The Commodity Futures Trading Commission penalized a longtime White House teleprompter operator after finding he used advance access to President Trump’s remarks to bet on prediction markets, triggering fines, account bans, and a public rebuke from the administration.

The CFTC found that Gabriel Perez “misappropriated” nonpublic information from his government job by trading event contracts on Kalshi that paid out if the president said specific words or phrases. Regulators ordered Perez to surrender more than $107,000 in profits, pay a $65,000 civil penalty, and accept a three-year ban from trading event contracts. The CFTC called his conduct a “breach of his duty of trust and confidence” and noted the civil penalty was a “substantial discount” because of his “exemplary cooperation.”

Kalshi’s surveillance systems flagged suspicious trades tied to upcoming presidential speeches, which led the exchange to freeze his account and notify federal regulators. Market makers had raised alarms internally and the platform’s compliance team referred evidence to the CFTC, prompting a formal enforcement action. Kalshi’s head of enforcement, Robert DeNault, posted: “A Kalshi surveillance investigation caught a White House staffer engaging in prohibited trading activity… It doesn’t matter who you are: violate our rules or federal law and you will face the consequences.”

Perez’s betting activity reportedly covered speeches from December 2025 through February 2026 and included multiple major addresses. Kalshi froze more than $90,000 in suspected profits while its compliance review was underway, and the exchange later permanently banned Perez from trading on the platform. He was placed on paid administrative leave in July as those inquiries progressed, and the CFTC moved ahead with civil penalties rather than criminal charges.

The teleprompter role gave Perez one of the last looks at the president’s prepared remarks before delivery, creating an obvious insider advantage for event contracts tied to specific words. Those “presidential mention” contracts allowed traders to bet on whether certain terms would be spoken, letting someone with privileged access convert confidential information into betting gains. Once the trades were detected and referred, regulators and Kalshi took coordinated action that stopped further activity and led to the civil enforcement.

The White House confirmed the investigation and Perez’s removal from duty, with press secretary Karoline Leavitt telling reporters, “Obviously, I’m aware of the report. The president is, too. I spoke with him about it. He believes it’s deeply unfortunate and, frankly, a disgrace.” Official statements emphasized swift steps to replace the teleprompter operator while the matter was resolved and to limit any ongoing exposure of prepared remarks.

Federal prosecutors declined to bring criminal charges, so the outcome remains a civil penalty and marketplace ban rather than a criminal conviction. The CFTC’s action, however, effectively bars Perez from participating in regulated event contract markets for three years and demonstrates the agency’s willingness to enforce insider-knowledge rules in prediction markets. The episode also shows how exchanges can play a critical role in policing traders and referring suspicious behavior to regulators.

Kalshi framed the case as proof its surveillance and compliance work can stop corruption of market integrity, saying the exchange provided regulators with evidence “as we do in any referral.” That position underlines growing scrutiny of prediction markets as they gain popularity and test regulatory boundaries related to confidential government information. Industry observers say platforms and federal agencies will face mounting pressure to tighten controls as event-contract trading expands.

Questions remain about the full scope of Perez’s trades and the internal controls that allowed privileged access to be leveraged for profit. The CFTC’s public notice omitted some specifics, leaving details like exact contract terms and the full employment outcome unclear. Still, the administration’s blunt response and the civil enforcement action send a clear message about consequences for staffers who exploit access for personal gain, and they highlight the importance of accountability for routine White House roles.

Americans expect public servants to follow the law and honor the trust of their positions, and episodes like this one fuel concerns when that trust is violated. When staffers turn confidential access into personal profit, the political cost can ripple far beyond the direct financial penalties and into public confidence in institutions.