Add your own answers!
Unless otherwise specified:
"Trump bans" refers to Trump or the US government, but actions, like "Trump says X" refers only to Trump. I expect the intent to be pretty clear. (If not, I reserve the right to modify the phrasing to make it clearer; ping me if you find an option unclear)
"Trump" refers to the person that was president of the US in 2017-2021.
If something is not known to have happened, unless otherwise specified, it would resolve NO. For example, the option "Trump gets COVID" resolves NO unless it is announced or sufficiently confirmed, despite the possibility that he gets covid without announcing it. The intent here is to resolve YES when the balance of evidence clearly indicates the option prediction happened.
"Trump's Second Term" is the time between Jan 20 2025 and Jan 20 2029, so long as the US continues to exist and Republicans remain in power in the White House. Trump dying doesn't end Trump's Second Term for the purposes of this market.
I reserve the right to cancel any option that doesn't seem relevant / unconnected to trump / etc. If a question is ambiguous, please ping the question creator for clarification. If they don't clarify within a few days, ping me and I'll decide how it's disambiguated.
Consensus of credible reporting will be used for this market's resolution. I am not following Trump's every move so I'd very much appreciate @s when options need to be resolved.
Update 2025-17-01 (PST): - Clarification on "Trump discloses aliens are real":
Refers to Trump stating that aliens have interacted with or visited Earth.
Does not include aliens located 5 trillion light years away outside the observable universe. (AI summary of creator comment)
Update 2025-17-01 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): - Trump discloses Aliens are real refers to scenarios where:
Aliens have interacted with humans
Alien technology has been found
Aliens have visited Earth
Does not include aliens located 5 trillion light years away outside the observable universe.
Update 2025-02-06 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): Update from creator
The option will resolve YES only if Trump stops being acting president after he has officially become president and before his term ends.
In-ceremony irregularities, such as brief procedural moments at the start of the term, do not trigger a YES resolution.
This clarification emphasizes the spirit of the market, focusing on the scenario where Trump ceases to be acting president during his term, after already assuming the office.
1,000@GazDownright How about him breaking his vow of teetotalism and getting a shot of whiskey?
@NateWatson does this include him running / trying to run himself (and therefore implicitly enforcing his own candidacy)?
@njmkw @Bayesian shouldn't this have be resolved to YES for a while now? He is a White House advisor and a special federal employee. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/feb/18/turmp-elon-musk-doge
@TheAllMemeingEye counting on some bird flu comments hitting for this one
@Marnix unfortunately I suspect he's more likely to use that as an excuse to violate animal rights rather than protect it, possibly in the form of culls 😞
@TheAllMemeingEye Oh, absolutely same. I'm expecting him to say something that's sounds pro–animal rights, but definitely not expecting him to do anything pro–animal rights
@SteveSokolowski @Bayesian Will "everyone pretty much agrees it was just a panic" count as "knowing the cause"?
Cool!
@Shai No. There was unquestionably a lot of panic, but there actually were drones in the sky.
As I said below, I think the fairest way to answer this question is: are the citizens of New Jersey confident enough in the answer to know what, if anything, needs to be done in response to the drones? Telling them "it was panic" isn't enough to reveal the cause.
Is it a requirement that the "cause" explains actual drones in the actual sky or is it enough that the sightings are explained?
@Shai There actually were drones in the sky - public officials, such as mayors, personally witnessed them coming off the ocean.
If there were not actually drones, that would be sufficient to resolve the market - but the reasoning would have to fully explain why mayors in New Jersey said they personally saw drones - by explaining what they actually saw instead.
If there were not actually drones, that would be sufficient to resolve the market - but the reasoning would have to fully explain why mayors in New Jersey said they personally saw drones - by explaining what they actually saw instead.
This article says they were mostly planes. Which sounds reasonable. But there's not going to be some dramatic event where everyone suddenly comes to a new consensus re the sightings. People will just sort of forget about it. Like last time.
@Shai There's a problem with that conclusion though - the administration itself stated that the FAA had authorized drones for research without saying what they were. So we can't resolve this to YES until that contradiction is resolved.
@agentydragon Worth tracking: Utah HB77, prohibiting educational institutions from displaying "political" flags unless used as part of class curriculum. Current status: second reading in Utah house.
The bill's sponsor, Trevor Lee, says on Twitter that his bill "[...] would ban Pride flags 🏳️🌈 from schools. Parents could sue the school district if it’s violated." (The bill has since been amended to remove this private cause of action however.)
In the news:
Utah Republican amends anti-pride flag bill hours after saying Nazi, Confederate flags could be displayed in schools, Salt Lake Tribune
Utah bill to ban LGBTQ+ flags from schools — and in all government buildings — heads to House, Utah News Dispatch
This wouldn't be like, "federally illegal" if it passes, but the market says "in any part of USA." Probably worth clarifying.
Nazi, Confederate flags could be displayed in schools
This is very disingenuous reporting. The bill would historic country flags to be temporarily displayed as part of a curriculum. It would have been nice though if it allowed any flags as part of the curriculum though.
Does this mean he has to sign a formal war declaration? Or can Trump just authorize military action?
@thepurplebull let's say the latter, since I suspect he's quite likely to make a bunch of hyperbolic statements about being at war without any real substance. For it to count though, in addition to authorising military action, it should probably also require some sort of objective to at least temporarily capture / recapture / defend populated territory, to distinguish it from e.g. a standalone airstrike to assassinate a specific target.