Scan: Will Trump end the Federal Reserve before Jan 20, 2029?

← Back to scans

Will Trump end the Federal Reserve before Jan 20, 2029?

KXFEDEND-29-JAN20 · Politics · 2026-04-11

Agent

Market Price

-6.0%

Edge

85%

Confidence

Volume: 105,840

Spread: 2.9c

Days to resolution: 1015

Markets in event: 1

Final Rationale

My independent estimate of 1% was based on the near-zero historical base rate for abolishing central banks, no existing legislation, no presidential commitment to abolishment, and Trump's actions (nominating Warsh, pressuring on rates) presupposing the Fed's continued existence. The Devil's Advocate raised valid points I partially accept: (1) PARTIALLY ACCEPT the resolution criteria ambiguity — 'end the Federal Reserve' could conceivably be interpreted more broadly than formal statutory abolishment, though the description says 'Federal Reserve System has ended,' which strongly implies formal dissolution; (2) PARTIALLY ACCEPT the Humphrey's Executor risk — if overturned, it could enable firing all independent governors, but this still wouldn't 'end' the Fed as an institution; (3) ACCEPT the overconfidence critique — 97% confidence was too high given genuine legal unknowns and a ~3-year horizon; (4) REJECT the escalation-pattern argument — Trump's escalating pressure on the Fed is about controlling monetary policy, not abolishing the institution that implements it. The market at 9% likely overprices this event due to speculative interest in dramatic Trump scenarios and conflation of 'undermining Fed independence' with 'ending the Fed.' I diverge from the market because: no abolishment legislation exists or is proposed, Trump has never called for abolishing the Fed, congressional support is nonexistent, and even the most aggressive legal developments (Humphrey's Executor reversal) would change Fed governance, not end the Fed.

Price vs. prediction

How the market moved after the agent's call. Solid blue line is the actual market price; dashed line is the agent's static forecast at $t{=}0$.

$n = 56$ follow-ups

1. Planner Opus · Fermi decomposition + tool plan

Tools chosen: article_search web_search kalshi_data congress_bills wikipedia_lookup code_execution

Sub-questions (Fermi decomposition)

Will Trump administration take concrete legislative or executive action specifically aimed at abolishing or fundamentally dismantling the Federal Reserve System before Jan 20, 2029? (w=0.35)
Will Congress pass legislation to end or abolish the Federal Reserve System before Jan 20, 2029? (w=0.35)
Has Trump publicly committed to ending the Federal Reserve (as opposed to merely pressuring it or replacing its leadership) as a policy goal? (w=0.20)
Is there significant political momentum (e.g., bipartisan support or major Republican caucus backing) for abolishing the Federal Reserve in Congress as of early 2026? (w=0.10)

Planner reasoning

This question asks whether the entire Federal Reserve System will be abolished before Trump's second term ends (Jan 20, 2029). The key analytical distinctions are: (1) 'ending the Fed' vs. merely pressuring it or replacing leadership — Trump has shown interest in the latter but not committed to the former; (2) constitutional/legislative requirements — abolishing the Fed requires an Act of Congress, not just an executive order, making this categorically harder than most Trump policy actions; (3) historical base rates — no G7 central bank has been abolished in the modern era, and the Fed has survived multiple calls for abolishment since 1913 (Ron Paul's 'End the Fed' movement never got traction despite years of effort). The causal chain requires: Trump adopting abolishment as a serious goal (not just rhetoric), the House and Senate passing legislation (Senate typically requires 60 votes, making bipartisan support necessary), and implementation completing before Jan 20, 2029 — all in roughly 1,015 days. The Trump administration's actual behavior has been to pressure the Fed on interest rates and attempt to fire Powell, not to abolish the institution. The reference class should focus on: frequency of major legislative structural reforms to central banks in democracies (extremely rare), congressional appetite for abolishing the dollar's lender of last resort during economic uncertainty, and Trump's revealed preferences vs. his rhetoric. This is almost certainly a sub-1% probability event.

2. Research Parallel tool calls · legacy v2

Tool	Status	Time	Items
article_search	OK	1.3s	-
web_search	OK	48.2s	-
kalshi_data	OK	2.2s	-
congress_bills	OK	0.6s	-
wikipedia_lookup	OK	2.0s	-
code_execution	OK	0.0s	-

3. Evidence Synthesis Sonnet · 18 items · legacy v2

#	Strength	Credibility	Direction	Source	Claim	Priced In
1	STRONG	88	↓ DOWN	article_search	Trump fired Fed Governor Lisa Cook via Truth Social post in August 2025, marking the first-ever presidential attempt to remove a Fed board member — but this is an action to control the Fed, not abolish it.	Yes
2	STRONG	87	↓ DOWN	article_search	The Supreme Court has intervened to keep Lisa Cook in her position, and courts have pushed back against DOJ subpoenas of the Fed as 'blatantly pretextual,' suggesting institutional and judicial resistance to Trump's Fed actions.	Yes
3	MODERATE	82	↓ DOWN	article_search	Federal prosecutors opened a criminal investigation of Powell over the Fed's $2.5 billion headquarters renovation, which Powell characterized as part of broader administration pressure — this is pressure/harassment, not abolishment action.	Yes
4	STRONG	85	↓ DOWN	web_search	Trump's entire approach to the Fed has been to pressure it on interest rates, fire individual members, and replace leadership — not to propose abolishing the institution, which would require an Act of Congress.	Yes
5	STRONG	90	↓ DOWN	web_search	Trump nominated Kevin Warsh to replace Powell as Fed chair when Powell's term expires May 15, 2026 — this action presupposes the Fed continues to exist, directly contradicting any abolishment goal.	Yes
6	MODERATE	85	↓ DOWN	article_search	The Supreme Court is weighing whether to overturn a 90-year-old precedent allowing Congress to create independent agencies, and whether Trump can fire a Fed member — legal battles are about control, not abolishment.	Yes
7	STRONG	80	↓ DOWN	congress_bills	No bills related to abolishing or ending the Federal Reserve were found in the congressional bill search; bills found relate to unrelated topics (fire safety, housing, judiciary).	Yes
8	STRONG	92	↓ DOWN	wikipedia_lookup	The Federal Reserve was established by the Federal Reserve Act (1913) and abolishing it would require new legislation — no G7/developed democracy has abolished its central bank in the modern era.	Yes
9	STRONG	88	↓ DOWN	wikipedia_lookup	Ron Paul's 'End the Fed' movement (book published 2009) never achieved legislative traction despite years of effort, establishing a historical base rate of near-zero for Fed abolishment legislation.	Yes
10	MODERATE	82	↓ DOWN	web_search	Republican Sen. Thom Tillis explicitly criticized the administration's push to 'end the independence of the Federal Reserve,' indicating even GOP Senate members oppose dismantling Fed independence, let alone abolishment.	Yes
11	STRONG	75	↓ DOWN	code_execution	Historical base rate of central bank abolishment in rich democracies is approximately 0%; conjunctive probability analysis for a multi-step legislative process yields a near-zero estimate.	Yes
12	STRONG	83	↓ DOWN	web_search	No evidence found of Trump publicly committing to abolishing the Federal Reserve as a policy goal; all documented actions and statements relate to pressuring it on rates, firing individual members, or replacing leadership.	Yes
13	WEAK	55	↓ DOWN	article_search	Trump's November 2025 CBS interview transcript discusses China/Xi relationship with no mention of ending the Federal Reserve, consistent with the absence of any 'End the Fed' policy commitment.	Yes
14	MODERATE	80	↓ DOWN	web_search	Trump told the Wall Street Journal he wants interest rates at 'one percent and maybe lower' — this is a rate preference, not an abolishment goal, and presupposes the Fed continues to function.	Yes
15	STRONG	78	↓ DOWN	congress_bills	No legislative bills to abolish or fundamentally restructure the Federal Reserve were identified in the 119th Congress bill search.	Yes
16	STRONG	82	↓ DOWN	web_search	Republican senators including Thom Tillis are pushing back against even ending Fed independence, indicating no meaningful bipartisan or Republican caucus momentum for abolishment.	Yes
17	MODERATE	80	↓ DOWN	article_search	Trump administration's attempt to fire Lisa Cook caught Republican lawmakers by surprise, and there was no coordination with congressional allies — indicating no organized congressional coalition backing Fed structural changes.	Yes
18	MODERATE	83	↓ DOWN	article_search	The Supreme Court is reviewing the question of whether Trump can fire Fed members and whether independent agencies can exist — this legal uncertainty is about governance structure, not abolishment, and shows Congress has not acted to change the Fed's legal basis.	Yes

Information Gaps

No data on whether any congressional member has introduced or plans to introduce formal 'End the Fed' legislation in the 119th Congress
No data on Trump's private communications or internal White House discussions specifically about abolishing (vs. controlling) the Fed
No data on whether Kevin Warsh's nomination has been confirmed by the Senate and what his views are on Fed structural reform
No data on how financial markets (bond markets, dollar index) have responded to escalating Fed pressure — a market crisis could theoretically shift political calculus
No data on whether the Supreme Court's ruling on independent agency removability (Humphrey's Executor precedent) could create a legal pathway that is interpreted as 'fundamentally dismantling' the Fed
No data on the outcome of the Lisa Cook court case and what precedent it sets for presidential control of the Fed
Unclear whether Powell's chair term expiration in May 2026 and any disputed succession scenario could be interpreted as a partial 'ending' of the Fed under the question's resolution criteria

Key Uncertainties

Whether the Supreme Court ruling on Humphrey's Executor could effectively make the Fed fully subordinate to the President — some might interpret that as 'ending' Fed independence even if the institution formally persists
Whether a severe financial crisis or hyperinflationary event could shift political momentum toward radical Fed reform, creating a black-swan pathway to abolishment
The precise resolution criteria: does 'the Federal Reserve System has ended' require formal abolishment legislation, or could a court ruling stripping all independence qualify?
Whether Trump's escalating pressure campaign (criminal investigations, firings, replacement of leadership) could eventually result in a de facto capture that some interpret as 'ending' the Fed
How the Warsh nomination and confirmation process plays out — a contested succession could create institutional chaos that extreme actors attempt to exploit
Whether the ongoing federal government shutdown (as of late 2025) and fiscal crisis could create unusual legislative conditions

Market Context

Price: 0.09 · 7d: +0.02 · 30d: +0.02
Volume: LOW-MODERATE — 297 contracts average daily volume · Depth: MEDIUM — price range of 5%-19% suggests some spread but active market
Reliability: MEDIUM-LOW — relatively low volume for a complex political question; the 9% price likely reflects the Kalshi market pricing in some tail risk from escalating Trump-Fed conflict rather than a genuine assessment of abolishment probability; the price has risen from a floor of 5% as Fed confrontations escalated, suggesting market is pricing conflict escalation risk, not true abolishment probability

4. Independent Forecaster Opus · No market price · legacy v2 Did NOT see market price

Independent estimate: 1% (97% confidence)

base rate

97% conf

evidence driven

97% conf

contrarian

97% conf

Spread

0pp

Low disagreement

sq1: Will Trump administration take concrete legislative or executive action specifically aimed at abolishing or fundamentally dismantling the Federal Reserve System before Jan 20, 2029?

Base rate: No US president has ever proposed abolishing the Fed in 112 years. No G7 country has abolished its central bank in the modern era. Trump's revealed preference is to control the Fed (replacing leadership, pressuring on rates, criminal investigations of Powell), not abolish it. He nominated Kevin Warsh as the next Fed chair, which presupposes the Fed's continued existence. Courts are pushing back on even his control attempts. The distinction between controlling and abolishing is critical — every single piece of evidence points to control, not abolishment. An executive order cannot abolish the Fed (it was created by statute). Even the most aggressive interpretation of Trump's actions falls far short of abolishment. I estimate ~1%.

sq2: Will Congress pass legislation to end or abolish the Federal Reserve System before Jan 20, 2029?

Base rate: Zero central bank abolishment bills have passed in any rich democracy in the modern era. Ron Paul's 'End the Fed' movement at its peak couldn't even get a floor vote. No bills to abolish the Fed exist in the current Congress. Republican senators like Tillis are actively opposing even reducing Fed independence. This would require House passage, 60 Senate votes (or nuclear option), and presidential signature — a conjunctive probability chain where each step is near-zero. Even with unified Republican control, the party is deeply divided on this. Financial markets would likely crash at the mere introduction of such legislation, creating enormous political backlash. This is essentially 0.5%.

sq3: Has Trump publicly committed to ending the Federal Reserve (as opposed to merely pressuring it or replacing its leadership) as a policy goal?

Base rate: Trump has never publicly called for abolishing the Fed. All documented statements are about rate policy and leadership changes. His actions (nominating Warsh, wanting lower rates) presuppose the Fed's continued existence. There's no evidence from interviews, Truth Social, rallies, or policy documents of an 'End the Fed' commitment. The question asks about a commitment that could emerge in the remaining ~2.8 years of his term. While Trump is unpredictable, adopting 'End the Fed' as a serious policy goal would be a massive departure from his entire approach. I give ~2% for the possibility he makes such a statement in the remaining time.

sq4: Is there significant political momentum (e.g., bipartisan support or major Republican caucus backing) for abolishing the Federal Reserve in Congress as of early 2026?

Base rate: There has never been significant congressional momentum to abolish the Fed. Currently zero bills exist. Republican senators are actively opposing even reduced Fed independence. No organized caucus or coalition supports abolishment. The Freedom Caucus-type members who might be sympathetic are a small minority. Financial industry lobbying would be overwhelmingly opposed. This is essentially at the floor — 0.5%.

Show full reasoning trace

base rate: No G7/rich democracy has abolished its central bank in the modern era. The Fed has existed since 1913 (112 years). The 'End the Fed' movement, even at its peak under Ron Paul, never achieved legislative traction. The base rate for this type of event is effectively 0%.

evidence updates: Every piece of evidence pushes DOWN from the already near-zero base rate. Trump's actions (nominating Warsh, pressuring on rates, firing board members) all presuppose the Fed's continued existence. No congressional bills exist. Courts are resisting even lesser encroachments. Republican senators oppose reduced Fed independence. The only upward uncertainty is the remaining ~2.8 years of Trump's term and potential black swan events (financial crisis, constitutional crisis), but even these would more likely lead to Fed reform rather than abolishment.

combination method: Weighted average of sub-questions, but constrained by the necessary condition that Congress must pass legislation (sq2 ≈ 0.5%). The resolution requires the Fed to have formally ended, which cannot happen without legislation. Final estimate anchored at ~1% to account for extremely remote tail scenarios.

final: The probability of Trump ending the Federal Reserve before January 20, 2029 is approximately 1%. This is an event with no historical precedent, no current legislative pathway, no presidential commitment, no congressional support, active judicial resistance, and where the president's own actions contradict the premise. The tiny residual probability accounts for truly extraordinary scenarios (constitutional crisis, financial system collapse, etc.) that could theoretically create conditions for radical institutional change.

ensemble: {'ensemble_count': 3, 'perspectives': {'base_rate': {'p_yes': 0.01, 'confidence': 0.97}, 'evidence_driven': {'p_yes': 0.01, 'confidence': 0.97}, 'contrarian': {'p_yes': 0.01, 'confidence': 0.97}}, 'spread': 0.0, 'individual_p_yes': {'base_rate': 0.01, 'evidence_driven': 0.01, 'contrarian': 0.01}}

5. Devil's Advocate Sonnet · legacy v2 Market price revealed

Overconfidence Missing Info Reasoning Flaw

Challenges

The forecaster's resolution criteria analysis may be incomplete. The question asks whether Trump will 'end the Federal Reserve,' which could potentially be interpreted more broadly than formal legislative abolishment. If Trump effectively neuters the Fed by firing all independent board members, installing loyalists, and stripping its operational independence through executive action (even if the institution nominally exists), some resolution criteria might consider this as 'ending' the Fed as we know it. The forecaster assumes only formal statutory abolishment counts, but the question text should be examined more carefully for ambiguity.
The ensemble is artificially narrow — all three perspectives (base_rate, evidence_driven, contrarian) arrive at exactly 1%. A genuine contrarian perspective should explore scenarios where the question resolves Yes through non-obvious pathways, such as a constitutional crisis where Trump claims emergency powers over monetary policy, or a scenario where the Supreme Court's ruling on Humphrey's Executor creates a cascading effect that effectively dismantles Fed independence to the point where it could be considered 'ended.' The contrarian at 1% is not actually contrarian.
The forecaster lists 6-7 significant information gaps but doesn't adjust uncertainty upward for them. The Supreme Court case on independent agency removability (Humphrey's Executor) is particularly important — if overturned, it could give the president power to fire Fed governors at will, which combined with Trump's demonstrated willingness to fire Fed officials, could lead to a scenario interpretable as 'ending' the Fed's independence. This structural legal shift has no historical precedent to base-rate against.
The 2.8-year time horizon is substantial and the forecaster underweights tail risk accumulation over this period. Trump's escalation pattern with the Fed (from verbal pressure → criminal investigation of Powell → firing Cook → Supreme Court showdown) shows an accelerating trajectory. Extrapolating this escalation over nearly 3 more years could yield scenarios not yet imagined. The forecaster treats each data point as evidence against abolishment, but the escalation pattern itself is evidence of increasing institutional conflict that could culminate in more extreme actions.
The confidence level of 0.97 is too high given the acknowledged information gaps and the unprecedented nature of the Trump-Fed confrontation. Even if 1% is approximately right, being 97% confident in that 1% estimate ignores genuine uncertainty about resolution criteria interpretation, legal developments (Humphrey's Executor), and the possibility of black swan escalation scenarios over a ~3 year window.

Suggested adjustment: +2pp

The forecaster's core logic is sound — formal abolishment of the Fed is extremely unlikely. However, the adjustment accounts for: (1) ambiguity in resolution criteria ('end the Federal Reserve' may not require formal statutory abolishment), (2) the unprecedented and escalating nature of the Trump-Fed confrontation with nearly 3 years remaining, (3) the Humphrey's Executor Supreme Court case which could structurally transform the legal landscape for independent agencies in ways without historical precedent, and (4) the artificially narrow ensemble that doesn't genuinely explore contrarian scenarios. Moving from 1% to 3% better reflects these genuine uncertainties while still recognizing that the event is extremely unlikely.

Market comparison: Forecaster: 1%, Market: 9%. The market at 9% likely reflects some combination of: resolution criteria ambiguity (what counts as 'ending' the Fed), tail risk from the escalating Trump-Fed confrontation, and the Humphrey's Executor case. The forecaster's 1% is probably too low due to insufficient consideration of resolution criteria ambiguity and the unprecedented legal/political dynamics, but the market's 9% likely overweights these factors given that even expansive interpretations of 'ending the Fed' require extraordinary developments. A modest upward adjustment to ~3% is warranted by genuine reasoning gaps, not market conformity.

6. Aggregator Opus · final calibrated forecast

3% (85% confidence)

7. Entry Decision Opus Trader

Side

Position Size

$1000

Contracts

1099

Trader Confidence

85%

Trade Rationale

The forecaster estimates only 3% probability that Trump will end the Federal Reserve before Jan 20, 2029, while the market prices this at 9%. This gives a 6% edge on the NO side. The reasoning is compelling: Trump has never called for abolishing the Fed, no legislation exists, Congress has zero appetite for this, and even aggressive moves like firing governors wouldn't constitute 'ending' the Federal Reserve System. Sub-question forecasts all come in at 1-2%. The forecaster confidence is high at 0.85, and the Devil's Advocate critique only suggested a +2% adjustment (which the forecaster already incorporated). The market price likely reflects speculative interest in dramatic Trump scenarios rather than realistic probability assessment.

Allocation Logic

Standard $1000 position. The edge is moderate at 6% and confidence is high at 0.85, but the long time horizon (1015 days) and low-moderate liquidity argue against sizing up. I already have several Trump-policy NO positions in the portfolio, so concentration risk is a consideration.

Entry price: $0.91

Current: $0.95

Status: OPEN

P&L: $43.96