How many executive orders will Trump sign in his second term?
I estimate a low probability that Trump will sign 400–449 Executive Orders in a single second term — the required pace (~100–112 EOs/year) is far above modern norms and unlikely to be sustained.
Analysis
**Stage 1 — Blind analysis (ignore market price):**
- *Pace requirement.* To land in the 400–449 band over a four‑year second term requires about 100–112 Executive Orders per year. That is an exceptionally high annual pace by modern presidential standards.
- *Historical baseline.* In recent decades, single‑president‑term EO totals for modern presidents are generally in the low dozens to mid‑fifties per year; sustained 100+/year rates are historically rare and usually associated with extraordinary circumstances (e.g., FDR in the 1930s/40s) or broader definitions of "orders." Trump’s first term demonstrated a willingness to use executive action aggressively relative to some peers, but publicly available counts from his first term do not approach the 100+/year sustained pace needed for 400–449 in a second term.
- *Mechanics and frictions.* There are several practical brakes on hitting that pace: legal pushback (court injunctions and litigation), administrative bandwidth (agencies must draft, review, and implement orders), political costs and signaling (excessive EO use invites congressional oversight and litigation), and diminishing returns (many of the easiest reversals happen early). After an initial flurry, the pool of high‑impact, unilaterally actionable items typically shrinks.
- *Incentives that could push counts up.* Countervailing forces exist: a second term frees an administration from re‑election constraints; a red‑leaning federal bench could reduce injunctive risk and encourage more aggressive EO use; and an administration could adopt a broad counting approach (issuing many narrow, technical EOs or relying on presidential memoranda that platforms or scorers sometimes catalog). Early‑term behavior matters hugely — a very large first‑year burst would materially raise the chance of ending in this band.
- *Independent probability.* Balancing the historical baseline, the mechanical impediments, and the limited but real potential for aggressive unilateral action, my independent estimate that the total will fall in the 400–449 range during Jan 20, 2025–Jan 20, 2029 is **8%**.
**Stage 2 — Market calibration (compare to current market prices):**
- *Market snapshot.* The market currently prices the 400–449 band at 17% (Yes 17 / No 83 for that band in the multi‑outcome market). Volume (55k contracts) shows material interest; the market is distributing probability across many high‑count bands rather than clustering on low counts.
- *Why the market may be overpricing this band.* Several behavioral and structural forces can lift the market price above my independent assessment: - *Availability and tail bias:* Traders overweight the possibility of an aggressive Trump second term — the public memory of his first‑term activism makes the high‐EO tail more salient. - *Ambiguity/definition risk:* Different EO trackers and counting rules (what counts as an EO vs. memorandum or proclamation) let optimistic bettors construct a path to high totals; if some market participants assume a broader count, they will buy high bands. That ambiguity tends to push up prices for high bands relative to a strict Federal Register count. - *Multi‑outcome hedging and portfolio demand:* Some traders buy multiple high bands as a hedge or speculation on high unilateralism; this behavior can lift adjacent high bands collectively.
- *Why the market may be underpricing the band (counterpoint):* If the administration truly prioritizes executive action and the judiciary trends deferential, the market might be underpricing the extreme unilateralism scenario. Also, an early, large burst in year one could be decisive and the market may be slow to update. These are reasons to keep a small probability on the table.
- *Net calibration.* Given the strong structural reasons making a 100+/year pace unlikely, and the substantial definitional uncertainty that inflates some traders' expectations, the market price of 17% for 400–449 looks biased high relative to my 8% independent estimate. Traders who are risk‑neutral and careful about counting definitions would find this band relatively unattractive at current prices.
- *Actionable implication for traders (diagnostic, not trading advice):* If you believe the Federal Register‑style strict counting and expect litigation/administrative frictions to persist, the market appears to overallocate probability to the 400–449 range. If instead you believe the administration will purposefully pursue an aggressive, high‑volume EO strategy and count broad directive types as EOs, the market price is more defensible.
Arguments
For
- Trump has demonstrated a willingness to use executive action aggressively, so unilateral policy is a credible lever.
- In a second term the administration is unconstrained by re‑election concerns, potentially encouraging a high initial burst of orders.
- A friendly judiciary and executive willingness to pursue novel or numerous narrow orders could materially raise counting totals.
- Administrative choice to count/issue many narrow, technical executive actions or to reinterpret what is cataloged as an EO could mechanically increase the tally.
Against
- Required pace (~100–112 EOs/year) is far above modern presidential norms and above Trump's first‑term annual rate.
- Legal and political pushback becomes stronger with cumulative EO volume — each additional EO raises the stakes for courts and Congress.
- Administrative bandwidth and diminishing returns make sustaining such a high, multi‑year tempo unlikely.
- Ambiguity in counting means many traders may be bidding on a favorable definition rather than the strict Federal Register count, inflating high‑band prices.
Key drivers
- Early‑term issuance rate (first 100 days / first year) — sets trajectory
- Definition/coding of what counts as an Executive Order (Federal Register vs. broader trackers)
- Judicial environment (likelihood of injunctions or quick reversals vs. deference)
- Administration priorities and capacity (policy agenda, staffing in OMB/AG/DoJ for legal vetting)
- Political incentives and backlash (Congressional pressure, state law challenges, reputational cost)
Risk factors
- Definition risk: different data sources count orders differently, materially shifting outcomes
- Legal risk: plaintiffs and courts can freeze or nullify actions, reducing net usable EO count
- Operational risk: agencies may not be able to implement a sustained high volume of EOs
- Early‑term shocks: unforeseen events (wars, crises) could either accelerate or decelerate EO issuance
- Measurement timing: the market's event window is exact; late signature dates or retroactive reclassification can alter counts
Scenarios
Best case
Administration prioritizes an aggressive, high‑volume EO strategy: a very large first‑year burst (e.g., 150+ EOs, depending on counting) followed by sustained high output, courts are deferential or slow, and the market or trackers count a broad set of directives as EOs — outcome lands in 400–449.
Most likely
A modestly active EO program that exceeds some recent presidents but remains far below 100/year long term: totals cluster below 300, with occasional bursts early but not sustained high yearly rates. The final count likely reflects a conservative counting methodology and judicial friction.
Worst case
Legal challenges quickly block or enjoin many actions, agencies prioritize durable regulatory routes and fewer formal EOs, political backlash and oversight constrain unilateralism — the total is well below 300.
Outcomes
| Outcome | AI | MKT |
|---|---|---|
| Between 400 and 449 | 8% | 17% |
| Between 350 and 399 | 12% | 14% |
| Between 450 and 499 | 5% | 11% |
| Between 500 and 549 | 3% | 9% |
| Below 300 | 72% | 8% |
More from this day
- FinancialsKalshi1y
What sector will SpaceX be assigned to in the S&P?
AI6%MKT93%Edge-87HypedI assess a low probability (~6%) that SpaceX will be assigned to Communication Services; the preponderance of evidence (Morningstar/CRSP and GICS-style classification logic) points to an Industrials assignment.
- politicsPolymarketEnded
Where will the next US-Iran diplomatic meeting happen?
AI40%MKT5%Edge+35Hidden GemGiven the short two-week window and the history of periodic mediated contacts, a meeting is more likely than not, but nontrivial logistical, political, and incentive barriers make a failure to meet within this window plausible; I assess a 40% chance that no qualifying in-person US–Iran diplomatic meeting will occur by June 30, 2026.
- SportsKalshi1y
Will Scottie Scheffler win the grand slam before 2028?
AI35%MKT4%Edge+31Hidden GemScottie Scheffler has a meaningful path to complete the career Grand Slam before 2028, but it is far from a longshot — my independent assessment is that he has a ~35% chance, considerably higher than the current market price of 6%.