Do Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPPs) count? Basically, suing just to drive up legal costs for unfavorable organisations (often media), creating a chilling effect. Happened with CBS, ABC, Meta, Des Moines Register..

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/03/invocation-of-the-alien-enemies-act-regarding-the-invasion-of-the-united-states-by-tren-de-aragua/

Is this instance of the DOJ ignoring a federal court order sufficient evidence of authoritarianism to resolve yes?

How about this instance of Texas AG unilaterally declaring an entire class of Texas state court orders relating to ID documents as null and void ?

If these don’t pass your threshold for substantive evidence, I’m not sure what would. The resolution criteria are still super vague. What sorts of sources do you consider reliable? Which state groups would need to take these actions for it to count? Do they need to affect several issues, or only one (for example, if NYT reports jailing Palestine supporters, but no other political disappearances)? Perhaps for each criteria including a series of three to five YES hypothetical examples and three to five NO ones might help us understand the calibration you’re aiming for.

@KJW_01294 thanks for your comment.

My intention for this market, and I'm more than happy to have a chat about whether its a valid approach. Was to give the administration till the end of the year to potentially change their course on these matters, as some do think this could happen?

Regarding sources, as mentioned in another thread, I would put political scientists, historians and/or constitutional lawyers and their general consensus as the ideal form of resolution. Given your examples, I would expect scholars and reliable media sources to become fairly clear on their stances of what has occurred. But I'm also up to be changed on this, there are probably events which will easily resolve much of the criteria, but I also want to leave room for the administration to pull back from these tenants. As unlikely as that seems currently, this makes it an interesting market to me.

Which sources do you consider credible?

@JuJumper ive updated the description to try and address your comment.

@Dauur thank you for your clarifications! However, I'd still like to know which specific sources are credible for purposes of this market. Left- and right-leaning people would have very different opinion on that.

@JuJumper the most valuable sources in this space are probably political scientists and historians who specialise in the history of fascism etc

Will voter ID laws count as 'significant voter suppression'?

@Shai if many consider that a change of voter ID laws have had a larger impact than previous efforts then potentially?

One could argue that "significantly increasing executive power beyond traditional norms" has already occurred? It's an argument about the word significantly I guess.
For all of these: if Trump credibly attempts these things, but is stopped by other powers, then this presumably does not count? So we will always have to wait for possible lawsuits to finish before we can resolve?

@rayman2000 that's pretty much how I'm reading both the situation and this market, too.

@DanHomerick I would assume almost any action that would make one of these resolve Yes will be challenged in court. So if we have to wait for lawsuits almost certainly nothing can resolve Yes at the end of the year.
@Dauur How are you planning to resolve this scenario? Resolves No, resolves N/A or extend the resolution date?

@rayman2000 my current intention was to compare it to the start of the Trump 2nd term.

While the current administration is pushing positive for many of these, unknown events could occur and these markets could swing backwards.

I'll add some info about resolution criteria in another comment and what sources are considered reliable in this space.