(Forbes article about his post)
Will it happen? If it does what will be true?
For ease of common parlance, "stimulus check" in this market is referring to the "dividends" of his post. If this becomes a completely unsustainable metaphor, some answers may need to resolve or be rewritten.
Will resolve to best reporting, at latest by the end of his time in office or within a few months after the checks go out to let news stories shake loose. If the check doesn't materialize before he leaves office, answers that are able to will resolve to YES or NO rather than N/A. (If that happens, I hope it's clear that most would resolve NO, but I imagine "All for the same amount" probably has to resolve N/A since it can be easily read as YES and NO if there are no checks)
Clarifications:
Because this "resolves to best reporting", the answer to most clarifying questions about "What does 'some' or 'significant' mean?" is: does the news report on it as a big deal?
The base value of the dividend per person is what matters. If you can get $2000 cash but also have options for a $2100 tax credit or a $1900 instant deposit, that's a $2000 check
If the base value doesn't end up being the same per person and ends up straddling over one of the answers, the answer resolves to the percent across the line (say 20% of receivers only get $100 and the other 80% get $300, then "≥$200" resolves to 80%)
"non-citizens or non-existent persons" is intentionally broad in order to also include companies, AIs, and fraud
Real implementation is what we're measuring, so if judicial/ legislative intervention changes anything, or reporting shows it's not aligned with announcements, that's what matters
AI Gibberish Area, occasionally deleted:
Update 2025-11-10 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): Regarding the answer about "non-citizens or non-existent persons": This includes legal resident aliens (even though they were eligible for previous stimulus rounds). The answer is intentionally broad to cover multiple scenarios:
Whether Trump attempts to exclude non-citizen legal residents (differently from previous stimuli)
Whether distribution flaws create exploitable gaps for bad actors
Whether "dividends" are actually directed to corporations instead of individuals (trickle-down economics approach)
Update 2025-12-19 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): If Trump calls a payment the "tariff dividend", the market will resolve based on it, even if the funding source is not actually from tariffs (e.g., if it's from reallocated funds like troop housing).
Update 2025-12-20 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): The market will resolve based on the "Warrior Dividend" (a payment to military members), but resolution will be partial and staged:
Answers that can be determined from the Warrior Dividend alone (like "Any American receives it") have been resolved
Other answers (like ">$2000" and "only given out to military") will remain open to see if additional versions of "tariff dividends" are announced or distributed
The creator is waiting to see if other thresholds are met by future dividend programs before resolving remaining answers
The AI keeps spamming duplicative nonsense with every reply I make so I've gotta shut it off for now.
There will be no AI clarifications added to this market's description. (ugh wish this were just a toggle)
1,000People are also trading
The warrior dividend used funds reallocated from a housing subsidy for the military. It did not used funds from tariffs.
Why did this resolve yes when this is clearly not using funds from the tariffs? And is also not for all or most Americans? Which was clearly the intention of the tariff dividend.
Based on your resolution, if Trump wrote a personal check to someone for $1, and called it a tariff dividend in the memo, this would resolve yes.
@Stralor stimulus checks to all Americans have been done before. Yes if he sent a stimulus check to all Americans and called it a tariff dividend I would agree with the resolution.
This check is called the warrior dividend though, and sent to a small fraction of Americans.
@HillaryClinton great then hopefully he does a proper stimulus check we can use to resolve everything else. but the warrior dividend is a stimulus check and he did claim it was from tariffs (even if that's a complete fib), so it felt just as bad not resolving the simplest answers.
@Stralor how is a bonus to army personnel a stimulus check?
By that definition any bonus to any government personnel is a stimulus check.
@HillaryClinton fair point. where is your line between bonus and stimulus? they're pretty blended in my mind.
@Stralor a stimulus check isn't sent to a specific set of people. It's sent to most Americans. It's not sent to only people with a specific job title.
(With possible income limitations etc....)
@traders though it's not what we expected, I'll be resolving some stuff based on the "Warrior Dividend". however, I feel this is not the end of this saga so most will remain open until we see if the other thresholds are also met
@Stralor this means stuff like >$2000 doesn't resolve yet, nor does even "only given out to military", since we're waiting to see if any other versions of his "tariff dividends" pop up down the line, BUT both "Any American receives it" were able to resolve
@LeahLibresco Why? Nothing about tariffs is mentioned as a resolution criterion. The name has a decorative preamble status (most Trump markets would be impossible if they were done by the exact letter tbh)
For ease of common parlance, "stimulus check" in this market is referring to the "dividends" of his post.
@Lilemont it says it in here, the most pertinent part of the preamble:
So I also disagree with this proposed approach to the resolution.
@EdwardGao That's fair. But I'm trying to measure how much he'll stick to that. If he runs off into the weeds doing everything except hitting those exact specifications that's important!
@Stralor yes but the dividend was clearly supposed to be for most Americans. Sending a check to one milion or so people, is literally a tiny fraction of Americans. Making it tied to military was clearly not the original thought.
@Stralor Trump claims the warrior dividend is from tariffs and will arrive by Christmas; would that count?
@Sketchy you know what, if he calls it the tariff dividend it makes it very interesting and fuck it we can resolve based on it. I'll add another thing or two
@Stralor The news articles are saying it’s repurposed military housing aid and not from tariffs, But trump says tariffs, so does it resolve on what trump says or the truth
@NzJack0n yep that's fine. see: "$ value explicitly tied to performance of tariffs"
ultimately, is trump actually going to send people money? is he bloviating and trying to drum up support for his catastrophic tariff program? what matters is what he spins and what comes out. if we need more options for angles this might go, lmk
@Stralor Oh does that mean "any american receives it by the end of 2025" can already resolve YES? There's plenty of people claiming to have already received it online.
https://www.reddit.com/r/army/comments/1pq49mr/warrior_funds/
@Stralor the money isn’t coming from tariff money, but appropriated housing allowances for troops https://www.cnn.com/2025/12/18/politics/warrior-dividend-housing-stipend