A former White House teleprompter operator who had advance access to President Donald Trump’s speeches has been ordered to pay $172,539 after using that information to trade on prediction markets, federal regulators said.

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) said Gabriel Perez misappropriated material, nonpublic information obtained through his government job and used it to trade presidential “mention market” contracts on Kalshi between December 2025 and February 2026.

Under a settlement announced Friday, August 28, Perez must give up $107,539.02 in trading profits and pay a $65,000 civil monetary penalty. He is also barred from trading on prediction markets for three years.

The case highlights a relatively new regulatory problem: how insider trading rules apply when markets allow people to trade on whether a president will say particular words or phrases during a speech.

What did Trump’s teleprompter operator do?

Perez worked as a White House teleprompter operator and had access to presidential speeches before Trump delivered them.

According to the CFTC’s order, Perez used information from those unreleased speeches to trade contracts tied to words and phrases Trump might use during upcoming addresses. The regulator said he breached a duty of trust and confidence by using the information for his personal benefit.

The trades took place between December 2025 and February 2026. The CFTC said Perez generated more than $107,500 in profits from the activity.

The case is notable because the underlying contracts were not traditional stocks or bonds. Instead, they were event contracts traded on Kalshi, a regulated prediction market platform.

What are presidential “mention market” contracts?

Mention markets allow traders to take positions on whether a specific word or phrase will appear in a speech or other event.

For example, a contract might effectively ask whether a president will mention a particular country, policy, person or topic during an address.

The value of those contracts can change as traders receive information about what is likely to happen.

That makes advance access to a speech unusually valuable. Someone who has already seen the text can potentially know whether a particular phrase will appear before the rest of the market does.

In Perez’s case, the CFTC concluded that the information he obtained through his White House position was material and nonpublic and that he used it to trade for personal gain.

How much was Gabriel Perez fined?

The total financial penalty is $172,539.02, made up of two separate amounts:

• $107,539.02 in profits that Perez must disgorge.
• $65,000 in civil monetary penalties imposed by the CFTC.
• A three-year ban from trading on prediction markets.

The CFTC said the $65,000 civil penalty represented a substantial discount because of Perez’s “exemplary cooperation” with investigators.

Perez agreed to the settlement without admitting the CFTC’s findings or conclusions, according to the agency’s order. However, he consented to the entry of the order and its findings for purposes of the proceeding.

Why was Perez’s access to Trump’s speeches important?

The central issue was not simply that Perez worked at the White House.

His job gave him access to information before it became publicly available. A teleprompter operator needs to see the material that will appear on the screen before a president delivers a speech.

That creates an obvious information advantage when the market is specifically pricing whether certain words or phrases will be spoken.

The CFTC said Perez’s access to presidential speeches allowed him to obtain information that other traders did not have. The agency characterized his use of that information as misappropriation in breach of his duty of trust and confidence.

The case therefore illustrates why prediction markets can create unusual versions of a familiar financial-market problem: one participant knows the outcome before others do.

What happened to Perez after the trading was discovered?

The White House placed Perez on unpaid administrative leave in July as the investigation became public.

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said at the time that the trading was an ethical violation and described the situation as deeply unfortunate and disgraceful, according to Reuters.

Perez is no longer employed by the federal government, Reuters reported.

The CFTC’s final order now establishes the regulatory penalties stemming from the trading activity.

How did Kalshi detect the trading?

Kalshi cooperated with the CFTC investigation.

The CFTC specifically acknowledged assistance from KalshiEX in its enforcement announcement.

Kalshi’s surveillance systems had flagged the trading activity, according to comments from the company’s lead lawyer, Bobby DeNault.

That cooperation is significant because prediction markets have faced growing scrutiny as they expand into areas ranging from elections and politics to sports, economic data and major events.

The Perez case demonstrates why market surveillance matters even when the underlying contracts concern something as seemingly simple as whether a president will say a particular word.

Is this the same as traditional insider trading?

The underlying principle is similar, but the financial product is different.

Traditional insider trading generally involves securities such as stocks and occurs when someone trades using material, nonpublic information in violation of a duty.

Here, the CFTC brought the case under the Commodity Exchange Act and its regulations because the contracts at issue were event contracts traded on a prediction-market platform. The agency said Perez violated provisions concerning unlawful trading and the use of material, nonpublic information.

The case is therefore important beyond Perez himself. It gives regulators another example of how existing market-integrity rules can apply to emerging financial products.

Why does the case matter for prediction markets?

Prediction markets have expanded rapidly in the United States, but their growth has also raised questions about market integrity.

When contracts are based on events rather than conventional financial assets, the information that can move prices may look very different.

A trader with advance access to:

• A presidential speech
• A government announcement
• An economic report
• A major corporate decision
• Another scheduled public event

could potentially have an advantage if that information affects the outcome of a contract.

The Perez case shows that regulators are prepared to scrutinize such advantages when they arise from confidential government information.

The CFTC’s enforcement action also comes amid broader regulatory attention toward prediction markets. The agency has recently taken several actions involving event contracts, including a July 2026 order involving former congressman George Santos and a State of the Union-related contract.

What did the CFTC say about Perez’s cooperation?

The CFTC took Perez’s cooperation into account when determining the civil penalty.

The agency said his “exemplary cooperation” resulted in a substantial reduction in the monetary penalty under the CFTC Division of Enforcement’s cooperation policy.

That detail matters because the final $65,000 civil penalty was not simply a calculation of the profits he made. The regulator considered his conduct during the investigation when determining the sanction.

Perez must still surrender the $107,539.02 in profits.

What happens to the prediction-market trades?

The CFTC order does not merely impose a financial penalty.

Perez must also cease and desist from future violations of the Commodity Exchange Act and CFTC regulations. More significantly, he is prohibited from trading on prediction markets for three years.

The restriction directly addresses the type of market in which the misconduct occurred.

It means the consequences extend beyond paying back the money. Perez will also be unable to participate in prediction-market trading during the three-year ban.

The bigger issue: Can information become a tradable advantage?

The Perez case puts an unusual spotlight on the value of information.

For an ordinary trader, knowing the exact contents of an upcoming presidential speech before it is delivered would be highly valuable. For a trader participating in a market designed around specific words or phrases in that speech, the information could be decisive.

That is precisely why the CFTC treated the conduct as a market-integrity issue rather than simply an employee ethics violation.

The case also offers a warning to people working around sensitive government information. Access obtained through a job cannot necessarily be converted into a private trading advantage simply because the information concerns a prediction market rather than a traditional stock.

The bottom line

Gabriel Perez, a former White House teleprompter operator, has been ordered by the CFTC to pay $172,539.02 over trades made using advance information from President Donald Trump’s speeches.

The regulator said Perez earned $107,539.02 in profits by trading presidential mention-market contracts on Kalshi between December 2025 and February 2026.

He must surrender those profits, pay a $65,000 civil penalty and stay out of prediction markets for three years. The CFTC credited him for cooperating with the investigation and said KalshiEX assisted regulators.

The case is significant because it shows how traditional principles of market integrity are being applied to a newer class of financial products. Prediction markets may trade on whether a president says a word rather than whether a company’s stock rises, but confidential information can still create an unfair advantage.

For Perez, that advantage has now resulted in a six-div penalty and a three-year trading ban.