Iran-linked oil bets push White House to warn staff on insider risk

The White House warned staff in March not to use confidential information for trades or bets after suspicious market activity around President Donald Trump’s Iran decision drew attention in Washington. 

Reuters reported on Thursday that the internal email went out on March 24, one day after POTUS announced a five-day delay in planned attacks on Iranian energy infrastructure.

The warning followed a burst of oil futures trading shortly before President Trump’s March 23 post. Roughly $500 million worth of Brent and West Texas Intermediate crude futures changed hands in a one-minute burst before the announcement, and oil prices later fell about 15 percent after the policy shift.

Meanwhile, the issue has added to a wider debate over whether traders with access to nonpublic government information can profit from policy or military decisions before those decisions become public. 

It has also pushed prediction markets back into focus as lawmakers and regulators look at contracts tied to war, politics, and other official actions.

White House email followed suspicious oil trades

Reuters reported that the White House message reminded staff not to misuse confidential information in futures markets. 

The Wall Street Journal first reported the email, and White House spokesman Davis Ingle said that any claim of misconduct by administration officials without evidence was ”baseless and irresponsible reporting.” 

He also said federal employees are bound by ethics rules that prohibit using nonpublic information for financial gain.

The timing of the trades drove much of the concern. The burst of oil futures activity came just before President Trump’s March 23 announcement on Iran. Billions of dollars worth of oil and stock futures changed hands minutes before Trump’s social media post, which sent crude lower and equities higher.

There is no public evidence that White House staff profited from the trades. Even so, the staff-wide warning showed the administration wanted to remind employees of existing rules at a time of rising scrutiny over well-timed bets linked to government action.

Prediction markets face fresh pressure in Washington

The warning to staff came as prediction markets faced a new wave of criticism in Congress. Polymarket traders made about $1 million by correctly betting on when the United States would strike Iran, raising fresh concern over whether some participants used privileged information.

In addition, other cases added to the pressure. Polymarket came under scrutiny earlier in 2026 after a gambler made nearly half a million dollars on the capture of Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro shortly before it was officially announced. 

Those episodes helped drive calls for tighter guardrails around event contracts tied to military and political decisions.

Lawmakers have responded with several bills. On March 25, Representatives Adrian Smith and Nikki Budzinski introduced the PREDICT Act, a bipartisan measure that would bar members of Congress and federal officials from trading on prediction markets. 

On March 26, Senators Todd Young, Elissa Slotkin, John Curtis, and Adam Schiff introduced the Public Integrity in Financial Prediction Markets Act of 2026. 

Senator Jeff Merkley also pushed the End Prediction Market Corruption Act, which would ban event-contract trading by government officials with material nonpublic information.

Existing rules already restrict insider use of government information

Federal ethics rules already limit what government employees can do with confidential information. 

The STOCK Act amendment to the Commodity Exchange Act bars federal officials, members of Congress, executive staff, and judicial officers from using nonpublic information gained through their jobs to trade commodities, futures, or options markets. It was signed into law on April 4, 2012.

White House officials have pointed to those rules in response to recent reports. Davis Ingle said President Trump has been clear that members of Congress and other officials should not use nonpublic information for personal financial benefit. 

He added that ”the only special interest that will guide President Trump is the best interest of the American people.”

The current debate is less about whether rules exist and more about whether they are enough for fast-moving futures markets and event contracts. Prediction markets have grown quickly, and legal fights over who regulates them have moved in parallel with calls for tougher standards on insider trading and market conduct.

Regulators and lawmakers now face a wider test

Pressure is also rising on the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. House Democrats recently asked CFTC Chair Michael Selig what the agency can do about offshore prediction market contracts tied to war and government actions, and asked for a response by April 15. 

That request added to the broader fight over how far regulators can go when event contracts sit outside the usual boundaries of finance or gambling law.

Meanwhile, Selig has also addressed the broader issue of market integrity in a post on X. He said America’s financial markets are “the envy of the world” and added that the CFTC protects them through fit-for-purpose regulations that guard against insider trading, fraud, abuse, and market manipulation while preserving market integrity over time.

At the same time, courts are still defining the market’s legal ground. On April 6, a federal appeals court ruled New Jersey could not block Kalshi’s sports-related event contracts because only the CFTC has authority over those swaps under federal law. 

That ruling strengthened the view that Congress and federal regulators, not states, will shape the next stage of oversight.