Former U.S. Rep. George Santos will pay $35,069.98 and accept a three-year trading ban to settle CFTC findings that he manipulated a Kalshi market tied to his own State of the Union attendance. A final order reveals he profited first from Yes contracts, then switched to No while continuing to tell the public he planned to attend.
Key Takeaways
Santos must pay $35,069.98 and cannot trade on registered markets for three years.He opened the account Feb. 11 and traded only the market on his own attendance.The DOJ has denied investigating Santos since June 3, contradicting earlier reports.His airline notified him later that day that his flight to Washington had been canceled. Santos bought a train ticket that night and continued discussing the trip publicly. On Feb. 23, he posted a video saying he would attend from the House gallery, sending the Yes price back from $0.40 to $0.70. About 40 minutes later, he began buying contracts that would pay if he did not attend.
Santos ultimately accumulated 23,855 No contracts worth $8,650.66. His train was canceled about an hour after he began building the position, but when another X user asked whether he was no longer attending, Santos replied that he was. At that point, both his flight and train had been canceled, information the CFTC said he did not disclose publicly.
On the day of the address, internet records showed Santos accessing Kalshi from his residence. He later posted that watching the speech on an airport television had not been his plan. The Yes price fell from $0.73 to $0.02, increasing the value of his No position, which he exited early Feb. 25 for a reported $14,390.57 profit.
Santos accepted the settlement without admitting the order’s findings or conclusions. His attorney, Joseph W. Murray, said the former lawmaker originally expected to attend and changed his position because winter weather disrupted his travel, denying any intent to deceive traders or manipulate the market, and said Santos “chose a prompt, practical resolution rather than protracted, costly litigation.”



















