All
Outcomes
Market
Price
AI Fair
Value
Value
Edge
YesNo
AI Insights:
03.05 14:33 UpdatedFair Value Reasoning:
Despite persistent rumors in March 2026 regarding Trump's health keeping the price at 9 cents (9% implied probability), the threshold for triggering Section 4 of the 25th Amendment is incredibly high. It requires not only the VP and a majority of the Cabinet to turn against the President but also, upon contestation, a 2/3 supermajority in both houses of Congress. Given political polarization and the short 300-day window remaining, a GOP 'mutiny' of this scale is statistically negligible. Section 4 has never been used to remove a President. Voluntary resignation or health incapacity without the formal Section 4 process (which resolves to 'No') are more plausible outcomes. Thus, the 9% price is significantly overpriced; fair value is likely below 2%.
Sign up to view more information
Exotics
This is a specific political scenario. While the 25th Amendment is a known mechanism, its actual invocation for removal is historically unprecedented and highly controversial, making it a low-probability, high-impact tail risk event, more exotic than standard election betting.
Hedging
DJT
Bitcoin
DXY
Gold
S&P 500
If Trump were removed via the 25th Amendment, it would constitute an unprecedented constitutional crisis, likely triggering extreme market panic and political instability. This would cause severe volatility or a crash in equities (S&P 500), a spike in safe havens (Gold, DXY), and an existential crisis for Trump-linked stocks (DJT). It represents an extreme black swan event.
Divergence
Significant divergence exists. The market pricing (9%) implies a relatively high risk of a 'coup' or 'forced removal,' which correlates with sensationalist media coverage of Trump's health (e.g., unsteady gait, bruising). However, the consensus among constitutional scholars and serious political analysts is that Section 4 is a 'nuclear option' unlikely to succeed without overwhelming bipartisan consensus. Prediction market users are likely conflating 'leaving office due to illness' (which likely resolves No) with 'forced removal via Section 4' (Yes), leading to an overvaluation of the Yes option.
