A White House teleprompter operator allegedly turned secret access to President Trump’s speeches into a six‑figure betting haul, and the fallout reaches far beyond one “disgrace” in the control booth.
Story Snapshot
- Gabriel Perez allegedly made nearly $100,000 betting on Trump’s speech wording on Kalshi mention markets.
- Kalshi’s surveillance flagged his trades, froze about $90,000 in profits, and alerted regulators.
- The Commodity Futures Trading Commission is in settlement talks; federal prosecutors passed on criminal charges.
- The case exposes a wider problem: government insiders using prediction markets like quiet casinos with inside info.
How a Teleprompter Operator Turned Speeches into a Side Hustle
Gabriel “Gabe” Perez did not stand at the podium or draft policy. He stood behind the scenes, running the teleprompter for President Trump since 2016. That job came with early access to prepared remarks for big events, from rallies to addresses.
Media reports say Perez used that head start to wager on “mention markets” on Kalshi, where people bet on which exact words a public figure will say in a speech. Those markets can pay off fast when you know the script before everyone else.
President Donald Trump's longtime teleprompter operator, Gabriel Perez, has drawn ire from the White House after reports he'd profited from Kalshi bets linked to content in Trump's speeches. https://t.co/kYWkQSjsD7
— Business Insider (@BusinessInsider) July 16, 2026
According to multiple outlets, Perez bet on more than a dozen Trump speeches in about three months, including the State of the Union. These were not casual twenty‑dollar punts. Kalshi’s systems later found that his account racked up profits approaching six figures.
One source told reporters he cleared more than $90,000 before the platform stepped in. Other coverage framed the total as “over $100,000,” but all agree the money came from wagers tied to Trump’s exact phrases.
Kalshi Slams the Brakes and Calls in the Referees
Kalshi operates prediction markets that look a bit like a hybrid of a betting site and a futures exchange. Its business depends on trust that the games are not rigged by insiders. When its surveillance team saw Perez’s pattern of wins on Trump mention markets, they dug into the account and discovered he was a federal employee.
The company then froze about $90,000 of his profits and banned him from further trading. Kalshi referred its findings to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the agency that polices these markets.
Kalshi’s enforcement chief later said their team “promptly flagged and referred these trades” after an internal investigation. From a common‑sense view, that is exactly what a private platform should do: protect honest traders, defend market integrity, and push suspected bad actors toward regulators, not quietly enjoy the extra volume.
The fact that a private firm, not the government, first spotted the problem suggests Washington still lags behind in guarding its own secrets in this new betting world.
The White House Reaction and the Limits of Punishment
The White House placed Perez on unpaid administrative leave once the investigation became public. Press secretary Karoline Leavitt called the situation “deeply unfortunate” and “a disgrace,” reflecting how serious it looks when a staffer appears to cash in on presidential speeches.
Reports say Perez has acknowledged at least some of the trades and is now in settlement talks with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission over the alleged insider activity. A likely deal would force him to repay profits and bar similar trading.
Federal prosecutors in Manhattan, however, declined to open a criminal case after the referral. That choice does not clear Perez, but it does draw a line between civil misconduct and crime.
This raises a key question: are existing laws clear and tough enough on prediction‑market insider trading, or are regulators stretching old rules into a gray zone? When prosecutors pass, but civil regulators push for payback, the system risks looking arbitrary instead of fair and firm.
Prediction Markets, Insider Temptation, and Public Trust
This is not an isolated oddball story. In early 2026, the White House warned staff not to use nonpublic information, including war plans with Iran, to trade on prediction sites and other markets.
Around the same time, an Army soldier was indicted for using classified military data to profit from wagers on another platform. One news outlet described prediction markets as an “insider‑trading marketplace,” pointing to several suspicious episodes tied to political and security events.
Democratic lawmakers have already used these cases to push for more training and stricter rules for all federal employees who might touch sensitive information. A common‑sense reading of the situation is blunt: you do not need a new nanny‑state bureaucracy to stop this.
You need clear bans on using nonpublic government information for any kind of betting, real enforcement when someone breaks that rule, and a culture where public service beats personal profit. Prediction markets themselves can help by policing insiders, as Kalshi did, but the ultimate guardrails must come from law and ethics that everyone understands.
Sources:
cbsnews.com, reuters.com, gate.com, facebook.com, nytimes.com, cnn.com
