Breaking
Sponsor Advertisement
Trump Teleprompter Operator on Leave Amid Betting Probe
Image for: Trump Teleprompter Operator on Leave Amid Betting Probe

Trump Teleprompter Operator on Leave Amid Betting Probe

President Trump's longtime teleprompter operator, Gabriel Perez, has been placed on unpaid administrative leave following allegations of using non-public speech details to profit on a prediction market. Federal investigators are now examining the trades, which reportedly yielded over $90,000.
Jump to The Flipside Perspectives

A senior White House aide, Gabriel Perez, who has served as President Donald Trump's teleprompter operator since 2016, has been placed on unpaid administrative leave amidst a federal investigation into allegations of insider trading on a prediction market. The announcement was made by White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt on Thursday, confirming Perez would not be operating the teleprompter for the President's primetime address that evening.

"He believes it is deeply unfortunate and, frankly, a disgrace." — Karoline Leavitt, White House Press Secretary

Leavitt initially misstated the nature of Perez's leave, calling it "paid" before quickly correcting herself to clarify it was "administrative leave without pay." She emphasized that the decision to place Perez on leave was made by President Trump himself. The allegations center on Perez's alleged use of advance knowledge of the President's speech content to place bets on the prediction platform Kalshi, a practice that reportedly generated significant profits.

According to federal records and reports from ABC News and CNN, Perez is believed to have placed bets across more than a dozen of President Trump's addresses. These events included high-profile engagements such as February's State of the Union address, a January appearance before the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, and a December primetime speech. The alleged scheme, known as a "mention market," allows users to wager on whether a public figure will utter specific words, phrases, or subjects during a live appearance. Perez is reported to have accumulated upwards of $90,000 in profit from these trades, though these funds are currently frozen pending review.

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), a federal agency that regulates futures and options markets, is actively examining Perez's trades. A source familiar with the matter told The Post that Perez is "fully cooperating with the CFTC on the matter." The CFTC has not yet publicly detailed its findings, and a spokesperson for the agency declined to comment when contacted.

The unusual betting activity was not initially discovered by external reporters but rather by Kalshi's own internal monitoring system. Robert DeNault, Kalshi’s head of enforcement and legal counsel, confirmed the company's proactive role in a social media statement. DeNault stated, "The Kalshi surveillance team promptly flagged, investigated and referred these trades to the CFTC," adding that the platform has fully cooperated with investigators and provided all collected evidence.

Perez's role at the White House extended beyond his teleprompter duties. Government payroll records list his official title as Deputy Assistant to the President, a position with an annual salary of $175,000. Press Secretary Leavitt conveyed President Trump's reaction to the news of his aide's alleged misconduct, describing his sentiment in stark terms. "He believes it is deeply unfortunate and, frankly, a disgrace," Leavitt told reporters.

Leavitt underscored the stringent ethical guidelines that govern all White House employees. She explained that "there are very strict ethical guidelines here at the White House that explicitly state not to do this, and the White House Counsel’s office makes that clear to all of us who sign up to work in government on behalf of the president." She unequivocally placed responsibility for the alleged breach on Perez, stating, "This individual unfortunately violated the plan, and therefore he’s paying the consequences." Leavitt confirmed that every incoming staffer signs a formal ethics pledge during onboarding, though she could not confirm whether Kalshi's platform was accessible or restricted on White House computer networks.

This is not the first instance of alleged prediction-market misconduct involving government personnel this year. In April, U.S. Army Master Sgt. Gannon Ken Van Dyke was charged by prosecutors for allegedly using classified military intelligence for personal profit. Van Dyke is accused of leveraging nonpublic details about a covert raid targeting Venezuela to amass approximately $409,000 in winnings on a separate platform, Polymarket. Court records indicate he placed 13 individual bets totaling $33,000 between late December 2025 and early January 2026, wagering on the operation that resulted in the capture of Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro. Van Dyke has pleaded not guilty and is awaiting trial. His prosecution marked the first time the Justice Department brought insider-trading charges specifically tied to a prediction market, with the CFTC filing parallel civil charges.

The Van Dyke case prompted the White House to circulate a staff-wide memo in March, explicitly cautioning employees against using nonpublic government information for prediction-market betting. The popularity of prediction markets has surged nationwide, attracting bettors to a wide array of wagers, from political outcomes to sports championships. As of now, no criminal charges have been filed against Gabriel Perez, and the CFTC investigation remains ongoing.

Advertisement

The Flipside: Different Perspectives

Progressive View

This incident involving Gabriel Perez points to broader systemic issues around financial ethics, accountability, and the potential for exploitation of public office. While individual responsibility is a factor, the case also highlights vulnerabilities in oversight mechanisms, especially as new financial instruments like prediction markets emerge. The significant sum allegedly profited by Perez, and the even larger sum in the prior Van Dyke case, demonstrate a pattern that demands a more comprehensive review of how non-public government information is protected and how such markets are regulated. From a progressive viewpoint, the focus should not just be on punishment but on strengthening the entire ethical infrastructure to prevent future abuses. This includes ensuring all government employees, regardless of rank, receive clear, updated ethics training that addresses emerging technologies and financial platforms. Furthermore, the incident reveals the potential for economic inequality to create incentives for such behavior, suggesting a need for a living wage and secure employment for all government staff to reduce financial pressures that might lead to ethical compromises. Ensuring transparency and robust regulatory frameworks are paramount to maintaining public trust and promoting collective well-being over individual gain.

Conservative View

The allegations against Gabriel Perez underscore the critical importance of personal responsibility and ethical conduct within government service. From a conservative perspective, public servants are entrusted with a sacred duty, and any breach of that trust through self-serving actions erodes public faith in institutions. The White House's swift action to place Perez on unpaid leave and President Trump's strong condemnation reflect a commitment to upholding high ethical standards. This incident highlights the need for robust enforcement of existing ethics guidelines and potentially stronger deterrents against insider trading, even in novel markets like prediction platforms. Conservatives emphasize that individuals must be held accountable for their choices, and the consequences for violating clear ethical pledges should be severe. The fact that Kalshi's internal systems flagged the activity and referred it to federal authorities demonstrates the potential for private sector oversight to complement government regulation. This situation reinforces the belief that a lean, ethical government is essential, where those who serve do so with integrity rather than seeking personal enrichment through privileged information.

Common Ground

Both conservative and progressive viewpoints can agree on the fundamental principle that public servants must adhere to strict ethical standards and avoid using their positions for personal financial gain. There is shared consensus that integrity and accountability are paramount for maintaining public trust in government institutions. Both sides would likely support transparent and thorough investigations into allegations of insider trading or ethical breaches by government employees. Furthermore, there's common ground in the need for clear ethics guidelines and ongoing education for all federal staff, especially concerning new technologies and financial platforms like prediction markets. The White House's prompt response, including placing the employee on leave and condemning the alleged actions, can be seen as a bipartisan affirmation of these shared values. Ultimately, ensuring that those who serve the public do so with honesty and without exploiting their access to information is a goal that transcends ideological divides.

What's your view on this story? Share your thoughts and remember to consider multiple perspectives and being respectful when forming and voicing your opinion. "If you resort to personal attacks, you have already lost the debate..."

Advertisement

Contact Us About This Article

Have a question or comment about this article? We'd love to hear from you.

About Fair Side News

At Fair Side News, we believe in presenting news with perspectives from both sides of the political spectrum. Our goal is to help readers understand different viewpoints and find common ground on important issues.