Resolves yes if the US buys or annexes new territory. Excludes temporarily occupied territory within the context of an active military conflict. Excludes immaterial gains through the redrawing of international waters boundaries or immaterial gains through the redrawing of borders wherein the US also gives up territory. I determine materiality. The “spirit” of this market is whether Trump will pursue expansionism.
INCLUDES territory seized with stipulations for relinquishment that include benefits to the US. For example, if the US annexed the Panama Canal to hold indefinitely unless Panama agreed to lower tolls for US ships, that would count because the US is being compensated for the return of territory, implying it owns the territory.
Update 2024-25-12 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): Formal Annexation Requirement
Must be a formal annexation, similar to referendums held by Russia in Ukrainian territory
Mere invasion or temporary occupation without formal annexation does not count
1,000
3.00If the US (say) attempts to invade Canada via military conflict, you’re saying this wouldn’t count until the conflict ends and the occupation becomes permanent (e.g. Canada surrenders)?
That doesn’t seem consistent with the “spirit” of the question
@KimberlyWilberLIgt It would have to be a formal annexation. Think about the referendums Russia held in Ukrainian territory. If the U.S. invaded Ontario, that wouldn’t count on its own.