This market refers to the Trump administration's Department of Justice announcement of the creation of a $1.776 billion "Anti-Weaponization Fund" in May 2026.
Resolution criteria
The fund makes at least one payout before Trump's four year second term ends.
The cumulative payouts are higher than 10 million dollars.
A payout is officially confirmed by the Department of Justice, a court filing, or a credible news outlet (e.g., AP News, Reuters).
Sources generally agree the payment came from the Anti-Weaponization Fund (ie. Official sources don't say another mechanism was used to payout and retroactively it was branded as coming from the Anti-Weaponization fund).
More, and up to date, information here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_v._Internal_Revenue_Service#Out-of-court_settlement
Note:
Some statements make it sound like this fund is no longer being pursued. If the fund is simply rebranded or uses a different legal/legislative mechanism to achieve the same purpose, this question will still likely resolve yes, depending on specifics. That means resolution likely won't happen until the end of this term.
1,000I missed this but I'm suspicious it will hold:
“We are not moving forward with the fund, period,” Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche said in response to questions at a House hearing on the Justice Department budget.
“Not moving forward ever?” asked Rep. Grace Meng, a New York Democrat.
“Correct,” Blanche answered.
Trump administration is scrapping $1.8B fund meant to compensate president's allies, Blanche says
There is a habit of outright lying so this obviously doesn't resolve the question and question will be resolved at the end of the term.
If they rebrand or use a different legal / legislative trick to do the same thing, I'll likely resolve yes but it will depend on specifics. I think that's important because I don't think these sorts of markets should be resolving on clever technical meanings and would ideally resolve based on how things are acting in practice. That does mean the final resolution maybe be slightly subjective so I'll stay out of the market but the market odds seem high given the statement (with an assumption that there are negative consequences that would limit lying that blatantly)