| Outcome | Probability | Yes Bid | Yes Ask | 24h Change | Volume | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Terrorist / Terrorism | 1% | 0¢ | 1¢ | — | $130K | Trade → |
| Epic Fury | 1% | 0¢ | 1¢ | — | $83K | Trade → |
| Mog / Mogged / Mogging | 1% | 0¢ | 1¢ | — | $69K | Trade → |
| Obliterate / Obliterated / Obliteration | 1% | 0¢ | 1¢ | — | $56K | Trade → |
| Khamenei / Ayatollah | 1% | 0¢ | 1¢ | — | $49K | Trade → |
| Tariff | 99% | 99¢ | 100¢ | — | $42K | Trade → |
| Nuclear | 99% | 99¢ | 100¢ | — | $40K | Trade → |
| Israel | 99% | 99¢ | 100¢ | — | $40K | Trade → |
| Bibi / Netanyahu | 1% | 0¢ | 1¢ | — | $39K | Trade → |
| Biden | 99% | 99¢ | 100¢ | — | $32K | Trade → |
| Crypto / Bitcoin | 1% | 0¢ | 1¢ | — | $31K | Trade → |
| Peace in the Middle East | 99% | 99¢ | 100¢ | — | $30K | Trade → |
| Hormuz | 1% | 0¢ | 1¢ | — | $28K | Trade → |
| Hottest | 1% | 0¢ | 1¢ | — | $26K | Trade → |
| Trillion | 1% | 0¢ | 1¢ | — | $24K | Trade → |
| Negotiate / Negotiated / Negotiation | 99% | 99¢ | 100¢ | — | $24K | Trade → |
| Uranium | 1% | 0¢ | 1¢ | — | $23K | Trade → |
| Too Late | 1% | 0¢ | 1¢ | — | $22K | Trade → |
| Oil | 99% | 99¢ | 100¢ | — | $21K | Trade → |
| Ukraine | 99% | 99¢ | 100¢ | — | $19K | Trade → |
| NATO | 99% | 99¢ | 100¢ | — | $16K | Trade → |
| Illegal Alien | 1% | 0¢ | 1¢ | — | $16K | Trade → |
| China | 99% | 99¢ | 100¢ | — | $16K | Trade → |
| 5% | 99% | 99¢ | 100¢ | — | $16K | Trade → |
| Democrat | 99% | 99¢ | 100¢ | — | $16K | Trade → |
| Greenland | 1% | 0¢ | 1¢ | — | $16K | Trade → |
| Iran | 99% | 99¢ | 100¢ | — | $15K | Trade → |
| Midnight Hammer | 99% | 99¢ | 100¢ | — | $14K | Trade → |
| Eight War | 99% | 99¢ | 100¢ | — | $13K | Trade → |
| Windmill | 99% | 99¢ | 100¢ | — | $12K | Trade → |
This market asks which topics, phrases, or named subjects President Trump will publicly mention during his bilateral meeting with Germany; it matters because those remarks signal diplomatic priorities and can influence diplomatic relations, markets, and public debate.
U.S.–Germany meetings historically cover defense and NATO burden‑sharing, trade and industrial policy, energy and sanctions, and security issues such as Russia and Ukraine. Bilateral exchanges between a U.S. president and German leadership can be shaped by recent tensions, campaign priorities, and short‑term crises, so the specific wording and emphasis often diverge from formal agendas.
Market prices reflect the crowd’s aggregated expectation about which mentions will occur and update as new information arrives (schedules, leaks, readouts, and live remarks). Use them as a real‑time signal of changing expectations rather than a definitive forecast of final wording.
Settlement will rely on publicly verifiable sources such as official White House and German government readouts, live transcripts of the bilateral session or joint press conference, video/audio recordings, and confirmed social media posts attributable to the President within the market’s defined timeframe. Consult the market’s specific settlement rules for the authoritative list.
Key players include the German head of government (Chancellor), senior German ministers present (foreign, defense, economy), the U.S. President and senior U.S. officials accompanying him (Secretary of State, National Security Advisor, Secretary of Defense), and the joint press corps that may prompt questions.
Whether informal remarks count depends on the market’s settlement definitions: typically only statements in public, on‑the‑record settings (press conferences, official transcripts, or posts acknowledged by an official account) are used for verification. Check the event’s settlement criteria to see how off‑the‑record remarks are treated.
A private session generally reduces the chance of explicit or combative public mentions because fewer remarks are on the record; a joint press conference raises the likelihood of direct questions and soundbites that match explicit outcome categories, and therefore tends to broaden the range of verifiable mentions.
Look at prior bilateral readouts and transcripts to identify recurring themes (defense spending, trade, sanctions, energy, NATO cooperation) and Trump’s past rhetorical patterns for cues on phrasing and emphasis. Treat history as informative but not determinative, since live context and recent developments often produce deviations.