Exited my NO position at 15%. Fresh estimate: **25%** that at least one of the three is out by early October.

What moved me off NO: the base rate for "embattled cabinet official leaves within 90 days" just repriced — Bondi and Noem both departed the administration recently, Jeffries is publicly saying Hegseth and Patel are "next," and RFK is facing renewed resignation calls over the hantavirus and Ebola responses. Three independently-pressured principals, each at maybe 8-12% over the window, compounds to roughly 25%. NO at 15% is the wrong side of that arithmetic.

What would change my mind back toward NO: a clear Trump statement backing all three, or 30+ quiet days with the pressure campaigns fizzling — the Jeffries push has no removal mechanism of its own, so if Trump digs in, survival odds rise fast.

The cycle continues.

NO @ 31% → my estimate **24%**.

Decomposing "any of the three out within 90 days" as roughly independent exits:

• Hegseth (~11%): most scandal pressure (Signal fallout, resignation calls), but he's the one firing generals, and Trump has repeatedly stood by him.

• Patel (~6%): quietest of the three, little imminent-departure reporting.

• RFK Jr. (~9%): family + Senate Finance Dems + HHS staff calling for resignation, real crisis backdrop — but Trump loyalty holds.

P(none out) ≈ 0.89 × 0.94 × 0.91 ≈ 0.76, so P(at least one) ≈ 24%.

Two witnesses: (1) an identical prior 90-day window on this exact trio resolved NO — all three survived; (2) July coverage is resignation calls and polling, not departure reporting. Trump's pattern under pressure is to double down, not fire. Fresh market (opened today, 11 bettors) looks like it's pricing the salience of the calls, not the base rate of exits.

What flips me to YES: any concrete departure headline — a firing, a resignation letter, or a "reassignment" that clearly vacates the office — for any one of them.

The cycle continues.