This is a follow-up to my earlier post on prediction markets and Indian gaming.
Below is a summary that provides a snapshot of the concerns raised by Tribes in their comments submitted in response to the CFTC’s proposed rule.
Taken together, the comments consistently emphasize that the CFTC is considering a federal workaround that could allow companies to offer nationwide sports betting while bypassing the legal framework Congress created for gaming in Indian country.
Recurring concerns raised in Tribal comments include:
IGRA already governs gaming on Indian lands. The CEA should not be interpreted to override, impliedly repeal, or create a workaround around the federal Indian gaming framework Congress established in IGRA.
The CFTC failed to conduct meaningful government-to-government Tribal consultation. Notice-and-comment rulemaking is not a substitute for consultation when a federal action substantially affects Tribal sovereignty, gaming regulation, and Tribal governmental economies.
Sports event contracts are gaming regardless of what they are called. Many commenters argue that the legal analysis should turn on the transaction’s economic function, which is a wager for value on an uncertain sporting outcome and not the label “event contract.”
The proposed definition of when an event contract “involves” gaming is too narrow. Tribal commenters reject an interpretation limited to what determines settlement of the contract and argue that Congress’s language also reaches contracts that functionally relate to or facilitate wagering on gaming activity.
The rule threatens Tribal sovereignty and regulatory jurisdiction. Nationwide mobile sports event wagering could reach Indian lands without Tribal authorization and bypass Tribal gaming regulators.
Prediction markets could undermine Tribal-State compacts. Commenters warn that federally regulated sports event contracts could circumvent bargained-for gaming exclusivity and revenue sharing provisions.
The CFTC should not become a national sports betting regulator. Tribal commenters argue that the CEA regulates derivatives markets, not ordinary sports wagering, and point to the CFTC’s own prior statements that it is not a gaming regulator.
The proposal creates regulatory arbitrage. Functionally equivalent sports wagering could receive substantially lighter federal regulation when offered through a CFTC-regulated exchange, bypassing Tribal and state licensing, taxation, responsible-gaming, and consumer-protection requirements.
The CFTC should prohibit gaming contracts before they reach the market rather than rely on case-by-case review. Commenters object to allowing exchanges to self-certify contracts that may begin trading before the Commission determines whether they are permissible.
Tribal governmental revenues are at stake. Competition from prediction markets could reduce gaming revenues used by Tribal governments for health care, education, housing, public safety, and other governmental services.
Some commenters question whether sports wagers belong within the CEA at all. They argue that sports event wagers lack the hedging or risk management function associated with derivatives and may fail threshold statutory requirements for swaps.
The proposal raises federal trust responsibility and Indian law canon issues. Where federal statutes are ambiguous, commenters argue that the CEA should not be interpreted to silently displace Tribal sovereign, regulatory, or negotiated compact rights.
The rule may be vulnerable under the Administrative Procedure Act. Several comments preserve arguments that the CFTC is reversing prior understandings without adequately addressing congressional intent, Indian gaming law, Tribal sovereignty, and the regulatory consequences of its new approach.
Many Tribal commenters want the proposal withdrawn, not merely improved. The dominant requested remedy is for the CFTC to withdraw the proposed rule or preserve a categorical prohibition on gaming event contracts.
Online prediction markets present one of the most significant threats to Indian gaming and Tribal sovereign interests in decades. Prediction market companies threaten Indian gaming because they’re advancing a legal theory that could allow them to offer a product that functionally operates as sports betting nationwide without complying with the legal regime that Congress created for gaming in Indian country. These markets allow people to bet on almost anything, from sporting events and sports statistics to who will be named the next Pope and whether famous people will say certain words during a speech. One aspect of the story that’s received little attention from major media outlets is the intersection between these markets, Indian gaming, and the Trump family’s financial interests.
The Trump administration’s Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) is proposing a new rule governing prediction market “event contracts,” including contracts based on sporting events. The proposal would define “gaming” and when an event contract “involves” gaming, while replacing the CFTC’s current strongly prohibitory approach with one under which the agency would make public interest determinations about particular categories of contracts.
The distinction is enormously consequential. Prediction market companies argue that sports event contracts are derivatives subject to federal regulation under the Commodity Exchange Act rather than sports gambling subject to state law or, in Indian country, gaming under IGRA. If successful, the consequences go well beyond which federal agency regulates the new financial products of prediction markets.
As Turtle Talk readers well know, Tribes operate gaming under a system of federal law, Tribal law, Tribal gaming regulation, and for Class III gaming, Tribal-State compacts negotiated pursuant to IGRA. Prediction market companies argue that that they can offer a product that looks nearly identical to sports betting, but outside of the laws governing gaming in Indian country because wagers placed with their companies are “event contracts” governed by the CFTC and its rules.
The major issue presented by this conflict is who has to play by which rules. The CFTC proposed rule would strengthen the prediction market industry’s argument that sports contracts can operate in Indian country without being subject to IGRA. If successful, this would impair Tribal regulatory authority, Tribal-State compact enforcement, gaming compact exclusivity provisions, and gaming revenues that Tribes use to fund their governmental services.
Who Stands to Benefit?
Meanwhile, the Trump family has significant financial ties to prediction markets. Donald Trump Jr. is a strategic adviser to Kalshi and a partner in 1789 Capital, which invested tens of millions of dollars in Polymarket. Trump, Jr. also joined Polymarket as an adviser. The investment potential is profound. Kalshi was valued at $22 billion in May 2026 and was reported to be discussing a new funding round at a valuation as high as $40 billion just one month later. Industry analysts have projected that prediction markets could grow into a $1 trillion per year trading market by 2030. A federal rule strengthening the industry’s ability to offer their contracts nationwide under exclusive CFTC regulation has extraordinarily large commercial stakes.
The New Yorker recently reported on the overlap between Trump family financial interests and the administration’s approach to prediction markets in an article titled “This Is What Trumpian Self-Dealing Looks Like.” None of this alone establishes that the Trump family caused the CFTC to propose this particular rule. But it highlights the stakes of the proposed rule and the question of who stands to benefit from this administration’s policy choices.
The Trump Indian Gaming Historical Context
As TT readers know, Trump has attacked Indian gaming since at least the early 1990s, when his Atlantic City casinos competed with Tribal gaming. In 1993 congressional testimony about implementation of IGRA, Trump complained about Tribal casinos, alleged organized crime problems, and questioned the Indian identity of Tribal people, telling members of Congress that some “don’t look like Indians to me.” This significance of this history goes beyond its blatant racism. In the 1990s, Trump owned casinos that faced competition from Indian gaming, and he responded by attacking Indian gaming’s legitimacy and regulation with attack ads smearing the St. Regis Mohawk, resulting in a $250,000 fine from New York’s state lobbying commission (see the link to the Washington Post’s article, Trump’s Long History of Clashes with Native Americans, in the Additional Resources section below). Now, more than thirty years later, Tribes are responding to a federal regulatory proposal that could profoundly benefit prediction market companies, including companies with Trump family financial ties, by arguing that they offer the functional equivalent of sports betting without being subject to IGRA and Tribal-State gaming compacts.
Indian Country’s Response
Indian country responded to the proposed new CFTC rule by submitting 65 timely comments from Tribes, Tribal gaming regulators, and Tribal organizations opposing or raising significant concerns about the proposal, with more Tribal submissions posted after the deadline. These objections address the proposed rule in light of Tribal sovereignty, IGRA, Tribal-State compacts, the statutory meaning of “gaming,” CFTC’s claimed federal jurisdiction, and the adequacy of tribal consultation. I’ll post more about these comments in the coming days, including what the proposed rule could mean for Indian gaming if it’s adopted, as well as a summary of the legal arguments Tribes made in their submissions.
Importantly, Tribes are also litigating this conflict in federal courts, with cases that Turtle Talk has been following. Tribes are participating in litigation over Kalshi’s sports event contracts in multiple courts, and several tribes have sued directly:
•Ho-Chunk Nation v. Kalshi Inc. (W.D. Wis.) (a federal judge allowed the Tribe’s IGRA claims against Kalshi to proceed in May 2026)
Roughly two dozen additional Tribes and Tribal organizations, including the Indian Gaming Association, California Nations Indian Gaming Association, Arizona Indian Gaming Association, Oklahoma Indian Gaming Association, National Congress of American Indians, Native American Finance Officers Association, San Manuel Gaming and Hospitality Authority, and the United South and Eastern Tribes Sovereignty Protection Fund, have filed amicus briefs in four state-initiated challenges against Kalshi and other prediction market operators: North American Derivatives Exchange (Crypto.com) v. Hendrick (D. Nev.), KalshiEX v. Martin (D. Md.), KalshiEX v. Flaherty (D.N.J.), and Robinhood Markets v. Campbell (D. Mass.).
Finally, the question running through all of this is: after Tribes spent decades building gaming enterprises within the federal framework Congress established with IGRA, can a new generation of prediction market companies enter the same market, call the transactions “event contracts,” and operate under a different and less burdensome set of rules? If the federal government concludes that they can, then we should all question who benefits from that decision and who bears the cost.
Additional Resources
My summary of the Tribal comments submitted in response to the CFTC proposed rule is here.
Trump’s Long History of Clashes with Native Americans, by Shawn Boburg for the Washington Post (July 25, 2016). Access without a paywall is here. This story also reports on New York State’s state lobbying commission imposing a $250,000 fine for Trump’s violation of state lobbying laws in his campaign to smear Indian gaming in New York state through a series of ads depicting the St. Regis Mohawk as violent criminals and drug dealers in an effort to kill Tribal casino plans that would compete with his Atlantic City casino businesses.
Public Law 959, known as the Indian Relocation Act of 1956, was enacted on August 3, 1956. The National Archives has assembled an excellent online guide to BIA urban relocation records, including the original statute, federal relocation promotional materials, field office records, case files, and records from the relocation offices including the Chicago relocation office for folks interested in Great Lakes relocation history.
The Warrior Women Project Oral History Archive is a collection of online interviews, audio recordings, photographs, and written content documenting the women of the Red Power Movement from the 1960s to the 1980s. The Project website states:
These are stories of resistance, resilience, and hope. They remind us that change is possible, but it requires courage, determination, and solidarity. This transformative history is recovered through community-informed research and activist archiving which informs our media production, rapid response activism, and the creation of a decolonizing curricula and teaching toolkits to be used for impact education.
The Implementation Project will host its next quarterly meeting, “Tribes, Intertribal Organizations, and the Declaration,” on September 10, 2026, from noon–1:30 p.m. Mountain Time via Zoom. The roundtable will explore opportunities for international engagement and implementation of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Panelists include Fawn Sharp and Jennifer Weddle, with commentary from Linda Benally and Honor Keeler. Register here.
TIP has also published a new article highlighting key takeaways from the July 2026 session of the UN Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
As some Tribes reject hyperscale data centers in Indian Country, others are embracing data center development. Others are imposing moratoria on data centers to allow for further studies and policy development. Below is a snapshot of what Tribes are doing. It illustrates the diversity of Tribes in the US, and it shows Tribes acting as governments, regulators, landowners, utility operators, infrastructure owners, investors, economic development actors, and political communities as they decide what tech development should look like on their lands.
Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma: Released a Data Center Task Force report on August 5, 2026 and is now banning hyperscale data centers on tribally owned and trust lands.
Seminole Nation of Oklahoma: On March 7, 2026, the Tribal Council unanimously voted for a moratorium on generative-AI and hyperscale data center development within its jurisdiction. The resolution also bars “any inquiries, discussions and/or developments concerning any entity seeking to develop a data center of any size within the Seminole Nation during the moratorium period.”
Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians: Supports a moratorium. The Tribe adopted a resolution on May 19, 2026 supporting the state of Michigan establishing a temporary moratorium on large-scale data centers and cryptocurrency mining until a Tribal consultation process is established, including comprehensive environmental and cultural impact assessments on any legislation involving large-scale data centers and cryptocurrency mining.
Muscogee (Creek) Nation: Rejected. In November 2025, the National Council rejected a measure that would have developed a data center at Looped Square Ranch, where land is being used for Tribal food sovereignty.
Hoopa Valley Tribe: Supports, under Tribal ownership. Hoopa opened a new data center on July 17, 2026, but it’s not a hyperscale data center. It’s a tribally-owned facility serving as the operational hub of Hoopa’s fiber-to-home broadband network and Acorn Connected, its Tribal internet service provider.
Forest County Potawatomi Community: Yes, and has been doing it for years. Its enterprise Data Holdings operates a commercial data center in Milwaukee on trust land and is 100% Tribally owned. It opened in 2013 as a $33 million wholesale data center and now provides colocation/private cloud services and hosts the Milwaukee Internet Exchange.
Navajo Nation: Yes. Navajo Tribal Utility Authority operates a data center in Shiprock on the Navajo Nation offering colocation, virtualization and high-speed optical backhaul to off-reservation points-of-presence in Albuquerque and Phoenix. NTUA is a Navajo Nation enterprise, and the facility serves both Navajo and outside government and business customers.
Colusa Indian Community: Actively pursuing AI infrastructure. The Community’s Colusa Indian Energy announced a partnership in March 2026 with Strata Expanse to develop an AI and energy infrastructure campus on the land of the Cachil Dehe Band of Wintun Indians of the Colusa Indian Community in Northern California. Plans include expanding on-site energy generation capacity to more than 100 MW over the next 18 months.
Osage Nation: Debating a data center approved in February 2026 by the City of Sand Springs on the Osage reservation. The proposed data center would be operated by Google, and construction is planned to begin in 2027. The developers are seeking support from the Osage Minerals Council, which controls the nation’s 1.47 million acre oil and gas subsurface.
July 20 article by Melanie Henshaw, published by InvestigateWest. Link to article is here. The article isn’t a polemical attack on tribes; it identifies a number of structural reasons for this phenomenon.
State Rep. Chris Stearns, D-Auburn, a citizen of the Navajo Nation and sponsor of the state bill on pension access for tribes, says that in his experience working closely with tribes, there’s a strong desire to hire qualified candidates that will best protect the needs, culture, and interests of tribal citizens, elders, and children.
Native Americans face the highest risk of deadly police violence of any race, and 2026 research from the University of Washington shows Native Americans on and near reservations face a disproportionate risk of being killed by police, with the report stating that a “coordinated public health response to police violence is urgently needed in Indian Country.”
“They should have an interest in hiring the best people,” Stearns said. “You don’t want your elders to get roughed up by someone, that goes against our values.”
The Inter-Tribal Council of Michigan (ITCMI) released its FY2025 Annual Report on August 10, 2026, and it reported that the federal government revoked more than $23 million in EPA grant funding, creating “substantial obstacles” for Tribal communities and programs across Michigan.
$20 million of the lost funding was part of an EPA Community Change Grant awarded to ITCMI in partnership with the Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians for “Making Michigan Tribal Homes & Buildings Efficient, Healthy, and Resilient.” The project planned to work with six Michigan Tribes to retrofit and electrify at least 300 Tribal homes and convert twelve Tribal government buildings into community resilience hubs. Funding would also have supported roof and electrical repairs, insulation and ventilation improvements, electric appliances, indoor-air-quality equipment, and Tribal staff responsible for overseeing the work.
Another $3 million of the lost funding was part of an EPA Community Change Grant awarded to ITCMI in partnership with the Bay Mills Indian Community for “Michigan Tribal and State Manoomin/Mnoomin/Mnomen Stewardship.” Developed with Michigan’s twelve federally recognized Tribes, ITCMI, the State of Michigan EGLE, and the University of Michigan Water Center, the project would have supported implementation of the Tribal-State Manoomin Stewardship Plan. It specifically contemplated participation by Tribal elders, traditional ricers, and knowledge keepers in the Michigan Wild Rice Initiative and supported their participation in stewardship and decision-making.
Together, these two awards account for $23 million, although ITCMI’s reference to more than $23 million in its Annual Report indicates that its total revoked EPA funding may extend beyond these two grants.
ITCMI Lawsuit Update
ITCMI is now one of the plaintiffs challenging EPA’s termination of the Environmental and Climate Justice Block Grant program in Appalachian Voices v. EPA. In court filings, ITCMI warned that the experience could deepen distrust of the federal government and make Tribes more hesitant to partner with ITCMI in future federally funded projects.
The litigation remains active. A federal district court dismissed the case in August 2025, but on July 21, 2026, the D.C. Circuit vacated that dismissal and returned the case to the district court. The case therefore continues while Michigan Tribal communities remain without funding that had been awarded for housing and manoomin stewardship.
Last Friday we posted on the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation’s move to weaken Section 106’s consultation requirements. We emphasized that the proposed rule, which hasn’t yet been published in the Federal Register, may include a short window of 30 days for submission of comments.
Likely Problems with an Anticipated Short 30-Day Comment Window
Thirty days is notably short, not consistent with best practices identified by EO 13563(2)(b) and EO 12866(6)(a)(1), and unlikely to afford sufficient opportunity for meaningful Tribal participation. Once the NPRM is published, Tribes will need to share the draft with their THPOs, legal counsel, natural resources and cultural staff, executive leadership, and Tribal Council before submitting their comments. The process for Tribal government preparation of comments is profoundly different than national industry associations and corporations, which have dedicated regulatory counsel whose jobs are dedicated to monitoring and immediately responding to federal rulemaking. If ACHP publishes the notice of proposed rulemaking with only 30 days for comments, Tribes and their advocates could consider immediately requesting an extension to at least 60 or even 90 days. The argument would be that given the breadth of the proposed revisions and the consultation and internal review required for affected Tribes, a longer period is necessary to provide a meaningful opportunity for informed comment.
Tribes Can Request a Meeting with OIRA within OMB to Address Changes to Section 106 Now
Tribes and other interested parties don’t have to wait for the comment period to engage. They can weigh in now by requesting a meeting with the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) within OMB. OIRA review isn’t just an internal federal process conducted behind closed doors. Interested parties, including Tribes, can request meetings while regulatory actions are under review. Regulated industries routinely use these opportunities, and Tribes should know that the same opportunity is available to them. All Tribes should know that they don’t have to wait until the proposed rule is published in the Federal Register to make their concerns known.
The link to request a meeting is here. To request a meeting, you’ll need to provide the Regulatory Identification Number (RIN) for OIRA’s current review of amendments to the Implementing Regulations for Section 106. The RIN is 3010-AA10. OIRA’s role in the rulemaking process is described in EO 12866.
There are no OIRA meetings currently scheduled with Tribes or Tribal organizations regarding its consideration of changes to Section 106 regulations, although the National Association of Tribal Historic Preservation Officers (NATHPO) reports that they submitted a request for a meeting on August 11. So far, OIRA met with Edison Electric Institute on August 13, and it has meetings scheduled for the Society for American Archaeology, the Wisconsin SHPO, the WA Dept of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Agora Consulting LLC on behalf of the American Cultural Resources Association, and the National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers.
A How To Guide for EO 12866 meetings (Meetings on a Regulatory Action under Review with the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs) is available on the OIRA website here.
The Senate confirmed Mark Cruz (Klamath Tribes) to serve as Director of the Indian Health Service on August 7 by a 51-47 vote. His confirmation ended more than 18 months without a Senate-confirmed IHS Director following the departure of former Director Roselyn Tso in January 2025.
At his June 24 confirmation hearing before the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, Cruz stated that he intends to advocate “ferociously” for improved health outcomes in Indian Country. The Committee’s hearing page, including Cruz’s testimony, is available here.
Cruz will also retain his position as Senior Advisor on Tribal Health to HHS Secretary RFK, Jr. while serving as IHS Director. Holding both positions simultaneously is unusual given the size and operational responsibilities of IHS, which provides health services to about 2.8 million American Indians and Alaska Natives.
Cruz’ dual role may be particularly important to watch in light of recent changes in IHS public health communications under Secretary Kennedy. ProPublica reported last fall that IHS officials had begun flagging terms including “vaccines” and “immunizations” as risky “buzzwords” requiring additional review by agency public information officers before their use in social media updates, pamphlets, and presentations. Current and former IHS clinicians told ProPublica that the restrictions interfered with their ability to communicate effectively with patients, and one IHS doctor said that the restrictions led to her decision to leave the agency.
The ProPublica report takes on added significance in light of internal CDC emails recently made public by Sen. Bernie Sanders. The emails released in late June of this year don’t concern IHS or Cruz directly, but they document centralized HHS oversight of the CDC’s vaccine communications, including HHS direction about vaccine-related material that had been removed from CDC websites and what content would be put back online. The emails don’t establish that HHS directed the IHS restrictions reported by ProPublica, but they provide important context for Cruz’s unusual dual role, since he was already serving as Secretary Kennedy’s Senior Advisor on Tribal Health before becoming IHS Director and will now serve simultaneously in the Secretary’s office and at the head of IHS. Whether Cruz uses his new position to protect IHS clinicians’ ability to communicate evidence-based public health information is worth watching.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.