The man betting more than $30 million on Donald Trump’s victory wants people to know he’s not out to meddle in U.S. politics.
“My intent is just making money,” said the bettor, a Frenchman who calls himself Théo, in a reported Zoom call with The Wall Street Journal.
Once a trader in U.S. banks, Théo described himself as a seasoned financial player with a knack for big trades. But to him, this high-stakes wager on Trump isn’t about ideology. It’s business.
Théo’s huge bets on Polymarket (a platform where Americans can’t legally participate in by the way) gained attention in recent weeks. These bets have raised Trump’s odds against Vice President Kamala Harris, according to Polymarket’s own tracking.
And on-chain data showed all four accounts were funded by the same crypto exchange, raising questions about whether Théo has a hidden agenda.
Polymarket investigation and Théo’s response
Last week, Polymarket said that it had reached out to the “Trump whale” during a routine investigation. They identified him as a French national with deep trading expertise and a strong finance background. In their words:
“Based on the investigation, we understand that this individual is taking a directional position based on personal views of the election.”
These details aligned with Théo’s own account. He confirmed that he’d spoken with a member of Polymarket’s compliance team and stood by his story. In his emails to the Journal, Théo emphasized that he had no political motive.
“I have absolutely no political agenda,” he wrote, describing his approach as purely financial. To back his claim, he even placed a random bet on Taylor Swift’s hypothetical pregnancy—a test arranged by the Journal to verify his account’s identity.
With one of the tightest U.S. elections in recent memory on the horizon, political junkies and bettors alike are turning to prediction markets to size up potential outcomes.
History shows that candidates with strong betting odds often perform well on Election Day. But Théo’s presence exposes a flaw: Polymarket, despite increased traffic, is still small enough for one wealthy person to influence prices with massive bets.
Théo’s betting strategy and motives
In an attempt to avoid drawing too much attention, Théo began betting in August, starting with a few million dollars under the account Fredi9999. By then, Trump and Harris were evenly matched on Polymarket.
As Théo expanded his positions, he noticed that other traders would back off when Fredi9999 was in the market, making it harder for him to get favorable prices. To spread his influence without causing a noticeable price jump, he created three more accounts in September and October.
Théo said he’s confident in his investment, banking on a Trump win to double his money. A clean Trump victory could bring him $80 million, way beyond his initial $30 million.
Besides the main Trump bet, he’s placed additional millions on Trump winning the popular vote and swing states like Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin.
Théo reportedly declined to share his real name, citing privacy concerns. He said he hadn’t told even his friends or children about the scale of his Trump bets and didn’t want them to know. He called himself a high-conviction trader, adding that he’d never wagered on politics until now.
“I know a lot of Americans who would vote for Trump without telling you that,” he remarked, echoing a theory about “shy” Trump supporters skewing polling data.
Know that the Journal said they couldn’t independently verify every detail of Théo’s story, nor could they confirm if he was indeed using his own money. They couldn’t rule out connections between him and Trump’s allies either.
But one thing is clear—Théo’s bets are colossal enough to effectively trap him in Polymarket. With 25% of all contracts on Trump winning the Electoral College and over 40% on him winning the popular vote, his presence looms large on the platform.
Trump’s legal actions against media giants
Meanwhile, Trump and his campaign have began taking legal shots at two major media outlets, accusing them of aiding Harris. Trump’s campaign filed an FEC complaint against the Post, claiming it’s unfairly supporting Harris.
The complaint cites a Semafor report that says the Post highlighted more anti-Trump content on social media than neutral Harris content.
Legal experts think Trump’s legal moves are weak. Richard Briffault, a professor at Columbia Law School, dismissed the FEC complaint as “completely preposterous,” explaining that there’s no evidence to suggest coordination between the Post and Harris.
According to Briffault, the Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling protects these ads as independent expenditures, meaning they don’t count as campaign contributions.
A Post spokesperson, meanwhile, defended their social media strategy, stating that promoted posts reflect high-performing content across all topics. “We believe allegations suggesting this routine media practice is improper are without merit,” they said.
In addition, Trump has filed a $10 billion lawsuit against CBS, accusing the network of unfairly editing a “60 Minutes” interview with Harris. The 19-page complaint claims that CBS illegally interfered in the election by airing different parts of Harris’s response to the same question on two separate shows.
Trump has called the move a “media scandal,” demanding that CBS lose its broadcast license. CBS shot back on Oct. 20, labeling Trump’s accusations as “false.” The network argued that Trump’s allegations are baseless and insisted that their reporting remains independent and unbiased.
