain. It also seeks details about training on employee ethics duties and restrictions on financial transactions involving government information.
The senators want to know the outcome of the White House’s review of Perez, whether officials communicated with the CFTC or Justice Department and what action followed. They also seek a copy of any internal guidance warning staff against insider betting, including how and when that guidance was distributed and whether employees acknowledged it. A further question concerns whether White House officials would recommend clemency if Perez were to face criminal liability.
The White House sent staff a warning about prediction-market trading using nonpublic information on March 24, according to reporting by CBS News. Following the public allegations in July, a White House spokesperson said employees were expected to follow strict ethics guidelines, and press secretary Karoline Leavitt said Perez had been placed on unpaid administrative leave. Those actions provide context for the letter, but the White House has not publicly disclosed a complete review of its response.
The senators’ concerns extend to relationships between the president’s family and prediction-market businesses, including Donald Trump Jr.’s advisory and financial interests in the industry. The letter raises oversight and conflict-of-interest questions; it does not allege that Trump Jr. participated in Perez’s trades or that such relationships prove a failure of enforcement.
CFTC ordered $172,539 in restitution and penalties
The CFTC’s August 28 settlement found that Perez traded contracts paying out on whether Trump would say particular words during presidential appearances. According to the regulator, his White House role gave him access to speech drafts before delivery, allowing him to take positions on words that appeared or did not appear in the texts.
The order required disgorgement of $107,539.02 in profits and a civil penalty of $65,000, totaling $172,539.02, plus a three-year ban on trading on CFTC-registered markets. Perez consented without admitting or denying the findings. The regulator reduced his penalty because of what it described as extensive cooperation and credited Kalshi with assisting the investigation.
DaveFinances previously examined the Perez settlement and how advance access to presidential speeches became a trading advantage. The case involved 43 contracts across 14 presidential mention markets, 39 of them profitable, according to the CFTC order.
There is a minor numerical inconsistency in the public record: Warren’s office described the amount as $173,539 in its November 10 statement. The CFTC’s itemised figures add up to $172,539.02, which is the amount used here.
The firm has faced other questions about politically sensitive event contracts. In October, Kalshi investigated unusually well-timed wagers on the selection of a White House press secretary, although no finding of insider trading was established in that separate inquiry. The two cases should not be combined or attributed to the same traders.
Congressional scrutiny extends beyond one White House employee
Warren’s request comes as prediction-market platforms face wider congressional examination of monitoring, employee access and the use of information unavailable to other traders. In September, the House Oversight Committee expanded an investigation that began with Kalshi and Polymarket to other providers including Crypto.com, Hyperliquid and PredictIt, seeking information about surveillance and staff trading restrictions.
That House inquiry into prediction-market insider-trading controls examined the platforms themselves. Warren and Merkley’s new letter instead concentrates on the employer’s controls at the source of the confidential information. A platform may detect and report suspicious trading, but only the employer can fully explain who was allowed to see restricted documents and what internal checks were in place.
The Senate Banking Committee could also place greater attention on prediction markets after Democrats’ gains in the November elections, with Warren expected to chair the committee in the next Congress. That change is relevant to the potential reach of future oversight, but it does not turn this information request into legislation, a subpoena or a new CFTC enforcement action.
The next concrete date is November 23, the deadline requested by the senators. A White House response could establish whether its ethics training, employee-trading rules and investigation procedures changed after the Perez case. Until then, the record shows a concluded CFTC settlement involving one former aide and a congressional request for information about broader preventitive controls, not evidence that other White House staff traded improperly.
Johan Shamshad is Editor-in-Chief at Dave Finances, covering financial markets, digital assets, trading platforms, brokers, fintech, payments and regulation. Since 2023, he has also worked as an editor at Gulf News, the UAE English-language newspaper published by Al Nisr Publishing LLC. His work focuses on market-moving developments, company disclosures, regulatory changes and trading infrastructure, with an emphasis on primary-source verification and practical context for traders and investors.