Senate candidates discuss healthcare, immigration

(The Center Square) – The U.S. Department of Education is reducing student loan interest rates for borrowers, but critics argue the move could cost taxpayers billions of dollars.

The Education Department announced this week that federal student loan borrowers enrolled in automatic payments will be eligible for a 1% interest rate reduction beginning July 1.

Borrowers who plan to enroll in auto pay by Sept. 30, 2026, and those who are enrolled, will receive this reduction in the interest rate through June 30, 2028. 

Federal student loan interest rates currently range from 6.39% to 7.94% for undergraduate and graduate borrowers. The average student loan balance in the U.S. is about $40,000, while the federal student loan portfolio totals approximately $1.8 trillion.

Education Under Secretary Nicholas Kent said the Trump administration's temporary student loan interest rate reduction is intended to help borrowers manage repayment and explore affordable repayment plan options.

Before COVID-19, over 80% of student loan borrowers were actively in repayment plans and currently, due to the previous administration's policies on student loan forgiveness programs, only 40% are enrolled in either auto pay to active repayment. 

The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit, criticized the Education Department's new policy.

According to the organization, the change could cost taxpayers at least $5 billion and effectively amounts to a form of student debt cancellation because it reduces the total amount borrowers repay over the life of their loans rather than lowering monthly payments.

CRFB President Maya MacGuineas said the policy primarily benefits borrowers who are already making payments on their loans.

“Make no mistake: Quadrupling the auto-pay incentive is debt cancellation by another name. And worse, it’s targeted at people already making repayments,” MacGuineas said. “The auto-pay interest deductions don't even reduce monthly payments or improve affordability — they just wipe out debt balances, especially for high-earning professionals that are already doing quite well.”  

MacGuineas said expanding the discount could set a precedent for future administrations to further reduce or eliminate student loan interest rates through executive action.

Instead of expanding loan benefits, the CRFB said the Trump administration should focus on addressing the projected $100 billion shortfall in the Pell Grant program, which could reduce aid for low-income students.

(The Center Square) – A member of the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors is frustrated with state laws allowing multiple homes to be built on single-home sites in a community rebuilding after the Eaton Fire. One law permits up to 10 homes.

Supervisor Kathryn Barger said she wants lawmakers to hear from Altadena residents at two July 1 hearings. Sitting next to Pasadena, Altadena is an unincorporated community that was hit hard by the devastating Eaton Fire in January 2025. The fire in the Altadena/Pasadena area burned 14,021 acres and destroyed 9,418 structures, as reported by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection.

Barger represents Altadena on the board governing Los Angeles County.

(The Center Square) – California drivers can expect the state’s gas tax to go up 2.2 cents on July 1, which will bring the total tax to 63.4 cents a gallon.

That will drive up gas prices in the Golden State, which consistently has the nation's highest prices, even further.

“For our hardworking California families - at a time when Democrats and Republicans say the No. 1 issue is affordability - we’re making it harder to make ends meet,” Sen. Tony Strickland, R-Huntington Beach, told The Center Square. “Our gas prices are astronomically high because of taxes - and also because we lost 20% of our oil production and we rely almost exclusively on foreign oil.”

Several other states, Strickland said, suspended their state gas taxes because gas prices in those states also rose. In Georgia, the Legislature temporarily suspended the Peach State’s gas tax after prices surpassed $3 a gallon, far lower than gas prices in California, according to previous reporting by The Center Square.

“Higher gas prices not only hurt those folks who use it at the pump, but also makes groceries cost a lot more,” Strickland said. “Your eggs, your milk, your vegetables, your fruit, higher gas prices get pushed on that. So you have higher grocery costs because of this.”

According to AAA, California’s gas prices went down slightly to $5.61 a gallon on Friday - down from $5.64 a gallon on Thursday. That itself is down from the average price of gas in California one month ago, when prices hit $6.15 a gallon. The national average on Friday was $3.97 a gallon.

Mono County had the most expensive gas prices in California on Friday, according to AAA, which saw the average gallon of gas cost drivers $6.88. Other counties that saw some of the highest gas prices in the state on Friday were Inyo County, on the Nevada border and Sierra County in Northern California, at $6.22 a gallon. Trinity County, also in Northern California, saw average prices around $6.14 a gallon, while the counties of Humboldt and Nevada saw gas prices hover just over $6.

The lowest gas prices in the state were in the Northern California county of Yuba, which saw gas prices around $5.38 a gallon. Other counties in the southernmost part of the state saw slightly higher gas prices. San Bernardino County drivers paid $5.46 a gallon on Friday, while Imperial County saw an average of $5.47.

The gas tax increase could hurt drivers in rural communities the hardest, Strickland told The Center Square.

“They have to drive a lot,”  senator said. “They have to drive more. It’s affecting everybody across the state of California. Look at what gas prices do. They fall disproportionately on those hardworking families that are living paycheck to paycheck.”

Representatives from AAA and the consumer savings company GasBuddy did not respond to The Center Square on Friday. California lawmakers on both sides of the aisle who have authored gas-related legislation also did not respond to The Center Square.

(The Center Square) – Newly introduced legislation to ban members of Congress from betting in prediction markets should be expanded to include members of all three branches of the federal government, a government accountability group said.

Prediction markets like Polymarket and Kalshi, which allow people to trade on the outcome of real-world events, have become a political flashpoint in recent months.

Government watchdogs like Project on Government Oversight have criticized how prediction markets offer U.S. lawmakers, who already engage in stock trading, yet another way to profit off of information not available to the public.

The Stop Lawmakers from Predicting Act, introduced by U.S. Rep. Bryan Steil, R-Wis., forbids members of Congress, their spouses, or their dependent children from betting on the outcome of a specific government policy or action, or “any other event which has come to the attention of a covered individual as a result, directly or indirectly, of the service of a Member of Congress.”

Dylan Hedtler-Gaudette, POGO's interim vice president of Policy and Government Affairs, told The Center Square that the bill, though narrow in scope, is ultimately “a step in the right direction.”

“If there is an opportunity to [address the issue] piecemeal by banning one cohort of federal officials and then moving on to the next – if that's what we have to do, then that's what we have to do,” Hedtler-Gaudette said. “It's a lot better than the status quo, which is that we have almost no strong conflicts of interest restrictions for anybody in the federal government.”

The legislation builds upon Steil’s Stop Insider Trading Act, which passed out of the House Administration Committee in January but has seen no further advancement in the 119th Congress.

Hedtler-Gaudette believes that bans on both insider trading and bidding are critical for public restoring trust in Congress.

“If you introduce these personal financial opportunities to gain and to self-deal, you create a trust problem, and we already have an issue with the public not having a ton of confidence in what people do in the government,” he said. “When you see things like this cropping up, it corrodes that already pretty dismal trust in the relationship between the governing and the governed.”

As of mid-June, Americans’ approval rating of Congress sits at a dismal 24%, according to Ballotpedia’s Polling Index.

Prediction market bidding by government employees with insider information also poses a danger of influencing policy decisions, Hedtler-Gaudette added.

“The danger that we see with prediction markets is that they just provide too many opportunities to game the system with inside information,” he said. “It creates an uneven playing field that also has the potential to corrupt public policy making. And at the end of the day, government officials, especially elected ones, are there to represent their constituents, and whatever they're doing – taking votes, conducting legislation, conducting oversight – they're supposed to be doing it in the interest of the public.”

The Stop Lawmakers from Predicting Act doesn’t include congressional staff and only imposes a civil penalty for violations – a fine of $2,000 or 10% of the value of the prohibited transaction, whichever is greater, as well as the net gain realized from the transaction.

POGO policy analyst Janice Luong, who has written on the issue of insider bidding and petitioned House lawmakers to address it, told The Center Square that the organization ultimately desires a ban that covers employees in all branches of government.

“We agree that public officials and the staff who serve them must act independently of personal financial interests,” Luong said. “They should not use their position, access to non-public information, or official decision-making authority to seek personal gain from trading on prediction markets.”

POGO has also called on Congress to take things a step further and government actions and elections to the list of prediction contracts that are currently prohibited, which includes terrorism, war, assassination, gaming, or other activities “deemed contrary to the public interest”.

A recent analysis by the Anti-Corruption Data Collective tracked “suspicious, highly profitable wagers linked to military activity, notably in Venezuela and Iran,” finding that over $9.3 million has been bet in successful “long shot bets” on military markets on Polymarket.

The coalition published the report following the news that an U.S. Army Special Forces soldier allegedly used classified military intelligence to place winning bets on a prediction market platform. Master Sgt. Gannon Ken Van Dyke, who has entered a not guilty plea, is set to go on trial Dec. 7.

"Given recent developments like the Van Dyke cases and campaign staffers coming out about insider trading, it demands a more comprehensive solution," Luong said. "Congress can and should go further."

(The Center Square) - The Los Angeles City Council is facing criticism from a Republican Party leader after deciding to move forward with a Nov. 3 ballot initiative to allow noncitizens to vote in local elections.

The council voted Thursday to put the measure on the general election ballot.

“Yesterday's vote by the LA City Council, a body that cannot keep its streets clean of filth, save the lives of broken drug-addicted souls in encampments, fight fires or stop crime, is an affront to all Americans,” Roxanne Hoge, Los Angeles County Republican Party chair, told The Center Square, answering questions by email.

Hoge, who's from Jamaica, said she believes the right to vote is a privilege reserved for American citizens.

“As a naturalized American citizen, the right to vote in this country's elections is incredibly important to me,” Hoge said Friday. “It is a privilege that is properly reserved for people who are either born here or love the U.S.A. enough to make a commitment to follow its laws and swear an oath to protect and defend and follow our constitution — and who then choose to register to vote.”

“Giving noncitizens the ability to vote in our elections is a logistical nightmare that would erode trust in our already-tainted system in California and is wrong,” Hoge added. 

Councilmember Hugo Soto-Martinez of District 13 proposed the initiative, as previously reported by The Center Square.

Soto-Martinez cited other cities such as San Francisco, which allow noncitizen voting in local elections, as grounds for new voting laws in Los Angeles.

Soto-Martinez previously said at a Rules Committee meeting, that if his plan was passed by the council and later approved by voters, nothing would take effect until a future ordinance was adopted by the council and signed by the mayor.

“This gives us the time and flexibility to get it right, to build in safeguards, to protect people's security and to ensure any policy can withstand legal challenges,” Soto-Martinez said.

The Center Square reached out to the office of Soto-Martinez and the White House Press Office for comment on Thursday’s City Council meeting, but did not hear back by the time of publication.

(The Center Square) – In a day that was supposed to feature technical negotiations following the signing of a preliminary peace deal, Iran has instead issued multiple warnings and confusion over the Strait of Hormuz after Vice President JD Vance’s diplomatic trip was canceled.

“Following the publication of the strategic message of the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution regarding the negotiation process and the signing of the memorandum ending the war, Iran's Supreme National Security Council stressed that any deviation or violation by the US side would be met with reciprocal action in accordance with a pre-determined plan,” reads an article by the Iranian Fars New Agency.

The Supreme Leader is the former Ayatollah’s son, Seyed Mojtaba Khamenei, who said in a statement he authorized the signing of the preliminary peace deal based on certain reassurances from the Iranian president, though he himself “held a different view.”

Another article contained a further warning from the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, saying that they would not hesitate to “impose an even greater historic defeat” on the U.S. if it “once again resorts to excessive demands.”

 After President Donald Trump signed the memorandum Wednesday and Vance gave a lengthy press conference on its contents Thursday, plans appeared to be unraveling as soon as Thursday night.

Vance was supposed to arrive in Switzerland on Friday to begin technical negotiations with Iran, but instead the trip was canceled late Thursday.

Israel and Hezbollah traded blows in Lebanon overnight – a violation of the MOU, which states that any fighting between the U.S. and Iran “and their allies” was ended with its signing. 

Then, according to reports, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps forbade vessels from entering the strait because it said the U.S. had violated the MOU.

Esmail Baghaei, a spokesperson for Iran’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, dismissed those claims “made by some media outlets regarding the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, stating that following the MoU, Iran has taken the necessary measures to ensure the safe passage of commercial vessels through the Strait, and shipping in this route is currently underway,” according to Iranian media company Iran’s Today.

Baghaei was quoted as saying that there the parties were planning to meet “in the coming days.”

(The Center Square) - Assemblymember Carl DeMaio, R-San Diego, has commented further about his call for California Gov. Gavin Newsom to be investigated for using state resources for personal purposes.

He told The Center Square that the Democratic governor violated the state code covering public resources and should be fined.

DeMaio’s request for an investigation came after Newsom filed a Freedom of Information Act request regarding the U.S. Department of Justice’s investigation into him and his wife, Jennifer Seibel Newsom, on Monday, as reported by The Center Square.

DeMaio filed his request via letter with the Fair Political Practices Commission and California Attorney General Rob Bonta on Tuesday, as The Center Square reported.

The legislator elaborated on his request, answering The Center Square's questions by email for this story.

“We are led to believe taxpayer-funded resources may have been used as the FOIA request was sent from the office of the Governor, on official letterhead, and written by the legal affairs secretary of the Office of the Governor,” DeMaio said.

Newsom's FOIA request involved taxpayer-funded resources such as paying the state employee who drafted the letter, DeMaio said. That employee was David Sapp, the legal affairs secretary with the Governor's Office.

Newsom’s actions violate Government Code 8314, DeMaio told The Center Square.

“It is unlawful for any elected state or local officer, including any state or local appointee, employee, or consultant, to use or permit others to use public resources for a campaign activity, or personal or other purposes which are not authorized by law,” the code says.

In this case, the law code defines “personal purpose” as “those activities the purpose of which is for personal enjoyment, private gain or advantage, or an outside endeavor not related to state business.”

The Center Square reached out to Newsom’s office, which answered by email.

“As he has for the last 18 months, the President and his Administration are attacking the Governor, this time through a politicized fishing expedition, because of the work he’s doing as the Governor, where he has consistently been one of the most effective voices pushing back on Trump’s lawlessness,” said Tara Gallegos, Newsom’s chief deputy director of communications.

But DeMaio said Newsom should be fined because the DOJ investigation into the governor focused on personal matters rather than the Office of the Governor.

The law lays out the terms of such a fine.

“Any person who intentionally or negligently violates this section is liable for a civil penalty not to exceed one thousand dollars ($1,000) for each day on which a violation occurs, plus three times the value of the unlawful use of public resources,” the code says.

The Center Square reached out to the Fair Political Practices Commission, which referred questions to the Attorney General's Office. Bonta's office did not respond by the time of publication.

(The Center Square) - Voters in Colorado’s 1st Congressional District will consider tax policies and affordability concerns as they head to the polls on June 30.

The district consists of Denver and is entirely contained within the city limits. U.S. Rep. Diana DeGette, D-Colorado, is seeking her 16th term in Congress but is being challenged by two other Democratic candidates in the primary election.

Melat Kiros, a former lawyer, and Wanda James, a business owner, are challenging DeGette for the Democratic nomination. Kiros, a Democratic Socialist, has sharply criticized DeGette’s tenure in Congress and vowed to defeat her.

"Establishment Democrats are beholden to the same billionaires who keep our prices high, burn our planet, and profit from a genocide. We can change that. It starts by changing who we send to Congress,” Kiros’ website reads.

Kiros did not respond to The Center Square’s request for an interview. She has advocated for Medicare for All, universal childcare and a U.S. arms embargo. Kiros immigrated to Denver in 1998 from Ethiopia.

“I’m interested in policies that expand our freedoms,” Kiros told Ballotpedia. “That includes the freedom to choose what we do for work, the freedom to travel freely, and the freedom to live and grow old with dignity.”

DeGette has pushed back against criticisms of her tenure and said she is a progressive candidate. She said she has supported Medicare for All and criticized other candidates for their lack of experience.

“It would be a very bad choice to pick somebody who has never served in Congress or a legislature,” DeGette said.

DeGette has pushed back against the Trump administration. She voted against the One Big Beautiful Bill Act and blocked funding for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security due to concerns over immigration enforcement throughout the last year.

“We need seasoned people who can fight for us in Washington, who can fight against Donald Trump’s illegal war, who can fight not just to defund but also dismantle ICE,” DeGette said. “We need someone who will be a leader in the next Congress when we take the majority.”

James, a marijuana dispensary owner and board member at the University of Colorado vying for the 1st Congressional District, has also been critical of DeGette. She has focused her campaign on expanding child tax credits, income tax credits and a “College for All” program that would provide tuition-free college for students in families that make less than $125,000 per year.

“I will fight in Congress for the same chance for every student,” James told Ballotpedia. "I will protect and expand Pell Grants, which open doors for students not born into wealth, ensuring college is accessible without lifelong debt.”

Christy Peterson is the lone Republican seeking to challenge DeGette in November. Peterson, who's running unopposed in the GOP primary and will be on the Nov. 3 ballot, told The Center Square she is focused on reducing crime in Denver and providing more funding for local police.

“I want to clean up our cities so crime and lawless behavior is removed and cannot return,” Peterson said. “Without the crime, businesses can once again return, our citizens and visitors can return to enjoy the cafes, restaurants, shopping and cultural experiences of inner city life again.”

Peterson has also applauded the Trump administration’s efforts to pursue fraud in federal programs. She called on further investigations and prosecutions of fraud in Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.

“So-called ‘good’ programs are not helping people, they’re creating government dependency,” Peterson said.

Degette leads fundraising efforts in the district with more than $975,000 in campaign contributions, according to the most recent Federal Election Commission filings. She received $1,000 from the Johnson and Johnson Political Action Committee, $1,000 from Dominion Energy PAC and $2,500 from the Liberty Mutual Insurance PAC.

Kiros follows behind DeGette with more than $376,000. She has vowed against taking donations from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee and other corporate PACs. James has more than $234,000 and is the third-highest earner in the race.

Both Kiros and James have primarily received campaign contributions from small, individual donors. Ballotpedia classifies the Democratic primary in Colorado's 1st Congressional District as a "battleground race."

Polls are open from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. on June 30, Election Day. For more information visit the Secretary of State’s website, coloradosos.gov/pubs/elections. Early election results will be published on that evening at www.thecentersquare.com/colorado.

(The Center Square) – Minnesota's special districts reported $5.4 billion in outstanding long-term debt in 2023, while increasingly relying on state funding as pandemic-era federal aid declined.

This is according to a new report from the Minnesota Office of the State Auditor.

The 91-page report examined 572 special districts that submitted financial data to the auditor's office. Special districts are local government entities created to provide specific services such as transportation, housing, public safety, watershed management, airports and economic development.

These entities receive taxpayer funding from local, state and federal governments, as well as revenue from taxes, charges for services, and special assessments.

'Minnesota Special Districts Finances' Report

The report found special districts generated $1.6 billion in governmental fund revenue in 2023, with state grants accounting for the largest share at 37%, followed by charges for services and taxes at 16% each and federal grants at 14%.

Christy John, a research analyst intermediate for the auditor’s office, said one of the most notable trends was a decline in federal and local grants following the expiration of COVID-era funding programs.

“All local governments received federal funding related to the pandemic era,” John told The Center Square. “In 2023, the federal and local support is falling. That’s normal.”

From 2022, federal grants declined 16%, or $42 million, while local grants fell 28%, or $63.6 million. At the same time, state grants increased 23%, or $107.6 million, helping offset the reductions.

John said the decreases largely reflect the winding down of federal pandemic programs such as the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security Act and the American Rescue Plan Act that infused large amounts of money into states and localities.

While governmental fund revenues increased overall from the previous year by 7%, special district enterprise operations reported significant operating losses. Enterprise funds are designed to function similarly to private businesses, covering costs primarily through fees and user charges.

According to the report, special district enterprise operations reported $2.2 billion in operating revenue and $3 billion in operating expenses, resulting in an operating loss of $825.8 million.

The Metropolitan Council, a Twin Cities regional planning organization, accounted for much of that deficit, posting $642.8 million in operating losses across four of its five enterprise operations. The only operation to not was environmental services.

However, those losses were largely offset by $1.4 billion in nonoperating revenue. That revenue included federal, state and local grants, and resulted in overall net profit of $177.4 million for the council and allowed special district enterprises overall to report a net profit of $369.1 million.

The report also found that four entities accounted for 80% of all special district long-term debt in Minnesota. The Metropolitan Council, Metropolitan Airports Commission, Western Minnesota Municipal Power Agency and Southern Minnesota Municipal Power Agency collectively held $4.3 billion of the $5.4 billion total.

John said the concentration of debt is not a sign of financial distress.

“It's generally consistent,” John explained. “These four entities carrying the large amount of long-term debt is mainly because they are responsible for financing, constructing, and maintaining main in large infrastructure projects across Minnesota.”

These large entities typically issue revenue bonds to finance major projects, then repay the debt over time through dedicated taxes, fees and other revenue sources, John said.

Although 572 districts reported financial information, the report found that revenue and spending are concentrated among a relatively small number of entities. Of the 412 districts reporting governmental fund revenue, just 33 accounted for 65% of all governmental fund revenue.

The Metropolitan Council, Three Rivers Park District and Southwest-West Central Service Cooperative alone accounted for 35% of total governmental fund revenue.

Government Funding

State Auditor Julie Blaha said the report highlights the importance of stable funding relationships among federal, state and local governments.

“Local government, their whole goal is to keep things steady,” Blaha told The Center Square. “Chaos out of the federal level . . . makes [long-term planning] really difficult.”

Blaha expressed concern that uncertainty surrounding federal funding could complicate funding and long-term planning for special districts.

“If the federal government decides to basically abdicate their role in all of this, it's going to have an impact, and it's going to be significant,” Blaha said.

She warned that if federal support declines, costs could shift to other funding sources.

“If a federal partner drops out, what you see is this starts to shift to property tax,” Blaha said. “That changes people’s day-to-day lives.”

John Jernberg, a research analysis specialist at the auditor’s office, hoped to assuage concerns about special districts potentially coming to rely too heavily on federal funding during the COVID era.

“They were making very conservative decisions on how they used that money, so that they won't be stuck with an ongoing bill,” Jernberg told The Center Square.

That said, Jernberg said he is concerned that residential property taxes could rise as declining commercial property values in Minnesota's largest cities place additional pressure on local governments to make up lost revenue elsewhere.

“The tax base paid by those largest buildings in St. Paul and Minneapolis whose value has gone down means something else has to pick that up,” Jernberg said. “It's going to be residential properties.”

Minnesota had 621 special districts required to report financial information in 2023, though 49 failed to comply with reporting requirements.

Blaha said the report serves as an important benchmark for tracking how special districts fund their operations and whether they can continue meeting long-term financial obligations, particularly as federal funding levels continue to fluctuate.

“The lesson of this report is that this relationship is really important,” Blaha said. “If that relationship changes, people are going to feel it.”

(The Center Square) - Betting on a football score isn't gambling.

At least not according to the federal Commodities Futures Trading Commission.

The commission recently proposed rule changes to strengthen its governance over prediction markets and sports betting. The changes involve how the panel defines "gaming" and "gambling."

The proposal defines limitations for the CFTC's oversight of gaming, aimed at skill-based games but with limits on bets related to war and other extreme markets. The move is the latest development involving the CFTC at a time when the gambling industry opposes prediction markets in Nevada and elsewhere in the U.S. It's also a matter of jurisdictions: State gaming boards oversee casinos and gambling.

The CFTC’s extensive prediction markets proposed rule making from June 12 is the latest move in the argument over prediction markets and their place in the wider gambling world.

According to the CFTC's document about the rule changes, gaming is for recreational or entertainment purposes and exists within a set of rules, where the result is determined by the player based on skill, luck or otherwise.

Gaming, according to the CFTC proposal, is largely defined in contrast to contests and gambling.

“The Proposal defines gaming functionally and distinguishes games from contests such as elections and awards,” read the CFTC document. “Within gaming, the Commission aims to permit contracts settled on aggregate sports outcomes with objective data and integrity infrastructure, while prohibiting pure-chance games and high-risk sports-adjacent designs (e.g., injury, officiating-only, discrete actions, altercations, pre-collegiate events).”

The rule proposal would give CFTC the right to oversee bets made on sports scores and other gaming results. This is in contrast to what it defines gambling as, placing bets on contests like the Nobel Peace Prize or political events, as well as the more minute parts of sports – like what color Gatorade is poured on the Super Bowl winning coach.

The CFTC rules would also ban bets related to terrorism, assassination and war, which it argued would “present significant national security risks.”

Prediction markets have been criticized for offering betting lines on war and other controversial topics, such as a current betting line on Polymarket with over $600,000 in bets that asks, “Will Israel launch a major ground offensive in Gaza by …?” followed by a series of specific dates.

The CFTC said its new gaming definition is a public good, arguing it will increase regulation over prediction markets. The rules proposal gives any interested parties 45 days to comment on the changes, until July 27. 

The CFTC did not respond to questions from The Center Square.

Historically, the CFTC has regulated markets for raw materials and agricultural goods, called commodity markets. 

In the last couple of years the CFTC has overseen regulation of prediction markets as the industry has grown in popularity. Prediction markets, which offer betting lines between users on a variety of subjects from sports to political events, have pushed the limits of the CFTC’s authority, according to many within the traditional gaming industry. 

“There’s no reason this should be regulated any different than people betting on the NFL,” Wayne Winegarden, a senior fellow at Pasadena-based Pacific Research Institute, previously told The Center Square. “You’d have to wonder why it would be.”

The American Gaming Association did not respond to questions on this story.

Nevada, along with many other states, has been through a series of lawsuits against prediction market companies, arguing the CFTC-regulated industry should be compliant with local gaming laws.