This market will settle as YES if at least three individuals that Trump nominates for cabinet positions that must be confirmed by the Senate are either withdrawn or voted down in the Senate. Cabinet officials refers to the 15 heads of government agencies, along with cabinet-level officials, which for the purposes of this market includes the Administrator of the EPA, Director of National Intelligence, Director of OMB, Director of CIA, United States Trade Representative, Ambassador to the UN, Chair of the Council of Economic Advisers, Administrator of the SBA, and Director of OSTP.
A nomination occurs as soon as President Trump announces an intention to nominate someone. No other step is necessary to be taken. No official step must be taken to withdraw a nominee either. Credible reporting that the administration will not longer be pursuing the nomination is enough.
This market will settle as NO as soon as all the relevant positions are confirmed, or if the conditions of YES have not been met by March 31, 2025.
The nominees that fail need not be all nominated for different positions. If, for example, Trump has three Attorney General nominees that fail, this market will resolve as YES.
If Donald Trump does not become president or stops being president, this market resolves according to what happens to the nominees of whoever happens to be president during the relevant time period. The nominees of two or more people serving as president will be counted together. If, for example, Trump appoints an AG who is withdrawn and then Vance becomes president and two of his nominees are withdrawn, this market will settle as YES.
1,000
3.00@NicholasHishawCZNn Yes; Hanania confirmed in description that Ambassador to the UN is a Cabinet-level position. So now the market resolves YES iff Trump nominates someone and then withdraws them by March 31.
@RichardHanania Krastios has been confirmed. Now even if Stefanik isn't that's only 2 failing. Resolves No.
https://www.axios.com/pro/tech-policy/2025/03/25/michael-kratsios-confirmed-to-lead-ostp
@HillaryClinton technically there's still the possibility that someone is fired, Trump puts forward a replacement nominee, and Trump then withdraws that replacement nominee... on two separate occasions... all within the next 5 days. I think it's safe to resolve YES.
@ZaneMiller Non-zero chance this happens with whoever he's got as his replacement for Stefanik (granted, it's a low chance, but it's not zero).
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/13/health/cdc-weldon-confirmation-hearing.html
I don't know that we could call the CDC Director a member of Trump's cabinet, but just in case...
@PensivePlatypus CDC's under HHS. CDC director's never been in the cabinet as far as i'm aware
The sweepstakes market for this question has been resolved to partial as we are shutting down sweepstakes. Please read the full announcement here. The mana market will continue as usual.
Only markets closing before March 3rd will be left open for trading and will be resolved as usual.
Users will be able to cashout or donate their entire sweepcash balance, regardless of whether it has been won in a sweepstakes or not, by March 28th (for amounts above our minimum threshold of $25).
@MIMIRMAGNVS also sweepstakes marekt hasn't corrected btw, so free money for anyone who reads this comment
Gabbard and RFK have their confirmation hearings at the same time on Thursday this week!
shouldn't this market be rising more, since the Gabbard market is falling ? Or does it not matter
@MIMIRMAGNVS Gabbard I’d say is by far the most problematic. The cult. The pro-Assad stuff. The parroting of Russian and Assad propaganda about regime atrocities in Syria. The “accidental” trip to Syria. The smearing of the white helmets. Etc. the senate knows she might cripple 5eyes just by being in place (other countries will stop sharing with her), which is a big security risk for the USA.
@Pjfkh Absolutely. I think Gabbard was always the most problematic, followed by RFK, and then Hegseth. Any senator that votes for RFK will provide attack ad fodder for all the crazy stuff RFK has said / done, and thus any purple state senator will try to avoid. The conventional wisdom is that he gets through, but if so, in my view it's likely by the bare minimum. Virtually everything Gabbard has ever said about foreign policy is likely problematic to the median Republican in the Senate. The cult stuff is also bizarre and problematic, and her extreme changes in views means that it's unlikely people really trust anything she says. That said, no GOP senator wants to pick a fight with MAGA if they can avoid.
For Hegseth, if you read the police reports it was clear he was falsely accused.
@brianwang that’s so bonkers to me. Hegseth is literally a DEI hire who only got job cause of his race. He has no qualifications for this job whatsoever.
@brianwang I think Hegseth is the most problematic to people who follow politics closely, but that other nominees such as RFK Jr may be more problematic to ordinary folks. Like, I'd be much more comfortable if I had to explain to my mother-in-law why RFK Jr might be a bad pick, whereas Hegseth had enough military experience and credentials to look good enough. Hegseth has also been loyal to Trump over a long period, whereas RFK and Gabbard are newcomers. Thus, Republican senators may feel like they have more political cover to vote against those nominees.
I also get the impression that the Democrats scored some political points with their late-stage vigorous opposition to Hegseth and will be emboldened to oppose other nominees even more vigorously.
@jb456 Additionally, Mitch McConnell broke with MAGA on Hegseth. MITCH MCF*CKINCONNEL. If even he can see reason, I'm sure others can too.