How many executive orders will Trump sign in his second term?
I assess only a small chance that Trump will sign 400–449 EOs in a second term (10%). Historical pace and required issuance rates make the 400–449 band unlikely; the far likeliest outcome is that total EOs remain below 300.
Analysis
**Stage 1 — Blind analysis (ignore market prices):**
- Historical baseline: In his first term (2017–2021) Donald Trump signed 220 executive orders, an average of ~55 EOs per year. Modern presidents who hit 400+ EOs in a four-year span are rare; a 400–449 total requires averaging ~100–112 EOs per year — roughly double Trump's first-term pace.
- Required arithmetic: To finish between 400 and 449 over four years a president must sign 400/4 = 100 to 449/4 = 112.25 EOs per year. Compared with Trump's first-term ~55/year, that is a very large step-up sustained over four years.
- Plausible behavioral adjustments: Trump could increase use of executive orders if faced with sustained congressional obstruction or if administration policy priorities require frequent unilateral actions. Conversely, institutional friction (courts, agency implementation limits), political costs, and the administrative burden of producing a very large number of novel, defensible EOs argue against sustaining >100/year.
- Partial-term evidence: The window is incomplete (only ~17 months elapsed). Without a reliable current count and trendline for this term, we must anchor on plausible trajectories. If Trump repeats his first-term pace (~55/yr) the four-year total would stay near 220. If he increases moderately (e.g., +25% to ~69/yr) the total is ~276 — still well below 300. If he increases dramatically to match 100+/yr, that implies sustained, exceptional escalation in EO usage.
- Assessment: Given the large leap required from first-term behavior, contemporary norms for modern presidents, and institutional constraints, the probability that the final total falls into 400–449 is low. I assign an independent probability of 10% that the final total lies in 400–449.
**Stage 2 — Market calibration (look at market prices):**
- Market snapshot: The market currently prices 400–449 at 17% (Yes: 17%, No: 83% for that specific binary). That is meaningfully above my independent estimate of 10%.
- Why the market might be higher: - Traders overweight Trump's unpredictability and willingness to use unilateral tools, giving higher tail probability to very high EO totals. - Fragmentation across many multi-outcome buckets creates non-intuitive hedging; bettors may be placing into adjacent high buckets (350–399, 450–499) that collectively make high totals seem likelier. - Popular narratives (e.g., constant “rule by executive authority”) may anchor bettors to expect many EOs even if historical data argues otherwise. - Liquidity and crowd behavior: with ~55k contracts volume, there is significant interest; crowd bets can drift away from strict historical priors.
- Potential market mispricing and trading edge: - The market appears to overprice the chance of a sustained doubling of Trump's EO issuance vs. his known baseline. If you accept the premise that Trump is more likely to keep a pace similar to his first term or only moderately increase it, then long positions on the lower-count buckets (e.g., Below 300) are relatively attractive versus the market-implied probabilities. - That said, the market could correctly price in tail risks (e.g., sustained crises, aggressive unilateral policy agenda) that I judge improbable; those risks justify some non-negligible price for the 400–449 bucket, but not as high as 17%.
**Conclusion:** My independent probability for the 400–449 band is 10%. The market's 17% likely overweights Trump's unpredictability and the narrative of heavy EO use; traders and hedgers should consider that the plausible central outcome is materially lower (concentration below 300).
Arguments
For
- Arguments for Yes: Trump has shown willingness to use executive authority aggressively, and a second term with a hostile Congress could push him to rely heavily on EOs.
- Arguments for Yes: If the administration intentionally prioritizes frequent, narrowly targeted orders (e.g., many small, specialized directives), the raw count could rise substantially.
- Arguments for Yes: Unforeseen emergencies or sustained policy fights could create a cascade of EOs (emergency declarations, regulatory pauses, national security directives).
Against
- Arguments against Yes: To reach 400–449 requires ~100–112 EOs per year — about double Trump's first-term pace of ~55/yr; that large and sustained increase is historically uncommon.
- Arguments against Yes: Judicial review, bureaucratic limits, and political costs create friction that usually prevents presidents from issuing hundreds of orders per term.
- Arguments against Yes: Even if Trump is more aggressive, practical limits on drafting, implementing and defending EOs make sustained >100/yr unlikely.
Key drivers
- Trump's administrative style and appetite for unilateral action (historical usage and rhetoric)
- Congressional composition and likelihood of obstruction (which increases EO incentive)
- Judicial and institutional constraints (courts striking down/limiting EOs)
- Policy shocks and emergencies (wars, crises that drive more executive orders)
Risk factors
- Sustained political confrontation with Congress that incentivizes large-scale EO use
- Major national emergency or war that leads to a high number of emergency orders
- Change in internal White House staffing or strategy that systematizes high-volume EO production
- Courts or legal interpretations that enable faster, broader use of executive power (reducing friction)
Scenarios
Best case
For the 400–449 outcome: The administration adopts a go-it-alone legislative posture, faces prolonged and extreme obstruction from Congress, and responds by institutionalizing a high-volume EO program (many narrow, technical orders plus emergency and national security directives) that sustains ~100–115 EOs/yr, producing a total in the 400–449 band.
Most likely
Trump's EO issuance will be similar to or somewhat higher than his first-term rate but far below the ~100+/yr needed for 400–449. The most probable distribution concentrates on the 'Below 300' bucket or adjacent middle buckets (e.g., 300–349 if present), with a modest tail into the 350–399 band. This implies a final total likely between ~220 and ~320, centered below 300.
Worst case
For the 400–449 outcome (i.e., No outcome prevails): Courts block or narrow many executive actions, political backlash raises the cost of frequent EOs, staffing bottlenecks and implementation constraints limit EO output, and the administration’s EO pace stays near or only modestly above first-term levels, producing a total well below 400 (most likely <300).
Outcomes
| Outcome | AI | MKT |
|---|---|---|
| Between 400 and 449 | 10% | 17% |
| Between 350 and 399 | 12% | 14% |
| Between 450 and 499 | 5% | 11% |
| Between 500 and 549 | 3% | 10% |
| Below 300 | 70% | 8% |
More from this day
- CompaniesKalshi1y
Starbucks total global stores in 2026
AI55%MKT8%Edge+47Hidden GemGiven Starbucks' stated expansion plan, the Q2 2026 U.S. store count, and plausible China growth, I assess a better-than-even chance that total global stores will exceed 41,800 in 2026 — despite the market strongly favoring No.
- HealthKalshi2y
What will the average number of measles cases be during Trump's term?
AI72%MKT30%Edge+42Hidden GemAssuming 'Yes' means the average annual U.S. measles cases during 2025–2028 exceeds 1,000, I assess a ~72% chance that the average will be above that threshold, driven by the large 2026 surge and persistent immunity gaps that make further large outbreaks likely.
- PoliticsKalshi18y
Which G7 leader will leave next?
AI52%MKT94%Edge-42HypedI assess that the UK Prime Minister (Keir Starmer) is the most likely of the five listed G7 leaders to be the first to leave office, but not as overwhelmingly as the market currently prices — my independent probability is 52%.