A Reuters/Ipsos poll found that most Americans oppose using prediction markets to bet on U.S. elections and government actions, with 69% of Democrats and 61% of Republicans against election-result contracts. The September 30 to October 5 survey adds public-opinion pressure to an industry fight already playing out among the CFTC, state regulators, Congress, Kalshi and Polymarket.
The Reuters/Ipsos poll, reported by Reuters on October 12, surveyed 4,506 U.S. adults online and nationwide, with a margin of error of about two percentage points. Its results land as prediction markets have moved from niche political forecasting tools into a regulated-business fight over whether event contracts are financial products, gambling products, or both.
How many Americans oppose betting on elections and government events?
A majority in both major parties opposes election-result betting through prediction markets. Reuters reported that 69% of Democrats and 61% of Republicans said they opposed using prediction markets to bet on election results.
The opposition was not limited to elections. Reuters/Ipsos found that 65% of Americans opposed prediction-market betting on U.S. military actions, while 63% opposed betting on government policy announcements or decisions. Support for those two categories was much smaller: Reuters reported that 8% supported betting on U.S. military actions and 9% supported betting on government policy announcements or decisions.
That distinction matters. The poll shows broad opposition to election contracts across party lines, but the 8% and 9% support figures apply to military-action and government-policy betting categories, not to party-level support for election-result contracts.
Do Americans consider prediction markets gambling?
Yes. Reuters/Ipsos found that three-quarters of Americans agreed that using prediction markets to wager on real-world events is a form of gambling, while 8% said it is not. That finding goes to the central regulatory fight around the sector.
Kalshi operates as a federally regulated derivatives exchange, and Polymarket has built a large event-contract marketplace around politics, sports, culture and world events. State gambling regulators have argued that many of these products function like betting and should be subject to state gambling laws. The Commodity Futures Trading Commission has asserted federal jurisdiction over event contracts as financial products.
Public opinion does not decide that legal question. It does, however, shape the political environment around it. A poll showing that 75% of Americans see prediction markets as gambling gives state regulators and lawmakers an easy message when they argue for tighter restrictions, especially in categories tied to elections, public policy and national security.
Sports drew less resistance than politics or government actions. Reuters/Ipsos found that 43% of respondents opposed betting on professional sports through prediction markets, while 29% supported it. Opposition was still the plurality position, but the margin was narrower than in election, military and policy categories.
What do voters think about members of Congress betting?
The strongest consensus in the poll concerned lawmakers and staff. Reuters/Ipsos found that 93% of Democrats and 89% of Republicans said it was inappropriate for members of Congress or their staff to bet on political events. Only 6% of Democrats and 8% of Republicans said it was appropriate.
That result gives Congress a narrower issue where public opinion appears especially clear: restrictions on officials and staff trading political-event contracts. Reuters noted that the Senate in April barred senators, staff and other officers from using prediction markets, and several Democratic lawmakers have introduced bills aimed at limiting the industry.
The concern is not theoretical for regulators. Reuters reported in August that more than 150 accounts on Polymarket International may have traded on inside military information. Reuters also reported that former Republican congressman George Santos agreed to pay $35,000 to resolve government allegations of manipulative trading after betting through Kalshi on whether he would attend the State of the Union address. Santos did not admit to the allegations.
What did respondents say about regulation?
The Reuters story included comments from poll respondents who framed the issue as a need for guardrails, a concern about social effects and a belief that prediction markets should face gambling-style rules. One respondent, Ronna Schmoker, a 72-year-old Democrat from the Dallas area, supported personal choice but said guardrails were needed. Michael Clark, a 48-year-old conservative Texan, objected more broadly to a society where people bet on real-world outcomes. Janessa Manning, a 48-year-old Democrat in Detroit, said prediction markets should be regulated like gambling.
Those comments track the poll’s quantitative result: many Americans distinguish less sharply than the industry does between event contracts and betting. Prediction-market operators argue that their products aggregate information, help forecast outcomes and let users hedge against real-world risks. Critics argue that contracts tied to elections, wars and government action create incentives for insider trading, manipulation and public distrust.
Reuters reported that a Polymarket spokesperson said many visits to the platform are for viewing markets rather than trading, and argued that prediction markets provide public informational value. Kalshi and Polymarket have also said they work with authorities, refer suspicious accounts and use restrictions meant to reduce misconduct.
How does this compare with other recent polling?
The Reuters/Ipsos results point in the same broad direction as other 2026 surveys, though the questions and samples differ. A June report on a Politico/Public First poll, covered by Casino Guru, said 44% of U.S. adults believed betting on elections should be illegal, while 30% said it should be legal. The same report said 53% supported sports prediction markets.
A separate Scripps News/Talker Research survey of 2,000 U.S. registered voters, conducted April 14 to April 22, found that 73% were concerned that people with insider knowledge can manipulate and profit from prediction-market sites. The survey also found that 63% had little to no confidence that insider trading can be stopped.
The surveys are not directly comparable. The Reuters/Ipsos poll asked about opposition to prediction-market betting on specific categories of events, while the Politico/Public First and Scripps surveys used different wording and samples. Still, none of the cited surveys shows majority public support for political-event contracts.
Why does the poll matter for regulation?
The poll matters because it gives lawmakers and regulators a current, bipartisan public-opinion data point at a moment when the industry is seeking broader legitimacy. Prediction-market companies have argued that event contracts are regulated financial instruments and useful forecasting tools. The Reuters/Ipsos numbers show that many Americans instead view the products through the lens of gambling, particularly when contracts involve elections, military action or government decisions.
The bipartisan split is important. A 61% Republican and 69% Democratic majority against election-result betting leaves little partisan cover for defending those contracts as a popular consumer product. The numbers on congressional betting are even more politically potent, with close to nine in 10 Republicans and more than nine in 10 Democrats calling it inappropriate for members of Congress or their staff to bet on political events.
The poll does not measure actual trading behavior. It does not say how many of the 4,506 respondents have accounts on Kalshi, Polymarket or other platforms, nor does it show whether opposition would translate into support for a specific bill or enforcement action. It does, however, define the public-opinion terrain around the next stage of the fight.
What happens next?
The next test is whether the CFTC, Congress and state gambling regulators cite the Reuters/Ipsos findings as they push competing approaches to event-contract oversight. Reuters reported that the Trump administration is pursuing federal regulations for the industry, while states continue to challenge the federal framing of prediction markets as financial products.
For Kalshi, Polymarket and their competitors, the October 12 poll is a warning sign: the sector’s legal argument may be advancing faster than its public case. The strongest near-term political opening is likely around restrictions on public officials and staff, where the Reuters/Ipsos numbers show overwhelming opposition in both parties.
Meta description: Reuters/Ipsos poll finds bipartisan opposition to election prediction markets as regulators weigh Kalshi, Polymarket and CFTC rules.
Tags: Reuters/Ipsos, Kalshi, Polymarket, CFTC, Election Betting, Prediction Markets
market_platform: none-if-cross-platform
category: Regulation
