Markets
Who will be the next to leave the Trump administration?
Loading...
About this market
Resolves to the first listed senior Trump administration official to publicly announce their departure (resignation, firing, or removal from their current role) after August 12, 2026 and on or before December 31, 2026, as reported by at least two credible national news outlets. A departure counts at the time it is first announced, even if the effective date is later. Karoline Leavitt's August 12 announcement predates this market and does not count. 'Someone else' covers any other Cabinet-level or Senate-confirmed administration official, or senior White House staff of assistant-to-the-President rank. If no qualifying departure is announced by December 31, 2026, resolves to 'No further departures in 2026'.
Rules
- Market closes at 1/1/2027.
- This is a multi-outcome market. All outcome probabilities sum to 100%.
- One outcome will be selected as the winner at resolution.
the odds on Pompeo seem really low, but he's been pretty solid in his position. no way he leaves before the election. I might throw some on Kushner if his price dips, he's definitely on the hot seat.
Rationale:The comment provides a personal assessment of Pompeo's stability in his position and suggests a potential bet on Kushner, which is relevant to the market question. While the claim about Pompeo being solid is subjective and lacks specific evidence, it reflects a reasonable interpretation of the current political landscape. The weights reflect a balance between relevance and logical reasoning, with less emphasis on factual verification due to the subjective nature of the claims.
I honestly think the price on this market is way off. Like, people are still banking on Trump sticking with the same crew, but he really doesn't seem loyal to anyone anymore. The way he treats his staff, it's only a matter of time before someone else exits. I wouldn't be surprised if we see another high-profile resignation soon; it just feels like the tension is building.
Rationale:The comment presents a mostly accurate perspective on the dynamics within the Trump administration, suggesting a lack of loyalty and potential for resignations, which aligns with observed behaviors. However, it lacks specific evidence to fully substantiate the claims, leading to a score of 70 for Fact Check. The comment is relevant to the market question and avoids major logical fallacies, but it does rely somewhat on emotional appeal regarding the 'tension' in the administration. The weights reflect the importance of relevance and logical coherence in this context.
this feels overpriced on people jumping ship, there's still a lot of loyalty in that camp
Rationale:The comment expresses a subjective opinion about the perceived value of the market and the loyalty within the Trump administration. While it touches on relevant themes, it lacks specific factual backing to support the claim of loyalty, leading to a mixed score for fact-checking. The weights reflect a balance between relevance and the need for logical consistency, given the emotional undertone of the statement.
i swear the turnover in that admin is wild, why r people betting on someone who’s clearly not leaving anytime soon, smh.
Rationale:The comment expresses a personal opinion about the turnover in the Trump administration and questions the betting behavior regarding a specific individual. While it reflects some truth about the high turnover rate, it lacks specific evidence or data to support the claim that someone is 'clearly not leaving anytime soon.' The weights reflect a balance between relevance and the need for factual support, given the comment's subjective nature.
tbh, I don't get how some people think he’ll stick around much longer; it's like watching a slow train wreck, u know? I’m thinking the price is way too high for anyone to stay in that chaos.
Rationale:The comment expresses a subjective opinion about the instability of the Trump administration without providing specific evidence or facts, leading to a lower score for Fact Check. There are some emotional appeals and vague metaphors, which affect the Logic/Emotion balance. The relevance is moderate as it touches on the market question but lacks concrete analysis. The weights reflect the need to balance emotional expression with logical reasoning, given the comment's speculative nature.
I really don't get how these odds are set; feels like no one has a solid grip on what will actually happen next. Maybe it's just wishful thinking for some.
Rationale:The comment expresses uncertainty about the odds and suggests that they may be influenced by wishful thinking, which is a subjective interpretation rather than a factual claim. The lack of specific evidence or logical reasoning leads to a lower score in Fact Check and Logic/Emotion. The weights reflect the comment's focus on emotional interpretation and relevance to the market question, while still acknowledging some logical issues present.
Curious what people think about how the resolution criteria handle ambiguous cases.
Rationale:Scoring temporarily unavailable.
Reasonable people can disagree but the current price seems closer to fair than I would have guessed.
Rationale:Scoring temporarily unavailable.
easy money on this one
Rationale:Scoring temporarily unavailable.
who looked at this market and went sure
Rationale:Scoring temporarily unavailable.