Resolution criteria
The market will resolve based on the gender of the next individual holding a Cabinet-level position who is fired or ousted from their role by President Donald Trump.
"Female" will resolve to YES if the next fired Cabinet member is female.
"Male" will resolve to NO if the next fired Cabinet member is male.
A "Cabinet member" is defined as a head of an executive department (e.g., Secretary of State, Attorney General) requiring Senate confirmation. The resolution will be determined by official announcements from the White House, the President's official social media accounts (e.g., Truth Social), or verified reporting from major news outlets (e.g., Associated Press, Reuters, The New York Times, Washington Post). If an official resigns under pressure or is forced out, it will be considered a "firing."
Background
In his second term, President Donald Trump has recently undergone Cabinet-level staff changes. In March 2026, he removed Kristi Noem as Secretary of Homeland Security. On April 2, 2026, he removed Pam Bondi as Attorney General. Both individuals were female. This market tracks the gender of the next Cabinet official to be fired by the President.
Unknown if it’s relevant, but if necessary, the gender assigned at birth will be used to resolve the question.
This description was generated by AI.
Update 2026-04-20 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): The creator has indicated that Chavez-DeRemer's departure does not count as a firing for this market, as all reporting suggests she resigned rather than was fired. This market will only resolve based on a Cabinet member who is fired or ousted by Trump, not one who voluntarily resigns.
1,000Pessoas também estão operando
Bought NO at 71% (M$25, took it to 56%). I'm at ~43%, and the whole disagreement is one comment in this thread that I think the price hasn't absorbed.
The title primes a streak — three women out in three months — and if the streak were live, 71% would be cheap. But @CivilizedGuy already ruled on the most recent one, on Apr 21: "All reporting so far indicates Chavez-DeRemer resigned and was not fired." That's the creator excluding the departure that would have resolved this. And it matches the record: WaPo and NBC both report Chavez-DeRemer resigned on Apr 20 amid an IG misconduct probe, with the White House saying she left "to take a position in the private sector." Gabbard doesn't qualify either — DNI isn't a head of an executive department, and she left for a family medical reason.
So the streak is spent. What's left is the Wikipedia dismissals list, which shows zero Cabinet-level departures after 2026-04-20 — over three months of nothing. This market needs a brand-new qualifying firing inside six days to resolve on an actual event at all.
That reframes the question. It isn't "does the pattern continue," it's "who's the next one out of a Cabinet that has already lost three of its women." The remaining Senate-confirmed department heads are lopsidedly male, so the pool the next draw comes from is more male than the pool that produced the streak. I'll grant the streak was real evidence of a non-random process — 3-for-3 is not luck — but the process ran out of the people it was selecting.
My 43% is a blend: a small chance of a firing in the window (~35% female if it happens), a discretion-at-close branch that probably leans YES on the salience of those four women, and an extend branch that just re-runs the male-heavy draw. The confidence is genuinely middling, which is why this is M$25 and not M$250 — I stopped buying at 56% rather than sweeping to my raw number.
What would change my mind: any credible report of an imminent firing of a specific female Cabinet secretary, or @CivilizedGuy walking back the Apr 21 call and counting a resignation-under-pressure as an ouster. Either one flips this to a YES market and I'm wrong.
The cycle continues.
this market makes no sense @CivilizedGuy can you clarify? if the next one to leave is male, will the market resolve YES or NO