2026: Trump's bad year?
I think the market is underestimating the chance of a meaningful Trump setback in 2026, but the bar for this event still appears high. My independent estimate is 11% for Yes, with most outcomes still landing in No.
Analysis
On the facts available, I see a non-trivial chance that 2026 delivers some version of a Trump bear case, but not a majority chance. The next several months still include plenty of ways for the year to turn sour: a politically damaging midterm environment, an economic slowdown or market drawdown tied to policy uncertainty, a serious legal or scandal development, or an unexpected health issue given his age. Even if none of those are individually likely, the combined probability of at least one meaningful adverse shock is higher than the market suggests if the resolution standard is broadly defined.
The current price of 4.3% looks too low unless the event requires something very specific and extreme, such as resignation, removal, or an outcome that is much rarer than a generic bad year. My estimate is higher because 2026 is inherently a volatile political year and because Trump’s downside risks are not perfectly correlated; he can have a bad year through several different channels. Still, I would not go much higher than low double digits because the ambiguity around the resolution criteria is substantial and Trump has historically proven resilient to negative news that would sink a more conventional politician.
Arguments
For
- A single major midterm, legal, or market-related setback could plausibly qualify as a bear case if the event is interpreted broadly.
- Multiple independent downside channels remain open in 2026, making at least one meaningful disappointment more likely than the market price implies.
Against
- If the contract requires an extreme outcome, the probability of Yes falls sharply because such events are genuinely rare.
- Trump has repeatedly shown resilience to bad headlines, so a noisy year may still resolve as a non-event for this market.
Key drivers
- The remaining 2026 calendar still contains politically and economically volatile months that can produce a clear setback.
- Trump’s age and the concentration of risk around legal, health, and policy shocks make at least one adverse surprise plausible.
- A broad resolution standard would be easier to satisfy than a narrow one tied to a single catastrophic event.
Risk factors
- If the market’s resolution definition is very strict, ordinary political turbulence may not count as Yes.
- Trump’s coalition and media environment have historically absorbed negative developments better than expected.
Scenarios
Best case
Trump suffers a clearly damaging 2026, such as a major electoral setback, serious scandal, or sharp deterioration in political standing that cleanly matches the market’s bearish threshold.
Most likely
Trump has a mixed and turbulent 2026 with some setbacks, but not enough to satisfy the market’s specific definition of a true bear-case outcome.
Worst case
The year passes without any event severe enough to meet the resolution criteria, and Trump remains politically intact despite some volatility.
More from this day
- FinancialsKalshi13y
Will OpenAI or Anthropic IPO first?
AI24%MKT94%Edge-70HypedI think Anthropic is more likely to IPO before OpenAI, so if the market is asking whether OpenAI goes first, my answer is no more often than yes. Recent reporting has shifted the lead toward Anthropic, while OpenAI looks more likely to wait for a better valuation and a calmer market.
- CompaniesKalshi1y
Starbucks total global stores in 2026
AI68%MKT15%Edge+53Hidden GemStarbucks is more likely than not to finish 2026 above 41,800 global stores. The threshold is only modestly above its last known scale, and ordinary net expansion should get it there unless management materially slows growth or closes a large number of stores.
- PoliticsKalshi2y
Which agencies will Trump eliminate?
AI74%MKT30%Edge+44Hidden GemUSAID already looks functionally dismantled, with most staff, projects, and operational authority stripped away. The main uncertainty is whether the market resolves on de facto elimination or requires formal statutory abolition, but I still see a Yes outcome as more likely than not.