@TheAllMemeingEye

Middle finger already happened:

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c62w8exgw1zo

@ProjectVictory Huh, yeah I guess that counts lol

I added it because it seemed like something that fits his hyper unprofessional character but that I couldn't recall him ever doing yet, I guess this flew under my radar

@TheAllMemeingEye next option idea:

Trump gives the middle finger hand gesture with both hands at once e.g.

@TheAllMemeingEye He did use his term during his term several times but I'm not sure if any of those count:

"This month, we continue our crusade to bring back American energy dominance, uplift the American worker, protect the American industry, cherish American resources..."

"Today, with adversaries embarking on a relentless crusade to destroy American space capabilities with counterspace weaponry, the high frontier is emerging as the next domain in modern warfare."

"April 19, 1775, stands to this day as a seminal milestone in our Nation’s righteous crusade for liberty and independence."

The "crusade" seems to be ongoing rather than suggested.

@ProjectVictory hmm, good point, personally I feel the spirit of my option was less about simply using the word "crusade" as a stand-in for any kind of conflict or struggle and more about the specific type of conflict that the historical First and Third Crusades fell into i.e. some kind of explicit call for all Christian nations to collectively invade the Holy Land

@TheAllMemeingEye if jokes count, perhaps alternate meanings to the historical crusades should count too.

@Hakari I mean if the market creator decides to count it then I can't stop them, but the intention with the "including jokes" part was to account for situations where it's unclear whether he genuinely means it or is just joking, not cases where he's clearly referring to a different concept

Didnt he declare war on Iran, so both of those should resolve yes?

@InfinityCS I'm assuming that a formal declaration of war by Congress is required for those questions to resolve yes

There might be some room for interpretation if, for example, Trump's office releases an executive order stating that the US is at war with Iran, which would make one resolve YES without the other? how should we interpret these answers @jrmygrdn @TheAllMemeingEye ?

@RedzoneITG copied from earlier comments:

thepurplebull:

Does this mean he has to sign a formal war declaration? Or can Trump just authorize military action?

Me:

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.

It might make sense for the option wording to be edited to reflect this e.g. 'Trump declares war (orders military action involving territory capture/defence) against any other nation or defacto autonomous territory'

I have no current bet on the option, so not intentionally rug-pulling

@RedzoneITG @InfinityCS

When I added that prop I intended ‘war is declared on another nation’ to mean a formal declaration of war. That has not happened, despite the scale of Operation Epic Fury.

However, the Department of War did refer to the Operation as war in its first announcement and in subsequent ones. That could be taken under a softer definition of declaration. White House statements have not referred to it as war, although Trump has called it a war in more freewheeling comments.

Thinking ahead, if this crisis deepens, the US may want to officially declare war, for example to grant the President or the Department of War extra powers, free up resources or oblige allies to help. Therefore there is still something to play for.

So I think by strict definition, it remains a no. But I would not argue against resolving yes, given the Department of War’s official statements.

@koadma @Bayesian https://vespertool.com/news/global-vegetable-oil-markets-disrupted-by-trumps-10-50-tariff-policy/

tariff = negative incentive

also some related negative incentives (lead to high prices and diversion of domestic production to fuel instead of food):

https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/climate-energy/trumps-america-first-biodiesel-policy-could-cost-us-companies-consumers-trade-2025-08-01/

https://iowaagribusinessradionetwork.com/oil-group-challenges-trump-plan-to-cut-biofuel-import-credits/

@Hakari the article is just talking about generic country-level import tariffs right? not anything related specifically to seed/vegetable oils?

@Bayesian the first comment could be generic, but the second comment is specifically reducing fuel credits for seed oils used in biodiesel production. i.e. it used to be subsidized earlier and now the subsidy has been removed.

@Bayesian Um what

https://manifold.markets/Bayesian/what-will-happen-during-trumps-seco#rimkwu3bgk lmk if you object

@Bayesian No objections. That was deader than I was expecting, though

@Bayesian also this happened

@Bayesian this happened

@vi i'll N/A it, it's ambiguous

@Quillist @Bayesian I believe this should resolve YES. "2026 Iran war" is listed as a major war on this Wiki page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ongoing_armed_conflicts#

@Bayesian What are the criteria for this?
even Wikipedia already shows the DoW logo by default even if they haven't moved the page yet.

In case not obvious from question above:

AI Overview

As of September 2025,

the U.S. Department of Defense is adopting "Department of War" as a secondary, rebranding title alongside its official name, following an executive order by President Donald Trump. While Wikipedia notes the DoD remains the legal, statutory name. "Department of War" is used to signal a stronger, more proactive "warrior ethos" and "victory" posture.

• Official Status: The legal, statutory name remains the Department of Defense (DoD), established in 1947/1949.

• Context: The White House states the executive order authorizes "Department of War" for use in correspondence, communications, and signage.

So legal name change required? or is there a possibility of a common name concept derived from what is used in practice e.g. correspondence, communications, signage and/or how most sources refer to the department?

@ChristopherRandles I was the one who added the option (long before it was proposed by Hegseth or anyone else, I should be admired for the prescience) - if it was to me, current common usage would have been sufficient. But I believe the assessment will depend on where one lies on the left to right political spectrum. I know Bayesian leans left, but not as far left as Wikipedia, hence asking for his position.

@ChristopherRandles I think it would be easy to find examples of entities that are called by the common name everywhere while the statutory name is completely obscure.

@skibidist As you added it, I would agree on your importance and prescience for the question and say you seem the best person to ask as to the intent at the time it was added. So did you expect formal name change to be required for this to resolve yes?

If you anticipated a rebranding, wording it as "Department of Defense rebranded to Department of War" would clearly resolve yes but you used renamed which in current circumstances unfortunately is less clear. Such miswording of questions making things less clear is easily done and I would happily accept your word on it if you think this is enough.

@skibidist wait, doesn't Wikipedia forbid leaning in either direction? Or were you referring to the contributers themselves which may subconsciously affect their writing?

@TheAllMemeingEye Wikipedia is widely seen as "far left" by online right wing people. I don't necessarily agree with this but I can see where they're coming from - NPOV works well in the small, where you can stick to factual language, report claims from various perspectives, etc, but it's hard to apply in the large re: the conceptual structure used. One common example that is brought up on this topic is the "Gaza genocide" page - depending on which authorities you ask, there is or is not a genocide, but categorizing it under "Gaza genocide" vs "claimed Gaza genocide" vs "Gaza war" or whatever necessarily each imply a specific POV.

@TheAllMemeingEye Wikipedia has a "Common name" policy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_titles#Use_commonly_recognizable_names
"In Wikipedia, an article title is a natural-language word or expression that indicates the subject of the article; as such, the article title is usually the name of the person, or of the place, or of whatever else the topic of the article is. However, some topics have multiple names, and some names have multiple topics; this can lead to disagreement about which name should be used for a given article's title. Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's official name as an article title; it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable, English-language sources) as such names will usually best fit the five criteria listed above.[e] When there is no single, obvious name that is demonstrably the most frequently used for the topic by these sources, editors should reach a consensus as to which title is best by considering these criteria directly."

I don't think that means you have to follow that policy here.

Editors can argue over the meaning of this policy for quite a while e.g. Twitter only very recently got moved to "X (social network)" Rhis came up frequently as needing to be moved and there were bans on discussing for a while.

@TheAllMemeingEye There is the written policy and there the meta, which is to wield the policy as a weapon to push your POV and crush your enemies. Or more often, to push for your own aggrandizement to compensate for lack of sexual success in real life.

@skibidist could you point to concrete examples?