jili tutorial

NCPG in Turmoil: Kalshi Donation Sparks Regulator Exodus and Leadership Shake-Up

By jili tutorial · September 29, 2026

NCPG in Turmoil: Kalshi Donation Sparks Regulator Exodus and Leadership Shake-Up

A Donation That Divided a Sector

The National Council on Problem Gambling (NCPG) is holding its ground amid mounting criticism over its decision to accept a $2 million donation from Kalshi, the prediction market platform. While the organization insists its focus remains on reducing gambling-related harm—no matter where it occurs, prediction markets included—it has made clear it will not weigh in on the legality of the products it studies.

That stance, however, has come at a cost. Several state gaming regulators, most notably those in Nevada and Michigan, have withdrawn their support from the NCPG, arguing that taking money from Kalshi undercuts the credibility of the organization’s public health mission. For these regulators, the issue was never the size of the contribution but the message it sent.

The Kalshi Donation: What’s Really Going On?

Kalshi operates a federally regulated exchange where users trade contracts on the outcomes of real-world events—from inflation data to election results. While not a traditional casino or sportsbook, the platform occupies a legal gray area that has made it a flashpoint in the broader debate over what constitutes gambling.

The NCPG accepted roughly $2 million from Kalshi to fund research into the harms associated with prediction markets. For the NCPG, the rationale is straightforward: if these platforms can inflict gambling-related harm, they deserve the same research and prevention attention as any other form of betting. For critics, the arrangement represents an unacceptable conflict of interest—an organization accepting payment from the very industry it is supposed to be studying.

Regulators Walk Away

Nevada and Michigan have been the most prominent states to pull support from the NCPG, a significant blow to an organization that has historically served as a neutral bridge between the gambling industry, regulators, and the public health community. The withdrawals signal that, for some regulators, the NCPG crossed a line that cannot be uncrossed.

The NCPG’s Defense: “We Don’t Debate Legality”

In its own defense, the NCPG has argued that its mandate is harm reduction, not legal adjudication. Both the organization and its executive director, Heather Maurer, have been careful to avoid commenting on the legitimacy of prediction markets themselves, instead repeating the same message: when harm occurs, the NCPG will be there to address it, regardless of the platform involved.

It is a philosophy the organization has applied to other controversial verticals in the past, and one that has historically allowed it to work with stakeholders across the gambling spectrum. But it has also created an opening for critics who accuse the NCPG of refusing to take a stand when it matters.

Leadership Questions Mount

According to a source close to the organization who spoke with GamblingHarm.org on condition of anonymity, the NCPG may now be looking to replace Maurer as its executive director. No official announcement has been made, but the report alone has deepened the sense of instability surrounding the organization.

The turmoil has already produced casualties. Jaime Costello, the NCPG’s former director of programs, resigned recently. In a post on LinkedIn, Costello felt compelled to publicly deny that the departure was tied to the Kalshi donation, suggesting instead that the decision was personal.

Schuetz Removed from Advisory Board

Richard Schuetz, a former Las Vegas casino executive and outspoken critic of both prediction markets and online gambling expansion, has also been removed from the NCPG’s Board of Advisors. Schuetz said he was not notified of the decision, learning of it only after his name disappeared from the board roster. Noting that he had been appointed by Keith Whyte, the NCPG’s long-serving former executive director, Schuetz added: “Kind of an honor to be fired by this group.”

What Schuetz’s Exit Reveals

Schuetz’s removal has raised uncomfortable questions for the NCPG. He was a vocal opponent of prediction markets and had publicly questioned the wisdom of accepting Kalshi’s money. His exit, combined with Costello’s resignation and the rumored search for a new director, suggests an organization that may be consolidating its message and cutting ties with dissenting voices.

Looking Ahead

The NCPG now faces a defining moment. If it appoints a new director, that person will inherit an organization with damaged relationships, reduced regulatory support, and a public image in need of repair. The challenge will be balancing the organization’s harm-reduction mission against the political realities of accepting industry funding—particularly from a sector as controversial as prediction markets.

One thing is clear: the question of what the NCPG stands for, and who it is willing to work with, has never been more urgent. Whether prediction market critics are being deliberately weeded out remains an open question, but the timing of recent departures has done little to quiet the speculation.