A security incident occurred at the White House Correspondents Association dinner.
Add your own props; I'll do my best to judge them.
Market close in one month, but individual answers will close early if there is a consensus of credible reporting.
Because some answers may be subjective, I will not trade on this market.
Update 2026-04-25 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): "Shooter" is defined as a person who fired a shot. This answer resolves YES only if everyone who fired a shot in the incident is identified or caught within 24 hours — not just accomplices who did not fire.
Update 2026-04-25 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): "Someone was hit by a bullet" resolves YES for any firearm projectile, including birdshot, slugs, pellets, and other unconventional projectiles (e.g., homemade blunderbuss).
Update 2026-04-25 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): Security personnel who fired shots do not count as 'invited guests' for the purposes of this answer, even if they were present at the event.
Update 2026-04-26 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): The creator will resolve objective answers this afternoon (EDT) based on published timelines in the press. Intent-related questions will not be resolved today, as there is no consensus reporting on the shooter's mental state.
Update 2026-04-27 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): Regarding the definition of "shooter" in these answers: Even if it turns out that Allen (the suspect) did not fire any shots and all shooting was done by security personnel, Allen will still be treated as the "shooter" for resolution purposes. This is to maintain consistency with already-resolved answers, media reports used for resolution, and the likely intent of proposition authors.
1,000People are also trading
Right, I was away from the internet for a week dealing with family things.
Let's see what we can check off.
Friendly fire is actively disputed by the legal defense team. I'm HOLDING this one over, probably until the resolution date, to avoid market-resolving an open legal question.
Grievance with admin is YES, from manifesto and media consensus.
Shots fired by security is YES, covered by news and undisputed.
Acted alone is undisputed in the news, and notably by both legal teams. Closing that YES.
Invited, right-wing seem to be NO, again as undisputed afaict and clear from the manifesto.
winred is NO -- it's a matter of public record.
Islamic, Iran, furry, blackmail look like nos but I'm HOLDING them a little longer because it's not clear we would yet know this. A few more days to get your payouts there.
@Lorelai I believe your ballroom prop looks like a clear yes from within my media bubble; do you agree or would you like to wait for more information?
@GuyCohen can you clarify your intended meaning of "left wing"? The shooter's manifesto seems boringly center-left to me, but shooting at people is inherently wing-ish, so I'm inclined to follow the market verdict here.
@MarySmith Thank you! I'm going to wait until after the traditional Friday afternoon time for dropping embarrassing news before I do the next round of closures, particularly because the news has been all over the place on this, but it's nice to see some sort of actual professional conclusions being offered.
Okay, in the interests of sanity, since now that video is out the media reports are getting a bit squirrely about who exactly shot whom:
* If it turns out that Allen did not get a shot off at all, and that all the shooting was done by security, the term "shooter" in these answers still refers to Allen. That is both to maintain consistency with the already-resolved answers, and with the media reports that I'm using to resolve off these answers, and with what I expect was the intent of the proposition authors, and to save me having to figure out whether a random Secret Service agent is secretly a furry.
I am aware that this is an odd choice, and I apologize for that, but I don't see a reasonable alternative.
@Dssc Yeah, I've been looking for anyone claiming he's some sort of subversive foreigner come to wreck the decent folk of California / DC and am finding nothing. Not even the conspiracy theorists cam be bothered to make this man be from Darkest Ruritania. I'll resolve it shortly after a quick scan of the news.
@hidetzugu I'm pretty sure foreign national just means not a US citizen, so dual citizens wouldn't be foreign nationals.
@Dssc The exact astrology of who is a national of what and when is stupendously detailed and full of exceptions and codas and seventeenth century bafflegab about sovereigns and allegiances and I am so very happy that none of it seems to be relevant here.
"The first shot was entirely outside of (not from or into) the ballroom" should be easily resolved YES -- the floor where the shooter was apprehended/the security checkpoint was isn't the same floor as the ballroom if you view floor plans. There's no line of sight to or into the ballroom from where he was at. @nonnihil
@nonnihil Happy to help :) Should also be able to resolve "Shot(s) were fired at the President" from this
@MarySmith Kash writing the manifesto, "except for Kash Patel who is too beautiful and smart. Kash probably already knows everything about my plot. Trump should give him a raise."
@Jack1 I am unfamiliar with the details ActBlue; does the screenshot from @dssc above https://manifold.markets/nonnihil/correspondents-association-dinner-i#06xgo3vm5xv5 , if accurate,
reflect a donation "to a candidate" within the meaning of your proposition, or simply to a party organization? I see your comment "pacs also count" but I am not clear whether that is meant to generalize "candidate" or "actblue" in the phrasing.
[commented on the wrong comment]
@nonnihil Okay, LA Times says that the actblue donation was "earmarked for" Harris which I guess is a thing? Anyway with more sources I think that's resolvable.
Now that we are seeing some published timelines in the press, I will resolve off some of the clearer objective answers this afternoon (EDT) based on what appears in all of the timelines.
I will not resolve any intent questions today, as we have nothing approaching consensus reporting on the shooter's mental state.
Closed off a few related to the shooter's identity, since that seems confirmed by multiple sources from multiple agencies. And the show, of course, did not go on.
Does anyone have news reports with any specifics about security shooting back at the gunman?
A couple of reports say that the shooter has not given any information about his intentions, collaborators, or targets; those are going to remain open.
I've read the alleged manifesto but am waiting for a bit more confirmation of authenticity on that. Of course if the shooter is sufficiently mentally unwell even a manifesto can be poor evidence of intent, another reason to be a bit patient.
ActBlue: Resolved once I found the FEC record.
Manifesto: AFAICT Still single-sourced to the NY Post, so I am not using it for resolutions yet.
outside ballroom: Thanks to @bagofsprite for the floorplan; resolved.
CBS is now confirming the manifesto. I'll resolve the manifesto item now but, again, not using the manifesto to resolve intent questions until we know a bit more.
FYI I am not seeing current reporting that the security team did any shooting -- current reporting seems to be that they tackled the gunman. If anyone has good current sourcing on the gunman having been shot (I assume since it's at 99% someone has two solid sources?) please link it here.