A former White House employee profited from advance knowledge of presidential speeches, drawing federal penalties and a congressional inquiry into financial trading, confidential government information and business interests connected to the president’s family.
Oregon U.S. Senator Jeff Merkley and Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren are demanding answers from the White House following a federal insider trading enforcement case involving a former presidential employee who used confidential information about President Donald Trump’s speeches to make profitable financial wagers. The congressional inquiry, announced Tuesday, November 10, raises questions about the administration’s internal ethics safeguards, the handling of sensitive government information and potential conflicts of interest involving members of the president’s family and the rapidly expanding prediction-market industry.
The investigation centers on Gabriel Perez, a former White House teleprompter operator who used advance knowledge of words and phrases expected to appear in presidential remarks to purchase financial contracts tied to those statements. His trading activity, conducted between December 2025 and February 2026, resulted in a federal civil enforcement action and financial sanctions totaling more than $172,000.
The Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the federal agency responsible for regulating derivatives markets, announced its settlement with Perez on August 28. Under the enforcement order, Perez was required to surrender $107,539.02 in trading profits and pay a $65,000 civil monetary penalty. He was also prohibited from trading in CFTC-regulated markets for three years.
The federal action established that Perez had improperly exploited information obtained through his government employment for personal financial benefit. It did not establish that President Trump, his family members or other White House employees participated in the transactions.
Merkley and Warren are now seeking to determine whether the administration’s existing policies adequately prevent such conduct, whether additional employees have been investigated for similar activity and how officials responded after the trading came to light.
Their inquiry was formally directed to White House Counsel Will Scharf in a letter dated November 9, with a requested response deadline of November 23.
The controversy reaches beyond one employee’s financial transactions. It involves an increasingly sophisticated marketplace in which individuals can wager on political developments, economic announcements, election outcomes and even the precise language used by government officials. The availability of such contracts has created additional opportunities for individuals possessing confidential information to gain a financial advantage over ordinary market participants.
Perez’s position placed him in proximity to information that could directly influence the value of those contracts.
As a White House teleprompter operator, he had access to prepared presidential remarks before their public delivery. That access allowed him to anticipate particular words or phrases the president was expected to use, information unavailable to most traders purchasing contracts on the same outcomes.
The transactions involved Kalshi, a federally regulated prediction-market exchange where participants buy and sell contracts whose value depends on whether specified events occur.
Unlike traditional stock purchases, these contracts allow traders to take financial positions on narrowly defined outcomes. A contract might concern whether a particular economic report exceeds expectations, whether a political event occurs or whether a public official uses a specific expression during a scheduled address.
When those outcomes depend on information known in advance to a limited number of government employees, the potential for improper trading becomes a matter of federal regulatory concern.
Perez’s activity attracted attention after unusual trading patterns were identified. Kalshi investigated the transactions, froze his account and referred the matter to federal regulators.
The resulting CFTC investigation examined trading connected to multiple presidential appearances, including remarks associated with the State of the Union address and the World Economic Forum.
Federal regulators determined that Perez had violated duties of trust and confidence associated with his government employment. His cooperation with investigators was considered in determining the financial penalty.
The enforcement action was civil rather than criminal. Although federal prosecutors were reportedly informed of the matter, prosecutors in Manhattan declined to open a criminal investigation at that stage. No publicly announced federal criminal indictment against Perez had emerged from the reviewed information as of November 10.
The White House had also taken action before the senators announced their inquiry.
In July, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt confirmed that Perez had been placed on unpaid administrative leave. Administration officials maintained that employees were expected to comply with government ethics requirements and that the conduct attributed to Perez was unacceptable.
The White House Management Office had also distributed an internal memorandum warning employees against using nonpublic information to place prediction-market wagers.
By August, Perez was no longer serving in his White House position, although the circumstances of his departure had not been publicly clarified.
Those actions form part of the record now being examined by Merkley and Warren, who are seeking a more complete accounting of the administration’s response and the protections governing employees with access to confidential information.
The senators’ letter requests information about internal investigations, ethics training, employee financial disclosures and any changes made to White House policies following the discovery of Perez’s trading activity.
They also want to know whether other employees have been investigated for similar conduct and whether White House officials communicated with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission or the Department of Justice during the Perez investigation.
The inquiry seeks details about the officials involved in any such communications, when they occurred and what information was exchanged.
The existence of those questions does not establish improper interference with federal investigators. The senators are requesting records and explanations to determine what occurred.
Another element of the inquiry concerns the relationship between the president’s family and companies operating within the prediction-market industry.
Donald Trump Jr. has maintained business and advisory relationships involving Kalshi and Polymarket, two prominent companies operating in the market for contracts tied to future events.
The senators identify those relationships as potential sources of financial conflicts because the companies operate in an industry subject to federal oversight and regulatory decisions.
Their letter references reported financial interests involving Trump Jr. and 1789 Capital, a venture capital firm with which he is associated. Those interests include a reported equity position in Kalshi and a substantial investment involving Polymarket.
The letter also addresses plans involving Trump Media and a proposed prediction-market product known as Truth Predict.
These business relationships are not, by themselves, evidence of illegal activity. Nor has the Perez enforcement action established that Trump Jr. participated in his trading, supplied confidential information or directed any government employee to place financial wagers.
The senators’ concern instead involves whether private financial interests connected to the president’s family could intersect with decisions made by federal officials responsible for regulating the industry.
That question has particular significance because the Commodity Futures Trading Commission exercises authority over derivatives markets and certain event contracts, including products whose popularity has increased as political and economic wagering has become more accessible.
Federal oversight determines which contracts may be offered, how trading platforms operate and what conduct violates market rules.
The growing intersection between political information and financial speculation has complicated traditional boundaries between government ethics and market regulation.
Federal employees have long been subject to restrictions governing conflicts of interest, misuse of official positions and unauthorized disclosure of protected information. Those obligations apply regardless of whether a financial transaction involves conventional securities or newer forms of regulated derivatives.
Prediction markets introduce an additional consideration because some contracts can be settled according to government decisions or statements that public employees may know about before the general public.
An employee who learns the contents of a presidential speech, an impending policy announcement or another confidential government decision may possess information capable of affecting contract prices before the event becomes public.
The Perez case demonstrates how that informational advantage can translate into financial transactions and, when misused, federal enforcement penalties.
For Merkley, the issue places Oregon directly within a congressional examination of executive-branch accountability and the protection of government information.
The senator’s involvement does not mean that Oregon officials or residents participated in the trading activity. No Oregon state agency or Southern Oregon institution has been identified as a participant in the Perez matter, and the congressional inquiry has not produced any immediate change in Oregon law.
Nevertheless, federal ethics requirements and the regulation of financial markets apply nationally. Oregon residents who participate in federally regulated trading platforms operate under the same market framework as participants elsewhere in the country.
The inquiry also concerns the conduct of federal employees whose salaries are supported by taxpayers across all 50 states, including Oregon.
Government ethics policies are intended to prevent public employees from converting access obtained through official duties into private financial advantages. Enforcement of those requirements depends on internal supervision, disclosure obligations, independent regulatory oversight and appropriate disciplinary procedures.
The White House’s documented response to the Perez case included administrative leave and employee guidance. Whether additional measures were implemented, and whether the administration considers its existing safeguards sufficient, are among the matters the senators want explained.
The letter further asks about the outcome of the internal employment investigation and whether presidential clemency would be considered if Perez were to face criminal liability. That question does not establish that a criminal prosecution is pending or that a pardon has been discussed within the administration.
The distinction between the completed federal enforcement case and the broader congressional inquiry remains important.
Perez’s improper trading was addressed through a formal regulatory settlement. The questions involving additional White House employees, internal communications, presidential family business interests and the adequacy of administration safeguards remain subjects of congressional examination rather than established findings of misconduct.
The November 23 deadline gives the White House approximately two weeks to respond to the senators’ requests. The date was established by Merkley and Warren in their oversight correspondence and is not a deadline imposed by a federal court.
The administration’s response could clarify the extent of its internal investigation, identify additional safeguards adopted after the incident and provide information about communications with federal regulators. Whether the requested records will be supplied in full remains undetermined.
For federal regulators, the Perez settlement has already established that the misuse of confidential government information in prediction-market trading can carry substantial financial penalties and restrictions on future participation.
For Congress, the unanswered questions concern the broader system responsible for preventing that conduct before it occurs.
The next development will depend on what the administration discloses, whether additional records become public and whether the congressional inquiry identifies conduct extending beyond the violations already established in the Perez enforcement action.