CFTC Chair Michael Selig said the agency will keep moving on rulemaking even though it still lacks its full group of commissioners.
He made that point during a House Agriculture Committee hearing on April 16, where lawmakers pressed him on prediction markets, staffing, and the agency’s wider role in digital asset oversight.
The hearing placed fresh attention on the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) at a time when it is operating without its usual bipartisan structure. The agency normally has five commissioners.
At present, Selig is serving as the only commissioner and chair, a setup that drew criticism from Democratic lawmakers who said major policy work should not move forward under one-person leadership.
Lawmakers question one-person leadership at the CFTC
During the hearing, Representative Angie Craig asked Selig to commit to not finalizing new regulations while the commission remains short of members. She argued that the CFTC’s structure is meant to balance views from both parties and prevent one official from steering policy alone.
Selig rejected that request. He noted that the agency could not pause its work while waiting for more appointments.
“In the interim, we cannot, for the sake of the American people, slow down in our rulemaking,” he told lawmakers.
He added that the agency still had a duty to pursue “investor protections, consumer protections and safeguards for our markets.”
His remarks made clear that the CFTC plans to keep writing rules even as questions remain over its current leadership model. Selig also said he would continue carrying out the duties of the office to which the president appointed him.
That position is likely to keep drawing scrutiny as long as no additional nominees emerge for the other commissioner seats.
Representative Don Davis also asked about the agency’s direction. In response, Selig said the CFTC would do more through formal rulemaking because staff should not set policy through case-by-case discretion.
That answer pointed to a broader push to set clearer standards through written rules rather than uneven enforcement decisions.
Prediction markets remain a major flashpoint
A large share of the hearing focused on prediction markets, which have become one of the most disputed areas under the CFTC’s watch. In March, the agency issued an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking on event contracts, opening the door to changes in how exchanges list and manage those products.
Selig has repeatedly said the CFTC holds “exclusive jurisdiction” over prediction markets. That claim sits at the center of growing legal and political fights.
Several states have challenged platforms such as Kalshi and Polymarket, arguing that some event contracts resemble sports betting and violate state gambling laws.
Representative Gabe Vasquez pushed that point during the hearing. He used a visual display to compare state-regulated gaming products with prediction market contracts and said the two looked very similar.
He accused the agency of allowing companies to use regulatory gaps to avoid state rules while taking business away from licensed operators.
“The CFTC was not created or intended to regulate sports gambling,” Vasquez stated.
He then asked whether the agency was regulating real economic risk or allowing prediction markets to operate as a broad betting market without proper consumer protection. His remarks reflected a wider concern among lawmakers who believe the current framework does not fit the types of contracts now trading on some platforms.
Representative Jim Costa also raised objections after noting that some contracts allowed trading on extreme and troubling outcomes. He noted, “This is nuts,” and questioned whether Congress ever intended the law to cover that kind of activity.
Selig answered by pointing to the agency’s broad statute and the ongoing rulemaking process, but Costa said that response did not resolve the issue.
Courts, states, and Congress pull the issue in different directions
The legal battle around prediction markets has moved beyond Congress and into state and federal courts. Companies like Kalshi have argued that only the CFTC has authority over their products.
That position has already helped the firm secure court wins in Arizona and New Jersey, where judges blocked state officials from taking immediate action against it.
Those rulings have added weight to the CFTC’s view, but they have not ended the dispute. State regulators and gaming authorities continue to argue that many event contracts fall close to traditional sports wagering.
That conflict leaves the market in a contested position, with federal oversight claims on one side and state enforcement efforts on the other.
Moreover, the hearing showed that lawmakers remain divided on where prediction markets fit. Some members treated them as financial tools that need better rules. Others saw them as gambling products wrapped in a different label.
At the same time, the agency faces pressure to define how far its authority reaches in digital assets and related markets. Selig has spoken in favor of bringing activity into regulated US channels where possible.
That approach also came up during discussion of offshore platforms that offer crypto-linked or commodity-linked products outside direct US supervision.
Staffing concerns grow as the CFTC takes on more work
Another major issue during the hearing was whether the CFTC has enough people and money to handle its growing list of responsibilities.
Lawmakers from both parties asked whether the agency could manage prediction markets, crypto oversight, and traditional commodities supervision at the same time.
That concern is not new. Former CFTC officials have long said the agency operates with far fewer resources than the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Lawmakers noted again that the SEC has a much larger staff. They questioned whether the CFTC can police newer markets effectively without more investigators, lawyers, and technical experts.
Craig said she worried that the agency might not have enough enforcement staff to monitor prediction markets properly.
Selig answered that the CFTC is “running more efficiently and effectively than ever before.” He also said the agency is hiring and using artificial intelligence tools to support surveillance work.
Furthermore, the hearing also touched on Hyperliquid and oil-linked trading activity that drew attention after non-crypto traders reportedly used the platform for exposure to those markets. Republican Representative Austin Scott asked how the CFTC could respond when such activity takes place offshore.
Selig said the agency is monitoring the area and wants to “onshore those markets” so US rules can apply more directly.
House Agriculture Committee Chair Glenn Thompson closed that part of the discussion by telling Selig to inform Congress if the agency reaches a point where it needs more qualified staff.
That request showed that even lawmakers who support active oversight want clearer signals on whether the commission can handle its current workload.
For now, Selig’s message remains direct. The CFTC will keep working on new rules, even without the full commission in place.