Public Citizen Once Again Calls Upon the CFTC to Enforce Insider Trading Laws on the Prediction Markets ⁠87%

By Newswire Editor⁠94%

7/16/2026, 8:48:30 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 28 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Post Hoc (False Cause), and Hasty Generalization, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 40.4% saturation with 110 hits. Analysis detected 1,222 faulty-reasoning hits from 272 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 79.9% and a BS Rank of ⁠87% (2,777 of 21,198 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 86.90% of the article peer group.

Today, multiple news outlets reported that President Trump’s teleprompter operator has been placing profitable bets on Kalshi regarding the content of Trump’s forthcoming speeches. 
Public Citizen has repeatedly appealed to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, which oversees the prediction markets, to investigate and enforce the laws against insider trading. 
On March 5, 2026, Public Citizen filed an insider trading complaint with the CFTC following highly suspicious trades on the timing and developments of the American invasion of Iran. 
On April 30, 2026, Public Citizen and Better Markets urged the CFTC to conduct rulemaking on prediction markets trading activity. 
Craig Holman, Ph.D., government affairs lobbyist with Public Citizen issued the following statement: 
“Betting on political events on the prediction markets has become highly profitable for a small handful of anonymous bettors. 
Ever since the American invasion of Venezuela and Iran, a few people have been placing very large bets moments before the events take place, and scoring millions in profits. 
The timing and accuracy of these bets strongly suggest insider trading, probably by a few individuals in the know within the Trump administration. 
“News just broke that Trump’s teleprompter operator has been placing such bets on the content of Trump’s upcoming speeches. 
This is further evidence of illegal insider trading on the prediction markets – an industry that the Commodity Futures Trading Commission has let operate like the Wild West. 
“Public Citizen again calls on the CFTC to wake up and do its job of overseeing the prediction market industry and enforcing the insider trading laws.” 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 17.6%Newswire editor: 9.9%Common Dreams: 8.1%Confirmation Bias17.6%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 1.4%Common Dreams: 0.9%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 19.5%Newswire editor: 6.2%Common Dreams: 5.0%Availability Heuristic19.5%This article: 7.0%Newswire editor: 1.1%Common Dreams: 0.8%Representativeness Heuristic7.0%This article: 21.3%Newswire editor: 0.7%Common Dreams: 0.7%Hindsight Bias21.3%This article: 8.5%Newswire editor: 1.7%Common Dreams: 1.7%Overconfidence Bias8.5%This article: 10.3%Newswire editor: 20.8%Common Dreams: 17.7%Framing Effect10.3%This article: 9.6%Newswire editor: 1.4%Common Dreams: 1.0%Loss Aversion9.6%This article: 7.4%Newswire editor: 1.0%Common Dreams: 0.6%Status Quo Bias7.4%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 0.3%Common Dreams: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 1.7%Common Dreams: 1.6%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 3.1%Common Dreams: 2.8%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 34.9%Newswire editor: 22.3%Common Dreams: 20.7%Negativity Bias34.9%This article: 9.6%Newswire editor: 1.0%Common Dreams: 0.9%Self-Serving Bias9.6%This article: 8.5%Newswire editor: 3.1%Common Dreams: 2.4%Fundamental Attribution Error8.5%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 0.2%Common Dreams: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 4.3%Common Dreams: 3.8%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 1.6%Common Dreams: 1.2%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 1.0%Common Dreams: 1.4%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 0.6%Common Dreams: 0.4%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 0.0%Common Dreams: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 15.8%Newswire editor: 1.7%Common Dreams: 1.4%Recency Bias15.8%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 0.5%Common Dreams: 0.5%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 0.1%Common Dreams: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 5.4%Common Dreams: 6.4%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 1.0%Common Dreams: 1.3%Straw Man0.0%This article: 9.6%Newswire editor: 6.9%Common Dreams: 5.7%Appeal to Authority9.6%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 4.0%Common Dreams: 3.2%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 3.7%Common Dreams: 3.3%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 0.2%Common Dreams: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 27.9%Newswire editor: 10.4%Common Dreams: 8.7%Hasty Generalization27.9%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 0.3%Common Dreams: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 17.3%Newswire editor: 2.6%Common Dreams: 2.3%Bandwagon17.3%This article: 26.1%Newswire editor: 20.5%Common Dreams: 18.7%Appeal to Emotion26.1%This article: 8.5%Newswire editor: 5.0%Common Dreams: 3.8%Begging the Question8.5%This article: 29.8%Newswire editor: 5.4%Common Dreams: 4.3%Post Hoc (False Cause)29.8%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 0.2%Common Dreams: 0.3%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 10.7%Newswire editor: 1.5%Common Dreams: 1.2%Burden of Proof10.7%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 0.3%Common Dreams: 0.3%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 0.5%Common Dreams: 0.4%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 15.8%Newswire editor: 2.5%Common Dreams: 2.3%Anecdotal15.8%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 0.1%Common Dreams: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 8.5%Newswire editor: 2.1%Common Dreams: 1.8%Ambiguity (Equivocation)8.5%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 0.0%Common Dreams: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 0.1%Common Dreams: 0.0%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 0.1%Common Dreams: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 9.6%Newswire editor: 0.4%Common Dreams: 0.3%Special Pleading9.6%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 0.5%Common Dreams: 0.4%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 7.0%Newswire editor: 1.6%Common Dreams: 1.8%Unattributed Quote7.0%This article: 22.8%Newswire editor: 2.9%Common Dreams: 2.6%Quote-first Misdirection22.8%This article: 40.4%Newswire editor: 16.6%Common Dreams: 17.5%Biased Writer Voice40.4%This article: 18.0%Newswire editor: 11.9%Common Dreams: 8.4%Indoctrination18.0%This article: 19.1%Newswire editor: 20.3%Common Dreams: 17.3%Politically Left Leaning Bias19.1%This article: 8.5%Newswire editor: 0.7%Common Dreams: 0.6%Politically Right Leaning Bias8.5%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 1.2%Common Dreams: 1.5%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

272 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers71%attributed speech78writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Public Citizen • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 100.0% coveragePublic Citizen • 20 words • 0.0% coverageCraig Holman, Ph.D. • 13 words • 0.0% coverageCraig Holman, Ph.D. • 19 words • 100.0% coverageCraig Holman, Ph.D. • 29 words • 100.0% coverageCraig Holman, Ph.D. • 23 words • 100.0% coverageCraig Holman, Ph.D. • 19 words • 100.0% coverageCraig Holman, Ph.D. • 28 words • 100.0% coveragePublic Citizen • 26 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Craig Holman, Ph.D.

90%flagged-word coverage
131 attributed words68% of attributed speech100% writer coverage
0%35.0%70.0%Biased Writer Voice-24.4 ptsWriter: 67.9%Craig Holman, Ph.D.: 43.5%43.5%Politically Left Leaning B-9.4 ptsWriter: 30.8%Craig Holman, Ph.D.: 21.4%21.4%Quote-first Misdirection-1.8 ptsWriter: 30.8%Craig Holman, Ph.D.: 29.0%29.0%Indoctrination+17.6 ptsWriter: 0.0%Craig Holman, Ph.D.: 17.6%17.6%Politically Right Leaning +17.6 ptsWriter: 0.0%Craig Holman, Ph.D.: 17.6%17.6%Unattributed Quote+14.5 ptsWriter: 0.0%Craig Holman, Ph.D.: 14.5%14.5%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.