Michael Selig, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission chair, told a House Agriculture Committee that he will continue advancing rulemaking even while he remains the agency’s sole commissioner. His remarks came amid questions about whether the CFTC should pause major rule finalizations absent its usual bipartisan five-member panel.
At the hearing, ranking member Angie Craig asked if Selig would refrain from issuing final rules while the commission lacks its full complement. Selig replied that he would not delay: “In the interim, we cannot, for the sake of the American people, slow down in our rulemaking. It’s very important that we get investor protections, consumer protections and safeguards for our markets. And so, I cannot, unfortunately, commit to not do my job that I was appointed to do by the president.”
Selig has been CFTC chair and the agency’s only commissioner since December. Some lawmakers have criticized him for moving forward on rules affecting digital assets and prediction markets without bipartisan agreement. The White House had not publicly announced nominees to fill the open seats as of the hearing.
“We’re going to do more through rulemaking,” Selig told Representative Don Davis, emphasizing that relying on staff discretion is not an adequate substitute for formal rules.
In March, the CFTC proposed rulemaking that could reshape how event contracts on prediction markets are regulated. Selig has asserted the CFTC’s “exclusive jurisdiction” over those markets, even as several state gaming authorities have sued firms such as Kalshi and Polymarket, alleging illegal sports wagering. Representative Gabe Vasquez, using a visual aid, argued that bets on event contracts resemble state-regulated gaming and accused the CFTC of allowing prediction markets to exploit “loopholes” that sidestep state rules and tax revenue.
“The CFTC was not created or intended to regulate sports gambling,” Vasquez said, questioning whether the agency is addressing “real economic risk” or permitting an unregulated marketplace without consumer safeguards.
Prediction market companies like Kalshi maintain they fall under CFTC authority; courts in Arizona and New Jersey have recently blocked state enforcement actions against Kalshi. The debate highlights tensions between federal oversight, state gaming laws, and the pace of regulatory action while the CFTC operates with a single commissioner.
This article was produced under Cointelegraph’s editorial policy; readers are encouraged to verify details independently.