|
 |
Popular Information ignores the spin. We follow the money.
In today’s edition, we’ve connected the dots between a $5 million donation and the Trump administration’s decision to intervene in a high-stakes federal court case.
This is not information you will find anywhere else. You can support our work — and expand our capacity to do more of it — with a paid subscription.
If you can afford the subscription price ($6/month or $50/year), please consider becoming a paid subscriber. We have no paywalls. We rely on the support of readers who believe this kind of journalism matters.
 |
In a document quietly filed with the Federal Election Commission on Friday night, MAGA Inc., the primary Super PAC supporting President Trump, revealed that it received a $5 million donation from Crypto.com on January 23, 2026. The donation was made in the name of Crypto.com’s parent company, Foris Dax, Inc.¹
 |
25 days later, on February 17, the Trump administration’s Commodities Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), intervened on Crypto.com’s behalf in high-stakes lawsuit in federal court.
Last year, Crypto.com sued the Nevada Gaming Control Board, arguing that it has the right to offer “prediction markets” on the outcome of sporting events without obtaining a Nevada gaming license. In October 2025, a federal court denied Crypto.com an injunction, and the company is now appealing the decision.
In addition to filing a formal amicus brief in support of Crypto.com’s appeal, CFTC chairman Mike Selig published an op-ed supporting Crypto.com’s position in the Wall Street Journal and posted a video supporting Crypto.com on X.
The timing of CFTC’s intervention raises serious ethical questions.
Selig, during his November 2025 confirmation hearing, was asked whether he believed it was legal for prediction markets to offer contracts on sporting events without complying with state law. Selig testified that the issue is “working its way through the courts, and so I will respect the decisions of those courts.”
He was also asked directly if he considered placing a bet on the outcome of a football game to be “gambling,” which would place it outside the jurisdiction of the CFTC:
Senator SCHIFF. Well, I mean, let me just ask—maybe even break it down more simply. If you and I bet on who wins the Bills game tomorrow, would you consider that gambling?
Mr. SELIG. Senator, on this issue, I would look to the courts, so I would look to what the courts say about that issue.
In a matter of weeks, Selig went from telling Senators under oath that he would defer to the courts on the issue to arguing on behalf of Crypto.com that the courts have erred.
He publicly announced he was considering intervening in the case during a public appearance on January 29 — less than a week after Crypto.com’s $5 million contribution to MAGA Inc. “I’ve directed CFTC staff to reassess the commission’s participation in matters currently pending before the federal district and circuit courts,” Selig said during his first public remarks as CFTC chairman.
On February 5, Selig explicitly stated that he believed it was legal for prediction markets to offer bets on sports, regardless of whether the company complied with state law.
|
