What Will Happen During Trump's Second Term (2025-2029)?
1.3k
24kṀ770k
2029
14%
Trump loses the comb-over hairstyle
17%
The google trends (worldwide) metric for "vibes" goes back to 2016 levels
76%
Trump says multiple consecutive words in a foreign language (not loanwords or cognates in or from english)
28%
China successfully subjugates Taiwan, whether physically or by a treaty
98%
New James Bond actor is presented
35%
Trump says anything that is pro animal rights
17%
John Bolton indicted
61%
Trump declares war against any other nation or defacto autonomous territory
11%
Trump and Melania divorce
13%
A Millenium Prize problem falls to a model
25%
Barron Trump mentions barons, barrenness, bars, or bears
28%
Trump admits that someone else is smarter than him
12%
The cause of the drones present in December 2024 in New Jersey is known
5%
Trump will imitate Elon Musk's heartfelt salute
24%
military deployed to enforce the border in Chicago or Detroit
7%
Trump discloses Aliens are real. (interacted with humans / we found alien tech / etc.)
95%
NIH -25% funded in any year vs. 2024 (inflation-adjusted)
5%
Trump supports mask or glove mandate anywhere in the US
20%
H5N1 Public Health Emergency of International Concern declared
1.2%
A sex tape comes out that shows Trump thrusting energetically

Add your own answers!

Unless otherwise specified:

  1. "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)

  1. "Trump" refers to the person that was president of the US in 2017-2021.

  2. 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.

  3. "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. If I don't reply within a day, you can keep repinging me, or dming me if that's a recurring issue. I try to see creator pings but may miss some.

  • 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.

Get
Ṁ1,000
to start trading!
Sort by:
bought Ṁ941 YES

@TheAllMemeingEye @Bayesian this can resolve YES. The Atlantic quoted Trump as saying "no más" in an interview. Neither Merriam-Webster nor dictionary.com have a relevant entry for "mas", "más", "no mas", or "no más", so I think this qualifies as not loaned into English.

“You know at some point, they give up,” he said, referring to media owners generally and—we suspected—Bezos specifically. “At some point they say, No más, no más.” He laughed quietly.

https://archive.is/ZijUt

bought Ṁ10 NO

@jcb nice try, afaik "más" is not a loanword or cognate, but "no" definitely is a cognate. It's nonetheless very close and arguably does still make it more likely he'll do it at some point.

@TheAllMemeingEye It's not clear to me that the "no cognates/loanwords" here means "any word that has an English cognate doesn't count", as opposed to "it doesn't count if Trump is speaking English and just happens to use loanwords/cognates that also exist in other languages".

If no cognates at all count, then many, many words in other languages are ruled out, including "más", which does have cognates in English. English "much" and Spanish "más" come from a common Proto-Indo-European root "*meg-" meaning "great".

Since "cognates" just means words that share an etymological origin, and since almost all European languages are descended from a common ancestor (I mean - all languages full stop probably are, but the exact connections aren't as well established), it's pretty broad.

One example I like is that German "hund" and latin "canis" (both meaning "dog") are cognates :p.

They share an origin, some c's turned into h's in one branch of Indo-European languages, vowels don't matter, word endings don't matter, and look at that n! They both have one. Basically the same word, I'm sure you'll agree.

@KJW_01294 Isn't this resolver?

@BodeyBaker market creator has to resolve, not me

@KJW_01294 I can't tell if that means this is a good price, or if their idea of crippled is extreme enough it won't likely happen (like it has to be closed)

@AnonUser Are you sure? I may be misreading, but this sounds voluntary in the article, with the administration acknowledging that she remains a citizen and can return:

>According to Mack, when VML’s father briefly spoke to Villela, he could hear her and the children crying. During that time, according to a court document, he reminded her that their daughter was a US citizen “and could not be deported”.

However, prosecutors said Villela, who has legal custody, told Ice that she wanted to retain custody of the girl and have her go with her to Honduras. They said the man claiming to be VML’s father had not presented himself to Ice despite requests to do so.

“It is therefore in VML’s best interest that she remain in the lawful custody of her mother,” Trump administration officials said in a filing on Friday. “Further, VML is not at risk of irreparable harm because she is a US citizen.” VML is not prohibited from entering the US, prosecutors added.

@Frogswap (I might also be trusting the current admin's statements too much here)

i’m not following the situation closely. Should the option be unresolved?

@Frogswap I took a look at a couple documents afterwards, but I'm still not sure. The order that is the basis for the article ends "In the interest of dispelling our strong suspicion that the Government just deported a U.S. citizen with no meaningful process, IT IS ORDERED that the matter be set for hearing at 9:00 a.m. on May 16, 2025". But I think it's mostly the technicality that is still in question; it doesn't seem plausible that the US did not perform the spirit of a deportation on a US citizen. They will probably argue that it was a voluntary departure, but as I understand it they illegally detained her to get to that point.

I'm personally fine with leaving it resolved unless anything develops.

@TheAllMemeingEye Does this have to be a formal declaration of war (to my knowledge, last done 1942 in WW2), or would a significant military action involving US troops on the ground (such as Afghanistan, Vietnam) count for yes?

@DavidTucker 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.

I'm pretty sure Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan would all meet this criteria

@Marnix If you're still considering N/Aing stuff to make way for other questions, I'd recommend this one. I'm suspecting people are misinterpreting it as "shift in general consensus of societal status" instead of "ending to poorly animated anti-woke series on Twitter" (and, frankly, it's not really all that interesting of a question).

@TheAllMemeingEye would things like "habeas corpus" and "joie de vivre" count as loanwords? How about a film title?

@MingCat In general I would count any phrases that appear in mainstream English dictionaries or Wikipedia lists of foreign language phrases in English as being loaned and thus not resolving yes.

As for media titles, let's say that if that media was released in the US with the title containing foreign language words, then that title when used to refer to that media is also loaned, but if coincidentally using the same phrase not referring to the media, or if using the original language title when the US release version had the title translated to English, then that would not be loaned and could resolve yes.

@TheAllMemeingEye Would Trump saying "c'est la vie" be enough for a YES resolution?

@Kraalnaxx it appears here, so I would consider it a loan word (or I guess technically a loan phrase)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossary_of_French_words_and_expressions_in_English

@MalachiteEagle @Bayesian My argument for this one is that there is a causal link between the trend spike for the term "vibes" and Trump's election in 2016

Utah’s signed a law that prevents trans pride flags from being displayed in schools and government buildings. The bill’s sponsor said on Twitter that the purpose was to “ban the Pride flag” specifically. The governor says he expects the legislation to be overridden but agrees with the premise of preventing “divisive” flags and “keeping classrooms neutral”

Should resolve YES?

bought Ṁ1 NO

@KJW_01294 Is it possible to be overridden before it comes into effect?

@TheAllMemeingEye Not likely. The bill page says, “3/27/2025, Became Law w/o Governor Signature”. The governor didn’t veto the bill, so the only ways to override before it takes effect on 7 May 2025 are through a special legislative session (which hasn’t been called before 7 May any time in the last 15 years except for a veto override) or a court order.

Bill page for reference:

https://le.utah.gov/~2025/bills/static/HB0077.html

@jks thanks for explaining 👍

© Manifold Markets, Inc.Terms + Mana-only TermsPrivacyRules