Amending the Rules of the House of Representatives to prohibit Members, officers, and employees of the House of Representatives from participating in prediction markets in certain cases, and for other purposes.

Summary of H.R. 1248 (119th Congress, 2nd Session)

Title: Amending the Rules of the House of Representatives to prohibit Members, officers, and employees of the House of Representatives from participating in prediction markets in certain cases, and for other purposes

Source: H.R. 1248, introduced April 30, 2026, by Rep. Dina Titus (and co-sponsors)

1) Purpose and Intent

• The bill seeks to prohibit Members of Congress, Delegates, Resident Commissioners, and any officers or employees of the House of Representatives from participating in prediction markets in specified circumstances.
• It aims to align House ethics rules with restrictions on financial market participation where a conflict of interest or appearance of impropriety could arise due to official duties.

2) Key Provisions

Amending the Rules

• Section 1: Rule XXIII of the Rules of the House is amended by:
  • Redesignating the existing clause 22 as clause 23.
  • Adding a new clause 22 with the following prohibitions:
  • (a) No Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, officer, or employee of the House may enter into, or offer to enter into, an agreement, contract, swap, or transaction that provides for any purchase, sale, payment, or delivery of an excluded commodity that is contingent on the occurrence, nonoccurrence, or the extent of the occurrence of a specific event or contingency. In practical terms, this bans participation in prediction markets that hinge on future events.
  • (b) The prohibition does not apply to:
    • Insurance for which the insured has a lawful insurable interest, or
    • The making of a lawful sports wager.
  • (c) Definition: A “sports wager” means staking or risking something of value on the outcome of a sporting event (including partial outcomes), where value is received if a certain outcome occurs.
• The term “excluded commodity” references commodities defined in section 1a of the Commodity Exchange Act (7 U.S.C. 1a). This typically includes financial instruments like futures, options, and other regulated derivatives, depending on their classification as “excluded” under that statute.

Clarifications and Exceptions

• The measure clarifies that the prohibition is specific to prediction-market-like arrangements based on contingent events.
• Limited exceptions exist for:
  • Insurable interests (i.e., legitimate insurance contracts)
  • Lawful sports wagers (i.e., gambling on sports events that are legally permitted)

Sense of the House (Non-binding)

• Section 2 expresses the sense of the House that the executive and judicial branches should consider adopting similar restrictions on prediction-market participation akin to those imposed on the House by Section 1.

3) Who Is Affected

• Members of the House of Representatives, including:
  • Members
  • Delegates
  • Resident Commissioners
• House officers and employees
• The ban applies specifically to entering into or offering to enter into prediction-market-type contracts tied to specific events or contingencies involving excluded commodities.

4) Procedural and Timeline Aspects

• Introduction and referral: April 30, 2026
• Referred to: Committee on Ethics, and in addition to the Committees on the Judiciary, and Oversight and Government Reform (for provisions within their jurisdiction)
• No further timeline or floor action detailed in the bill text provided; as a resolution amending the Rules, it would require consideration and votes within the standard House proceedings to adopt the changes to Rule XXIII.

5) Practical Implications

• If enacted, Representatives and House staff would be barred from engaging in prediction-market trades tied to events, thereby reducing potential conflicts of interest or appearances of impropriety related to official duties.
• Existing allowances for lawful insurance and lawful sports wagers would remain permissible.
• The resolution signals a broader expectation that other branches consider similar restrictions.

6) Co-sponsors

• Chris Deluzio
• Raul Ruiz
• Dina Titus (primary sponsor)
• Eleanor Holmes Norton
• Rashida Tlaib

This summary reflects the bill’s stated provisions and aims to inform readers about its scope, impact, and relevance for House ethics governance.