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@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.
@AnonUser Disagree. Musk has no formal role. He is simply (presumably) the private employer of private jackboots who are being given broad access to federal systems. He has not "become" the holder of any title or office.
@JoshuaWilkes Donald Trump is the head of the renamed US Doge Service or whatever, as a matter of institutional fact. Elon Musk appears to be in charge of unofficial blackshirt activities which are referred to as "DOGE" on Twitter. Those Twitter references already existed before this market was created. Elon Musk has not become anything. He has not gained any title, office or position. He is generally agreed to be the informal head of something; he already was that. If it's enough to resolve YES now, then it already was enough to resolve YES when the option was first added to this market.
@marvingardens credible news sources referring to Musk as the head of DOGE:
@marvingardens to be fair, a counterpoint - a Feb 6 report from Congressional Research Service (CRS) states: "CRS is not aware that a USDS administrator has been named publicly, but the White House described Elon Musk as serving as a special government employee under the effort. " https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IN/IN12493
@marvingardens At this point I think a fair assessment is that legally speaking his status is unclear, but de-facto he became the head of DOGE. As the wording was "will become" rather than e.g. "will be named"/"will be appointed", I think "YES" is still the correct answer, but I can see how people could reasonably disagree with that assessment.
@AnonUser Okay, but that's not a "becoming". In that informal capacity, he already was that. He hasn't become that. And to the extent that DOGE has "become" real, established, official (e.g. https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/establishing-and-implementing-the-presidents-department-of-government-efficiency/), Musk has not had an accompanying appointment to it that we know of.
The executive order I linked says that the "USDS Administrator" is in charge of DOGE. Who is the current USDS Administrator? I literally don't know
To the best of my understanding, a USDS Administrator has not been appointed yet following the exit of the last one. So we have DOGE becoming a real thing that we can point at to some extent, under the executive branch; and we have a leadership position being designated for it at that moment; and that leadership position is not yet filled. So in my view moving on this market resolution would be totally premature.
@marvingardens USGS Administration appointment was not publicly announced, but I am not aware of a requirement that it had to be. Despite the lack of announcement, once DOGE was officially created on Jan 20th, Musk became its de-facto head.
@AnonUser I don't think I can resolve questions, @Bayesian needs to do that. I think the market beeing at 99% is a good enough indication to resolve yes, the question never specified that this has to be an administration appointment to USDS or similar. In fact its intentionally vague in how this role acutally looks like administratively and is more concerned with what musk is actually doing, which definitely falls under the umbrella of cost cutting
think the market beeing at 99% is a good enough indication to resolve yes,
I guess the wisdom of prediction markets is a self-fulfilling prophecy then
https://bsky.app/profile/annabower.bsky.social/post/3lig5yflzg22z
We may, as they say, have a problem.
@JoshuaWilkes I think this is pursuant to their contention that everythink Musk does is covered by presidential privilege or some such and immune from FOIA among other things
@JussiVilleHeiskanen Yes and these distinctions are significant, meaningful, and foreseeable. Musk is acting in a much greater capacity than a mere agency head, which is a a worse than useless title for him. And that's what I traded off of.
@Bayesian Crap! I kept getting pinged on this thread and wrongfully assumed it was still open. My apologies.
@Bayesian Okay, now that it's resolved I'll register my final complaint: This is a premature resolution, and as of now it is an incorrect resolution. Last night a court filing to that effect was posted in this thread but it appears you privileged sticking to your earlier decision.