Analysis
The poll lands while regulators and courts are still deciding whether prediction-market contracts are financial products overseen by the federal government or gambling that states can regulate. Opposition was broad across parties, but a quarter or more of respondents were unsure on several questions, and a survey of public attitudes does not settle the legal question. The industry's argument rests on forecasting value and risk hedging; critics' arguments center on insider trading and election integrity.
What the poll found
Most Americans oppose using prediction markets to wager on U.S. elections and government actions, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll conducted September 30 through October 5, 2026 and reported October 12. Prediction markets are platforms where people buy and sell contracts that pay off depending on the outcome of real-world events. [1][2]
On election results, 60% of all adults opposed such betting, 13% supported it, 24% were not sure and 3% skipped the question. Opposition was 69% among Democrats, 61% among Republicans and 53% among independents. Sixty-five percent opposed betting on U.S. military actions (8% supported) and 63% opposed betting on government policy announcements or decisions (9% supported). [1][2]
Sports drew less opposition: 43% opposed betting on professional sports and 29% supported it. Three-quarters of respondents (75%) said wagering on the outcome of real-world events is a form of gambling, 8% said it is not and 14% were not sure. [1][2]
Ninety-three percent of Democrats and 89% of Republicans said it was inappropriate for members of Congress or their staff to bet on political events, Reuters reported. [1]
How the poll was taken
The poll was conducted online and nationwide among 4,506 U.S. adults. Reuters put the margin of error at about two percentage points for the full sample; margins for subgroups such as party are larger. Ipsos published the full question wording and results in a topline on October 12. [1][2]
Industry response and the legal fight
Reuters said Polymarket and Kalshi, the two largest platforms, argue that they have extensive controls against misconduct and that their markets can forecast outcomes better than traditional polls. A Polymarket spokesperson said Americans do not trust traditional information sources and that more than 90% of visits to Polymarket are to view markets, not to trade. Kalshi says it does not allow trading on military operations and bars political candidates from betting on their own races. [1]
Reuters reported in August that more than 150 accounts on Polymarket's international market, which bars U.S. users, may have traded on inside military information. Kalshi has also suspended congressional candidates for betting on their own races, Reuters has reported. Kalshi banned former congressman George Santos, who agreed to pay $35,000 to resolve government allegations of manipulative trading and did not admit them, Reuters said. The Senate in April barred senators, staff and other officers from using prediction markets, and several Democratic lawmakers have introduced bills to restrict the industry. [1]
At issue legally is whether prediction markets trade financial instruments or facilitate gambling, which states regulate. State regulators say the platforms facilitate gambling and should face stricter state laws, while the Commodity Futures Trading Commission under President Donald Trump has asserted jurisdiction, arguing the contracts are a type of financial product it regulates. Reuters said legal experts expect the dispute to reach the Supreme Court. [1]
What remains uncertain
This is a snapshot of opinion, not evidence about how the markets work or how courts will rule. Between 23% and 25% of respondents answered "not sure" on the betting questions, subgroup margins of error are larger than the full-sample margin, and question wording matters. The platforms' statements about their controls are company claims. Reuters reported the poll as an exclusive, and the Ipsos topline is the primary record of the numbers.