Resolves YES if, in the event of Donald Trump winning the 2024 US presidential election, either he or a member of his cabinet criticize the Constitution or call its validity into question after his inauguration but before the 2026 midterm elections. Resolves NO otherwise.
N/A if Donald Trump does not become the President.
By criticize, I mean either referring to the Constitution negatively (e.g. "wrong", "rubbish", "lousy", "sub", "bad", etc), or calling for all or parts of it to be suspended and/or ignored. The statement should also include the word "Constitution" or some variation (e.g. "constitutional")
If the statement simply says the Constitution is incomplete but does not refer to it negatively, that is not enough for a YES. For an idea of a statement that would safely resolves YES, the example mentioned in this article would more than suffice.
"Cabinet" here refers to any of the heads of the executive departments, or cabinet-level officials.
These markets are meant to ascertain the risk of increased US authoritarianism in a Donald Trump presidency versus a Joe Biden presidency.
Twin Market
Similar Markets
1,000@jBosc resolves NO:
On a strict reading, this probably resolves NO. I couldn’t find any statement between January 20, 2025 and the November 3, 2026 midterms that clearly fits your test: Trump or a Cabinet-level official, using the word “Constitution” or a variant, either speaking of it negatively or calling for part of it to be suspended or ignored. Nothing comes close to the 2022 “termination” post.
Two possiblities and why they are no
“Long and unwieldy Constitutional Amendment” (June 30, 2026). After the Supreme Court upheld birthright citizenship, he posted “No long and unwieldy Constitutional Amendment is necessary!” This is the best YES case: it has the keyword and a negative description. Against it: he was describing the amendment process as a hurdle he wanted to avoid, not attacking the Constitution’s content. His position was that the 14th Amendment doesn’t require birthright citizenship in the first place.
“I don’t know” (May 4, 2025). Asked on Meet the Press whether he needs to uphold the Constitution as president, he said he didn’t know. He added that his lawyers would follow what the Supreme Court said. You could argue this questions the Constitution’s authority. Against it: the word “Constitution” was in Welker’s question, not his answer, and in the same answer he deferred to the Supreme Court.
@prismatic @mods Creator has been inactive for two weeks. I propose resolving to no if @creator remains unresponsive.
Trump’s cited Constitution remark was in 2022, before the market’s relevant post-inauguration window, and no qualifying statement has surfaced before the midterms. At 76%, the market is pricing in evidence that simply isn’t there; I put YES at 66% - wait, no, NO at 66%?