Native American casino leaders gathered in San Diego this week with one major concern dominating their annual convention discussions: the explosive rise of online prediction markets.
During both public sessions and private meetings, tribal officials addressed the rapid expansion of betting platforms such as Polymarket and Kalshi, expressing concerns about threats to their carefully regulated position in America’s gaming landscape.
The tribal gaming sector brings in over $40 billion annually, with these revenues supporting healthcare, housing, education and essential social programs across Native American communities. Meanwhile, prediction market applications see billions of dollars change hands during major events like the Super Bowl.
David Bean, who chairs the Indian Gaming Association, has criticized prediction markets for mischaracterizing their services to avoid a carefully established system of federal, state and tribal regulations.
“This is no innovation,” Bean stated during Wednesday’s press conference. “This is unlawful gambling dressed up as finance.”
The organization urged Congress to impose stricter controls on prediction markets and revealed plans for a defense fund to back legal challenges against these platforms.
Companies including Kalshi, Polymarket and Robinhood maintain their users participate in futures trading rather than gambling activities. These firms reject allegations of regulatory avoidance.
These prediction platforms enable users to bet on outcomes ranging from NCAA tournaments to international conflicts. What began as a specialized tool in political science has surged in both popularity and controversy following the 2024 election cycle.
Platform operators describe their customers as trading “event contracts” with other users. They contend their services differ fundamentally from gambling and should fall under Commodity Futures Trading Commission oversight, similar to agricultural or petroleum markets.
While the commission reviews potential new prediction market regulations, the Trump administration has expressed support for these platforms, which currently face legal action from over a dozen states and four tribal governments.
During the 1970s tribal self-determination movement, Native communities sought economic development tools to address widespread poverty. Bingo halls and card games emerged in community centers and temporary structures across reservations nationwide.
Brookings Institution fellow Patrice Kunesh explained that tribes, with limited taxation authority, utilized this revenue source to reconstruct their governments following decades of federal oversight.
“Tribes were asserting sovereignty. That rankled the states,” Kunesh observed.
Following a 1987 Supreme Court ruling that prevented California from closing card rooms on two reservations, states pushed Congress for gambling regulation authority. This led to the 1988 Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, creating what Kunesh termed a tribal compromise.
This legislation broadened tribal gaming options, allowing informal bingo operations to evolve into sophisticated casino resorts worth billions. The Act also established strict oversight requirements and mandated state-tribal gaming agreements.
Tribal gaming has faced competition before. When the 1988 Indian Gaming Regulatory Act passed, commercial casinos operated legally in just two states. That figure has expanded to 27 states, while the industry now competes with legal sports betting in 39 states and growing online casino markets.
Former National Indian Gaming Commission Chairman Jonodev Chaudhuri notes prediction markets stand out because they rapidly entered online gaming with minimal regulation. He characterized this year’s convention atmosphere as collectively anxious.
“There’s an intensity in the discussions that is more pointed than I’ve seen perhaps ever in these rooms,” Chaudhuri remarked.
The Indian Gaming Association indicated studies examining financial impacts are currently underway.
Four tribal nations have filed federal lawsuits against Kalshi and Robinhood, alleging violations of federal law and state-tribal agreements. In legal responses, these platforms argue they operate financial markets rather than casinos or sportsbooks and don’t conduct business on tribal territory.
The Ho-Chunk Nation, one of Wisconsin’s 11 federally recognized tribes with exclusive gaming rights under state compact, joins these legal challengers. Ho-Chunk President Jon Greendeer described the battle as David versus Goliath, with tribal social services at stake.
“We’re taking on somebody who makes more money on one event than we do in an entire year,” Greendeer stated.
The Indian Gaming Association has submitted supporting briefs in the expanding litigation against prediction platforms while preparing resources for potential legal action. Congressional appeals face uncertainty given Trump administration support for the prediction market sector.
“We’re seeing some hesitancy from lawmakers who don’t want to upset the big boss,” Bean commented.
According to National Indian Gaming Commission data, tribal gaming enterprises achieved record revenues of nearly $44 billion in 2024.
Less than half of America’s 576 federally recognized tribes operate gaming facilities. Many tribal casinos, especially in remote locations, generate only enough income for basic government functions and social programs.
Kunesh notes that Indian Gaming Regulatory Act compliance costs significantly reduce tribal revenues. The law also enables states to negotiate revenue-sharing arrangements with tribes, typically in exchange for some market exclusivity.
“People think tribes are making money hand over fist. That’s a terrible misunderstanding,” Kunesh emphasized.
