Editorial Roundup: United States
News > Business News
Audio By Carbonatix
6:15 PM on Wednesday, February 25
By The Associated Press
Excerpts from recent editorials in the United States and abroad:
___
Feb. 23
The Boston Globe says states should regulate prediction markets to protect consumers
The rise of prediction markets in the United States has been staggering. In December alone, users traded nearly $12 billion on Kalshi and Polymarket, the two biggest platforms in the business. That’s a 400 percent increase from just one year earlier. And by the end of the decade, some analysts say, prediction markets’ annual trading volume could hit a trillion dollars.
Those numbers should rattle regulators and lawmakers, who have so far allowed prediction markets to circumvent a lot of rules and regulations that protect consumers. While strong federal regulation would be ideal, in its absence states will need to do whatever they can.
A prediction market is a place where people can buy and sell contracts based on future outcomes. These are generally “yes” or “no” contracts with the price ranging from $0 to $1. If the “yes” contract costs $0.65, then that means the market says there’s a 65 percent chance of that event happening. Prices fluctuate as events develop or change.
These contracts can be based on all sorts of predictions, like which movie will win best picture in the Oscars next month, which candidate will win an election, or whether Jesus Christ will return before the end of the year. In practice, prediction markets are almost exactly like traditional gambling, except unlike sportsbooks or casinos, there is no house. You are betting against other individual traders.
Federal regulators, however, don’t want you to think of prediction markets as gambling, and so they’re coming up with convoluted arguments for what does or doesn’t qualify as gambling. Take, for example, the simple premise of betting on sports. If you recently made — and subsequently lost — a bet on a sports betting platform like DraftKings that the Patriots were going to win the Super Bowl, your bet would have been legally considered a form of gambling. In Massachusetts, platforms like DraftKings are regulated and monitored by the Massachusetts Gaming Commission.
But if you made that same bet on prediction market platforms like Kalshi and Polymarket, then federal regulators wouldn’t have considered you a gambler; instead, they would view you as a financial investor purchasing an events contract or a swap.
That’s why, the Trump administration argues, prediction markets are solely regulated by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, not state-level agencies or gambling laws — even if bets are made on sports outcomes.
The Trump administration has been friendly to prediction markets, shutting down investigations opened during the Biden administration and eliminating rules around betting on elections and sports. On top of that, President Trump’s son Donald Trump Jr. has been an adviser to both Kalshi and Polymarket, and an investor in the latter.
Now, Michael Selig, the recently appointed CFTC chair, is doubling down on maintaining exclusive regulatory authority over prediction markets, leaving states with few — if any — options to protect consumers. Last Tuesday, Selig announced that the CFTC is filing a “friend of the court brief” supporting Crypto.com — a cryptocurrency exchange that recently launched its own prediction market platform — in its legal battle against Nevada regulators.
“Over the past year, American prediction markets have been hit with an onslaught of state-led litigation. In response, the CFTC has today filed a friend of the court brief to defend its exclusive jurisdiction over these derivative markets,” Selig said in a video on X last week. “To those who seek to challenge our authority in this space, let me be clear: We will see you in court.”
The problem is that even if the CFTC under the Trump administration was serious about imposing rules on prediction markets, the agency probably does not have the capacity to enforce those regulations. As Timothy Massad, the former CFTC chair during the Obama administration, recently told Politico, the agency does not “have the expertise or staff that they need to police these markets.”
And because prediction markets don’t fall under the jurisdiction of the Securities and Exchange Commission, which regulates the stock market, prediction market platforms can evade regulations around insider trading. That’s why there has been fishy activity on those platforms without consequence, like when an anonymous bettor raked in $400,000 after making a series of bets on Venezuela’s fate in the days leading up to the US operation that captured Venezuela’s president, Nicolás Maduro. The anonymous account was created just a week prior to the US operation and put thousands of dollars on bets about Venezuela, including one on when Maduro would be ousted, leading many to speculate that the account belonged to someone inside the government who knew classified information.
So what could states like Massachusetts do to rein in prediction markets and better protect consumers?
As it so happens, Massachusetts is one of the states that’s already rising to the challenge. In January, Attorney General Andrea Campbell secured a court order to block Kalshi from offering sports wagers in the state until it complies with state gambling laws, which include getting a license from the Massachusetts Gaming Commission. With the Trump administration backing these platforms, Campbell’s effort might be an uphill battle, but it’s a step in the right direction if states want to have more oversight over how prediction markets operate in their states.
In the meantime, the Legislature should consider stricter regulations around prediction markets. That includes putting protections in place like explicitly prohibiting insider trading or enshrining into law that these platforms need to get licenses from the Massachusetts Gaming Commission. The Legislature should even consider imposing an outright ban on these platforms until better regulations are in place.
Inevitably, anything the Legislature passes will be challenged by these companies in federal court — or even by the CFTC, as Selig suggested — but that’s the only tool that states have at the moment. And even though the regulatory environment is currently in prediction market platforms’ favor, courts should be weighing in on whether states have any right to regulate at least some aspects of these platforms, like sports betting.
Ultimately, with a CFTC that’s all too eager to allow prediction markets to continue growing with minimal oversight, Congress can and should step in to force the CFTC’s hand. After all, even though the Trump administration has loosened rules and regulations for these platforms, some members of the Republican Party are still skeptical of the current regulatory landscape and could join Democrats to impose stricter rules aimed at protecting consumers.
Until then, states should continue cracking down on prediction markets, treat them more like casinos than the stock market, and accept Selig’s invitation to see him in court.
ONLINE: https://www.bostonglobe.com/2026/02/23/opinion/kalshi-polymarket-prediction-markets-regulation/
___
Feb. 21
The Philadelphia Inquirer says RFK Jr.’s policies are leaving public health hanging in the balance
Almost 250 years ago, George Washington created America’s first mass immunization mandate, relying on science to protect public health.
Oh, how times have changed.
Back then, smallpox had just helped end the Continental Army’s invasion of Canada. Despite making it all the way to Quebec, thousands of soldiers contracted the disease. Washington feared the same would happen to his own troops, fresh from their surprise victories at Trenton and Princeton. As Washington wrote at the time, “Necessity not only authorizes but seems to require the measure, for should the disorder infect the Army, in the natural way, and rage with its usual Virulence, we should have more to dread from it, than from the sword of the enemy.”
The inoculation methods of Washington’s time were crude. No genuine vaccine existed. Instead, scabs or pus were taken from someone infected with smallpox and then placed into scratches or small wounds. Another option was to inhale it. Either way, those who experienced variolation inevitably developed fevers, rashes, and other symptoms of smallpox. At least 1% of those who received it died. Still, without his tough choice, the Continental Army might have failed entirely, and America with it.
These days, safe vaccines are available for diseases that ravaged our ancestors. Forms of influenza, hepatitis, chickenpox, polio, rubella, mumps, measles, and many other diseases can now be prevented. The smallpox virus that Washington dreaded has been eradicated.
The quality and availability of vaccines are a modern miracle, one that all humanity should be proud of.
Yet, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, vaccination rates for measles in the U.S. are declining, and the number of cases is climbing. More and more parents are opting against vaccination for their children, which gives these diseases room to spread.
Last year, two children in Texas died of the completely preventable disease. An outbreak in South Carolina has so far sickened almost 1,000 people, most of them children.
Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Delaware have all slipped below the 95% vaccination rate the CDC says is necessary to keep measles outbreaks at bay. Despite being nearly eliminated in 2000, rates have reached their highest levels in decades.
According to CDC data, more than 90% of infections occur in people who are either unvaccinated or have unknown inoculation status. Given this group makes up less than 10% of the overall population, that’s a staggering concentration of sickness. It also isn’t a surprise — the vaccines work.
Parents offer a range of justifications for refusing vaccinations. Some cite religious faiths that discourage inoculation. Others feel that the schedule of shots is too concentrated. A number of them mention debunked fears of shots “causing autism.”
In some cases, existing health issues may lead to medical professionals advising against vaccination. (These children rely on what scientists call herd immunity for protection, and are endangered by rising rates of voluntary refusal.)
It doesn’t help matters that Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is a leading skeptic of both vaccines and modern medicine. Kennedy has strong opinions about public health based on no formal medical training.
Under RFK Jr., the CDC has reduced the number of recommended vaccinations for children, and groups aligned with the secretary are working to overturn state vaccine mandates.
This is the kind of privileged ignorance that can only thrive in a post-vaccine world, where mass immunization has dramatically changed life for the better.
In 1900, 30% of all U.S. deaths occurred in children under the age of 5. In 1915, the infant mortality rate was 100 out of every 1,000 live births. As late as 1952, a polio outbreak killed more than 3,000 people.
Unfortunately, rising vaccine refusal rates may bring some of this suffering back. While city health officials urge calm in the wake of a possible exposure at Philadelphia International Airportearlier this month, these events will only increase as vaccination rates continue to fall. So will unnecessary deaths among children.
Instead of turning back the clock, our leaders and parents must learn from Washington’s example. Necessity requires that we vaccinate our children.
___
Feb. 22
The Washington Post, following new CBO reports, says America's finances are about to get much worse
Amid so many crises around the world, it’s easy to forget the scale of America’s debt problem. But a new report from the Congressional Budget Office puts the stakes in sharp relief: Even under the best circumstances, America’s finances are on track to get much worse.
The CBO’s Budget and Economic Outlook provides forecasts for spending and revenue over the next decade, and the latest findings are dramatic. This fiscal year the government is projected to suffer a $1.9 trillion budget deficit, which translates to 5.8 percent of gross domestic product. In ten years, the gap will widen to $3.1 trillion, which would total nearly 7 percent of GDP.
This year the federal debt is set to cross 100 percent of GDP, not far behind the post-World War II high of 106 percent in 1946. That number is projected to increase to a staggering 120 percent by 2036.
The latest outlook from the CBO assumes that unemployment will stay relatively low and that inflation will keep hovering above the Federal Reserve’s target, but not by much. And it does not factor in the possibility of a major war or other disaster that could radically derail the government’s finances. So the real trajectory might be worse than the CBO projects.
Some in Washington believe that the only solution is to increase revenue by taxing Americans even more. Yet federal revenue, about 17 percent of GDP in 2025, is in line with the average for the last half-century. Raising taxes could put a small dent in the debt but wouldn’t meaningfully change its trajectory.
In reality, the debt is driven by two factors. First is America’s growing entitlement state. Government spending is on track to rise to more than 24 percent of the country’s GDP in 2036, according to the CBO. The average from 1976 to 2025 was about 21 percent. The increase is driven by Social Security, Medicare and interest on the national debt (which is projected to be nearly twice as much as the defense budget in 2036).
The second and more important problem is economic growth. The best way to make the debt a smaller percentage of GDP is to increase GDP. Even a small increase in the annual economic growth rate meaningfully shrinks debt projections.
The economy is projected to grow 2.2 percent this year, up from 1.9 percent the year before. Compared with other developed countries, that’s not bad. But Americans can’t settle for these mild numbers with a fiscal storm on the way.
America doesn’t need government to make that growth happen. It just needs government to get out of the way to let business thrive and return to the headier growth the country once enjoyed.
ONLINE: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2026/02/22/debt-deficit-cbo-spending-medicare/
____
Feb. 20
The Seattle Times says Rev. Jesse Jackson left a message of hope
Keep hope alive!
No one knows how many times the Rev. Jesse Jackson shouted that phrase at political rallies or college campuses in the 1980s and ’90s, including the University of Washington, with much heart and conviction. Amazingly and eerily, it’s almost as if he knew where our nation would be decades later.
Jackson worked tirelessly all his adult life for justice and equality for poor people, for union workers and to empower Black communities. Jackson died Tuesday at his home in Chicago. He was 84.
In today’s world he would be considered a diplomat or global influencer. As a private citizen in the 1980s and ’90s, and often against the federal government’s wishes, Jackson negotiated the release of 700 hostages in Iraq and Kuwait, three U.S. soldiers in Yugoslavia, a U.S. Navy pilot captured in Syria and 22 Americans held prisoner in Cuba.
“Although he didn’t have a local congregation in Chicago he did have organizations like the Rainbow/Push Coalition ” and Operation Breadbasket, said the Rev. Johnny J. Youngblood, pastor of House of Hope Fellowship in Tukwila. He first met Jackson in 1994 in New York and kept in touch over the years. “The rainbow represents inclusion. So the world was his pulpit, and not just a local church on the block.”
Born in Greenville, S.C., Jackson ran for president of the United States in 1984 and again in 1988, when he won more than a dozen states and territories. His campaigns focused on workers’ rights and jobs, and uplifting those at the bottom of the economic ladder.
Although he never held elective office, Jackson left an indelible mark on the United States and the world’s political and social landscape. And he lived to see two of his children serve in Congress.
Jackson was a behind-the-scenes figure in the Civil Rights Movement as a younger protégé of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. and the Rev. Ralph Abernathy, Youngblood said. Like Jackson, he grew up in the South, attended a historically Black university and share membership in the Omega Psi Phi fraternity.
“Protests are protests, but signing of the laws happen afterward. Protests brought attention but the behind the scene” is where the details of what happens next takes place, said Youngblood.
Jackson visited Seattle several times for such behind-the-scenes meetings with tech leaders, including in 2018 when he encouraged diversity, equity and inclusion in hiring and contracting at Amazon. He chastised the global company then for having an all-white 10-member board. He later spoke with The Seattle Times editorial board. “What is in jeopardy today is the ideal of the American dream,” Jackson said. “We are a multiracial, multicultural society, which is an experiment. You cannot impose on this experiment white male, race supremacy or religious bigotry. It does not fit.”
In closing his speech at the 1988 Democratic National Convention, Jackson extolled:
“We must never surrender. America will get better, and better. Keep hope alive!”
___
Feb. 20
The Guardian says Trump's Board of Peace serves private interests more than public good
In Gaza, aid still trickles in at levels relief agencies say are far below what is required. Temporary shelters are scarce. Reconstruction materials are restricted by Israel’s controls on goods entering the territory. Conditions, say the UN, remain “ dire ”. The violence has not stopped: Israeli strikes on Gaza have killed about 600 people since the ceasefire began. The announcement that the US would transfer $10bn to President Donald Trump’s newly convened Board of Peace is hard to reconcile with the reality on the ground. Even worse is that Washington has paid only a fraction of its UN arrears – $160m against more than $4bn owed.
This raises the obvious question: why is a private initiative being capitalised so heavily while existing UN mechanisms remain severely cash-strapped? Funnelling state funds into a body chaired by Mr Trump suggests foreign policy is serving private interests, not the public good. The board has ambitious plans. Rafah is to be rebuilt within three years with skyscrapers. Gaza is to become self-governing within a decade. An International Stabilisation Force is expected to begin deployment, eventually numbering 20,000 troops. These are dramatic claims. But their delivery is largely notional.
Worryingly, there’s no clear legal authority defining the board’s mandate. Last November’s UN security council resolution authorised the board solely for Gaza as a temporary, two-year transitional administration. Mr Trump – who holds veto power in the board and the authority to interpret its remit – thinks otherwise. He claims it can intervene in other global conflicts. The board is not embedded within existing UN structures, perhaps intentionally sidestepping the lengthy coalition-building with regional partners. If its objective is to generate headlines, then the board has succeeded. The question is whether the guardrails are keeping pace with the public relations.
In a recent European Council on Foreign Relations paper, Muhammad Shehada argues that the US’s top-down, externally designed economic model risks remaking Gaza as a tightly managed enclave – with Palestinians restricted to new heavily surveilled compounds while the strip is dotted with residential towers, datacentres and seaside resorts. Mr Shehada is not wrong when he says Mr Trump’s plan poses a blunt question: is Gaza the home of its people – or a prize for outside powers and profiteers? Palestinians are not getting much of a say, yet the answer will shape their future.
Gaza lies in ruins. What unfolded, many experts say, was a genocide. Yet Benjamin Netanyahu’s government claims the mission is unfinished and is signalling a new offensive if Hamas does not disarm – possibly before Israel’s election this year. This may fit the letter of the UN resolution, but it shreds its logic. Clearly, Palestinians must have a believable path to sovereignty. Hanging over all of this is the most unpredictable wild card: the threat of US military action against Iran within days if negotiations fail. Tehran says American bases would be legitimate targets if it is attacked.
Peace in Gaza requires regional calm, Israeli restraint, Palestinian legitimacy and institutional credibility. Yet the US – operating through personalised diplomacy – contemplates war against Iran because it won’t give up its nuclear enrichment programme while encouraging Riyadh to adopt one. Any stable peace demands patience and predictability. Escalatory threats invite conflagration. In Gaza, that contradiction is already visible, and it is potentially explosive.
