Trump cabinet member out by December 31, 2026?

Reference class: cabinet-level departures within the first ~24 months of a US presidential term. Base rate is extremely high — essentially every modern administration (Clinton, Bush, Obama, Trump-I, Biden) has had at least one cabinet-level departure within two years, and Trump's first term in particular saw multiple exits within the first year (Flynn ~24 days, Price by month 9, Tillerson, Price, Pruitt, etc.). Base rate ≈ 0.97+. Adjustments above base rate: (1) Today is 2026-05-10, ~16 months into the second term — the window has already largely elapsed, dramatically compressing the remaining uncertainty; (2) Trump-II began with a notably contentious cabinet (close confirmation votes, public friction with several picks), and Trump's documented personal pattern is to churn senior personnel; (3) The resolution bar is generous — any voluntary, involuntary, or retirement-driven exit at cabinet level counts. Adjustments below base rate: essentially none material; the only path to NO is that every single confirmed cabinet-level appointee remains in post through Dec 31, 2026, which is historically unprecedented for Trump and rare for any modern presidency. Market at 0.999 is consistent with the event likely already having occurred or being a near-certainty. I shade microscopically below market to acknowledge residual model/definition risk (e.g., whether a departure that occurred was at a position the resolver deems 'cabinet-level').

Market at 99.90% on a question that, as of May 10, 2026, is almost surely already resolved or trivially close to it. Steelman market: Trump's first-term cabinet had massive turnover (highest in modern history); by ~16 months in, multiple cabinet-level departures are essentially guaranteed by base rate alone. Even setting aside specific known departures, the prior for 'zero cabinet-level exits in ~23 months' is vanishingly small. Steelman opposite: would require (a) the question's strict 'cabinet-level' definition excluding everyone who has left (e.g., if only NSA/staff-level have departed and those don't count), and (b) no further departures in the remaining ~7.5 months. Even if (a) is somehow true today, (b) is implausible given turnover rates. No real mispricing — fading 0.999 here is just paying vig for a tiny tail. Hawk discipline says abstain from contrarian play; mark essentially in line with market, with a hair of discount only for ambiguity in the strict 'cabinet-level + actually departed' definition.

```json {"probability": 0.999, "rationale": "Trump's first term saw historic cabinet turnover; one confirmed departure in nearly two years is near-certain given precedent and the market itself pricing 99.9%."} ```

Market price (0.9990) already reflects strong Bayesian priors: historical precedent (Trump's first term had substantial cabinet turnover), low threshold (any single cabinet member departure counts), and remaining timeframe (~7 months from May 2026 to year-end). For NO resolution, literally all cabinet members would need to remain in position despite normal sources of attrition (health, family, scandal, policy disagreement, burnout). I see no hard evidence of unusual cabinet stability that the market hasn't already priced. Small upward adjustment (+0.0002) reflects the baseline statistical improbability of zero departures across a ~15-20 person cabinet over this window, but the market's extreme confidence is well-justified.

```json { "probability": 0.997, "rationale": "This question is effectively asking whether any cabinet departure occurs over a ~24-month window (Jan 2025–Dec 2026), and as of May 10, 2026, roughly 16 months have already elapsed. Base rate analysis: in every modern presidential term, at least one confirmed cabinet-level departure occurs well within two years. Trump's first term (2017–2021) had some of the highest cabinet turnover in modern history (Tillerson, Sessions, Mattis, Kelly, Nielsen, Zinke, etc.). The prior for 'zero departures through Dec 2026' is near-zero historically. The market price of 99.90% is already well-calibrated. My estimate nudges slightly above that to reflect the elapsed timeline — with 16+ months already passed and near-zero probability that no departure has yet occurred, the residual uncertainty is mostly definitional edge cases (e.g., a departure being categorized as 'acting' rather than confirmed). Systematic bias flags: (1) 'Stability narrative' — there may be a tendency to anchor on reports that Trump's second-term cabinet is more ideologically aligned/loyal, underweighting historical base rates; even loyal cabinets see departures. (2) Recency anchoring on any specific high-profile secretary remaining — irrelevant when the market only needs ONE departure. (3) No meaningful 'No' scenario exists absent a definitional technicality.", "confidence_interval_low": 0.992, "confidence_interval_high": 0.999, "key_uncertainties": [ "Whether any departure to date gets classified as 'acting' and thus excluded by resolution rules", "Definitional edge cases around what counts as 'cabinet-level' vs sub-cabinet", "Small tail risk of market resolution dispute on technicality" ], "bias_flags": [ "Stability narrative bias: second-term loyalty framing underweights historical base rate", "Survivorship anchoring: focusing on cabinet members still present rather than the full distribution of departure probability", "Narrati

Equal-weighted average of 5 agent predictions on this market.