← Back to scans

Will government spending decrease by 250 before 2026? — At least 250 billion

KXGOVTCUTS-26-250 · Politics · 2026-04-12
6%
Agent
9%
Market Price
-2.6%
Edge
82%
Confidence
Volume: 87,844
Spread: 0.6c
Days to resolution: 353
Markets in event: 6
Final Rationale
My independent estimate of 4% was based on overwhelming evidence that federal spending is increasing, not decreasing: FY2025 outlays are $275B higher than FY2024, mandatory spending growth is structural, and DOGE savings haven't materialized in aggregate data. I PARTIALLY ACCEPT Challenge 1 (resolution criteria ambiguity) and Challenge 2 (the Education Department $234B accounting reclassification could nearly meet the threshold alone under favorable interpretation), which together warrant an upward adjustment of ~2%. I PARTIALLY ACCEPT Challenge 3 (353 days of unobserved data) but note the structural trajectory is strongly upward. I REJECT most of the confidence critique — while information gaps exist, the fundamental fiscal dynamics are well-established. The market at 8.6% with high liquidity and strong NO-side orderbook depth confirms this is very unlikely; my 6% estimate sits between my independent forecast and the market, reflecting that the accounting reclassification pathway is a real but narrow possibility that the market may be slightly overweighting.
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 $t{=}0$.
$n = 57$ follow-ups
1. Planner Opus · Fermi decomposition + tool plan
Tools chosen: kalshi_data kalshi_orderbook fred_data article_search web_search congress_bills code_execution
Sub-questions (Fermi decomposition)
  1. Has government spending already decreased by a measurable amount (e.g., >$100B) from Q4 2024 baseline through Q1 2026, based on available federal spending data? (w=0.35)
  2. Will DOGE/executive branch spending cuts and legislative budget actions result in a net reduction of at least $250B in total federal outlays between Q4 2024 and Q4 2026? (w=0.40)
  3. Will Congress pass budget legislation that permanently reduces discretionary spending by enough to contribute materially to a $250B total cut by end of 2026? (w=0.25)
Planner reasoning
This question asks whether total U.S. federal government spending will decline by at least $250 billion between Q4 2024 and Q4 2026 — roughly a 3.5-4% nominal reduction from the ~$6.75 trillion FY2024 baseline. Key analytical considerations: (1) **Historical base rate**: Nominal federal spending decreases are extremely rare outside post-war demobilization or COVID drawdown (FY2022 saw a large decline from FY2021 pandemic peak). Most modern recessions and policy environments see flat or rising spending. (2) **DOGE/executive action mechanism**: The Trump administration's DOGE initiative has claimed large savings, but independent analysts dispute whether claimed cuts translate to actual outlays reductions vs. contract cancellations, rescissions, or accounting changes. Actual measured outlays may diverge sharply from claimed savings. (3) **Legislative pathway**: A $250B cut requires either sustained executive impoundment (legally constrained) or Congressional action via reconciliation. The 119th Congress is working on budget reconciliation but faces internal divisions. (4) **Temporal analysis**: With 353 days to resolution (closing March 2027), the period covers Q4 2025 and Q4 2026 data. If DOGE savings materialize in 2025 spending and Congress passes cuts in 2025-2026, we'd need to see actual FRED/Treasury outlay data declining significantly year-over-year. Current evidence suggests claimed DOGE savings are often overstated or reversed. (5) **Mandatory spending growth**: Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and interest payments are growing rapidly — offsetting any discretionary cuts — making a net $250B reduction extremely challenging without touching entitlements. The reference class of 'times US federal outlays declined by >3.5% in a 2-year non-post-war period' is essentially zero in modern history.
2. Research Parallel tool calls · legacy v2
ToolStatusTimeItemsSummary
kalshi_data OK 2.1s -
kalshi_orderbook OK 0.1s -
fred_data OK 1.2s -
article_search OK 0.3s -
web_search OK 132.4s -
congress_bills OK 0.7s -
code_execution OK 0.0s -
3. Evidence Synthesis Sonnet · 14 items · legacy v2
#StrengthCredibilityDirectionSourceClaimPriced In
1 STRONG 90 ↓ DOWN web_search FY2025 total federal outlays were $7.0 trillion — $275 billion (4%) MORE than FY2024, not less. Calendar year 2025 spending was also ~$318 billion higher than 2024. Yes
2 STRONG 92 ↓ DOWN fred_data FRED data shows FGEXPND (federal government expenditures) at $7,583.66B as of 2025-10-01, consistent with a rising trend in total outlays. Yes
3 STRONG 88 ↓ DOWN web_search Federal spending was $142 billion higher in H1 calendar 2025 vs. H1 2024, and the early FY2025 deficit (first 5 months) was $319 billion larger than the same period prior year, with outlays up 13%. Yes
4 MODERATE 75 NEUTRAL web_search Department of Education spending decreased by $234 billion (87%) in FY2025, largely due to accounting maneuvers (loan cost reclassification under One Big Beautiful Bill), not actual cash outlays reductions. No
5 MODERATE 72 ↓ DOWN code_execution A $250B nominal reduction represents ~3.7% of FY2024 outlays. Historical data shows nominal spending decreases are rare; only post-COVID drawdowns produced large nominal declines in recent years. Yes
6 STRONG 90 ↓ DOWN web_search Despite DOGE activity and executive branch cuts, total FY2025 outlays grew by $275 billion vs. FY2024 — DOGE claimed savings have not translated into net outlay reductions at the aggregate level. Yes
7 STRONG 80 ↓ DOWN kalshi_data The related market 'How much government spending will Trump cut before his term ends? — At least 250 billion' (KXGOVTCUTS-28-250) is priced at 7.6%, down 25.4% over 30 days — a sharp decline in market confidence for even a full-term $250B cut. No
8 STRONG 78 ↓ DOWN kalshi_data The market 'Government spending increase in 2026 — At least $400 billion' is priced at 77% and rising (+13% over 30 days), strongly implying the market expects continued spending growth rather than cuts. No
9 STRONG 88 ↓ DOWN web_search Net interest payments surpassed $1 trillion for the first time in FY2025, and Social Security/Medicare/veterans benefits all increased — mandatory spending growth structurally offsets any discretionary cuts. Yes
10 MODERATE 82 NEUTRAL web_search Customs duty receipts rose $118B (153%) due to tariffs in FY2025 — this is a revenue increase, not a spending decrease, and does not contribute to outlay reduction. Yes
11 WEAK 45 ↓ DOWN congress_bills No major budget reconciliation or appropriations bills with significant spending cuts were found in the legislative search; bills found were unrelated to fiscal consolidation. Yes
12 MODERATE 72 ↓ DOWN web_search The 'One Big Beautiful Bill' included an accounting maneuver reducing Education Department outlays by $234B, but this appears to be a reclassification rather than permanent discretionary spending cuts producing real cash savings. No
13 STRONG 78 ↓ DOWN kalshi_data The primary market (KXGOVTCUTS-26-250) is priced at 8.6% with a 7-day change of -0.8% and 30-day change of -0.4%, indicating slight but stable bearish sentiment on the $250B cut by 2026. Yes
14 STRONG 82 ↓ DOWN kalshi_orderbook Orderbook shows yes_bid=$0.00 and no_bid=$0.77 with high liquidity (depth=7502), indicating strong market consensus against resolution at YES. Yes
Information Gaps
  • No granular Q4 2024 baseline outlay data vs. Q4 2026 forward estimate — the question compares Q4 2024 to Q4 2026 quarters, not full fiscal years; quarterly data would be needed for precise resolution
  • No confirmed status of the 'One Big Beautiful Bill' — whether it passed or the Education accounting change was finalized into law is unclear from sources
  • No data on what specific DOGE-attributed cuts were reflected in actual Treasury outlays vs. contract cancellations or accounting reclassifications
  • No FY2026 or Q1-Q2 2026 outlay data — spending trajectory for the remainder of calendar 2026 is unobserved
  • No detail on Congressional budget reconciliation progress or final FY2026 appropriations levels
  • Impoundment/rescission legal status unclear — any executive freeze of appropriated funds would face legal challenges that could reverse cuts
Key Uncertainties
  • Whether the question resolves on total nominal outlays (which grew in FY2025) or some subset — resolution methodology is critical
  • How accounting maneuvers (like Education loan reclassification) are treated for resolution purposes — if reclassifications count, the answer could change
  • Trajectory of mandatory spending (Social Security, Medicare, interest) in 2026 — even large discretionary cuts would likely be more than offset
  • Whether a recession in 2026 increases or decreases spending (automatic stabilizers would increase spending, not decrease)
  • Whether DOGE's claimed cumulative savings ever translate to measured outlay reductions in Treasury data
  • Political feasibility of passing further budget cuts through a narrow House majority given internal Republican divisions
Market Context
Price: 0.086 · 7d: -0.008 · 30d: -0.004
Volume: MODERATE — 428 contracts/day average is sufficient for meaningful price discovery · Depth: HIGH — depth of 7,502 contracts with strong NO-side pressure (no_bid=$0.77)
Reliability: HIGH — the market shows consistent, liquid bearish pricing with strong orderbook depth on the NO side; related markets corroborate the direction strongly
4. Independent Forecaster Opus · No market price · legacy v2 Did NOT see market price
Independent estimate: 4% (92% confidence)
base rate
4%
92% conf
evidence driven
4%
92% conf
contrarian
4%
92% conf
Spread
0pp
Low disagreement
sq1: Has government spending already decreased by a measurable amount (e.g., >$100B) from Q4 2024 baseline through Q1 2026, based on available federal spending data?
3%
Base rate: Nominal federal spending almost never decreases year-over-year outside post-war demobilization or post-pandemic drawdowns. The evidence is overwhelming and unambiguous: FY2025 outlays were $275B MORE than FY2024, H1 2025 was $142B higher than H1 2024, and the deficit expanded by $319B in the first 5 months. FRED data shows rising expenditures. The Education Department's $234B 'decrease' appears to be an accounting reclassification, not actual cash outlay reduction. There is essentially no evidence that spending has decreased at all from Q4 2024 baseline — it has increased substantially. The only scenario where this could be 'yes' is if Q4 2024 had an unusual spike that Q1 2026 happened to be below, but given the strong upward trend, this is extremely unlikely. Estimate: 3%.
sq2: Will DOGE/executive branch spending cuts and legislative budget actions result in a net reduction of at least $250B in total federal outlays between Q4 2024 and Q4 2026?
4%
Base rate: A $250B net reduction in total federal outlays over a 2-year period has essentially never happened in modern US history outside post-WWII demobilization and post-COVID drawdown. Current evidence strongly contradicts this outcome: (1) FY2025 outlays grew by $275B, meaning we'd need roughly a $525B reversal in the remaining period to Q4 2026 — unprecedented. (2) Mandatory spending (Social Security, Medicare, interest) is growing rapidly and now exceeds $1T in net interest alone. (3) DOGE claimed savings have not materialized in actual Treasury outlay data at the aggregate level. (4) Even if all discretionary cuts claimed by DOGE were real and sustained, mandatory spending growth would more than offset them. The only scenario achieving this would require Congress to cut entitlements (politically impossible in this timeframe) or a massive accounting change that artificially reduces measured outlays. The Education reclassification could theoretically contribute if it's treated as a real outlay reduction, but even then, the overall trajectory is strongly upward. Estimate: 4%.
sq3: Will Congress pass budget legislation that permanently reduces discretionary spending by enough to contribute materially to a $250B total cut by end of 2026?
6%
Base rate: Congress has not passed legislation producing $250B+ in near-term spending reductions in modern history outside sequestration (which took years to materialize and was partially reversed). Current evidence: No major budget reconciliation bills with significant spending cuts have been found in legislative searches. The 'One Big Beautiful Bill' contained accounting maneuvers rather than real discretionary cuts. The narrow House Republican majority faces internal divisions (defense hawks vs. fiscal hawks). Even the most aggressive Republican proposals historically target ~$1-2T over 10 years, which translates to much less than $250B in the first 1-2 years. The legislative pathway to $250B in actual near-term spending cuts by Q4 2026 is extremely narrow. Slight upward adjustment from pure base rate because DOGE/Trump create some non-zero probability of unusual executive action, but legal constraints on impoundment limit this. Estimate: 6%.
Show full reasoning trace
base rate: Nominal US federal spending has decreased year-over-year only a handful of times in modern history: post-WWII demobilization, and FY2022 vs FY2021 (post-COVID drawdown from ~$6.8T to ~$6.3T). Outside these exceptional circumstances, spending essentially always grows. A $250B reduction from Q4 2024 to Q4 2026 would represent ~3.5-4% nominal decline — the base rate for this occurring in a non-post-crisis period is effectively 0-2%.
evidence updates: All major evidence pushes DOWN from even the low base rate: (1) FY2025 outlays are $275B HIGHER than FY2024 — we're moving in the wrong direction. (2) Mandatory spending growth (Social Security COLA, Medicare, net interest >$1T) creates massive structural headwinds. (3) DOGE claimed savings have not appeared in actual Treasury data. (4) No significant budget legislation has passed or appears imminent. (5) The Education Department accounting change is a reclassification, not real savings. The only factor pushing slightly UP is the unprecedented nature of DOGE/Trump executive action, but even this has produced no measurable aggregate outlay reduction.
combination method: Weighted average of three sub-questions with weights 0.35, 0.40, 0.25. Sub-questions are highly correlated (all depend on total outlays declining). The combined estimate of ~4% reflects the near-impossibility of achieving a $250B reduction given that spending has increased substantially and structural drivers continue pushing upward.
final: The probability of government spending decreasing by at least $250B from Q4 2024 to Q4 2026 is approximately 4%. Every piece of available evidence points strongly against this outcome: spending is rising, mandatory programs are growing rapidly, DOGE savings haven't materialized in aggregate data, and no legislative pathway exists for cuts of this magnitude. The only residual probability accounts for extreme tail scenarios like massive accounting reclassifications being treated as real spending reductions, or an unprecedented legislative/executive action in the remaining months.
ensemble: {'ensemble_count': 3, 'perspectives': {'base_rate': {'p_yes': 0.04, 'confidence': 0.92}, 'evidence_driven': {'p_yes': 0.04, 'confidence': 0.92}, 'contrarian': {'p_yes': 0.04, 'confidence': 0.92}}, 'spread': 0.0, 'individual_p_yes': {'base_rate': 0.04, 'evidence_driven': 0.04, 'contrarian': 0.04}}
5. Devil's Advocate Sonnet · legacy v2 Market price revealed
Overconfidence Missing Info Asymmetric Evidence
Challenges
  1. The forecaster's sub-question decomposition conflates different measurement approaches. The question asks about spending decreasing 'by 250 before 2026' but resolution is March 2027 — the exact resolution criteria (which baseline, which endpoint, annualized vs. quarterly comparison) remain ambiguous. The forecaster assumes the hardest interpretation (total nominal outlays must decline $250B) but if the question resolves based on any plausible accounting methodology (e.g., the Education Department reclassification counting, or annualized quarterly rate comparisons), the probability should be higher.
  2. The information gap about the 'One Big Beautiful Bill' and whether the Education Department accounting change was finalized into law is significant. If this legislation passed (which the forecaster couldn't confirm), the $234B Education accounting reclassification alone gets very close to $250B. Combined with even modest real cuts, this accounting pathway could meet the threshold depending on resolution criteria. This gap should widen uncertainty, not be dismissed.
  3. The forecaster has no FY2026 or calendar year 2026 outlay data — there are 353 days until resolution. While the structural trend is clearly upward, the forecaster treats the outcome as nearly impossible (4%) despite having no data on roughly half the relevant time period. Post-COVID spending normalization, potential government shutdown effects, CR-level spending constraints, or other discontinuities could affect the trajectory in ways not captured by FY2025 data alone.
  4. The ensemble shows zero spread (all three perspectives at exactly 4%), which suggests the 'contrarian' perspective wasn't genuinely contrarian. A proper contrarian view would note: the question's resolution mechanism might be more favorable than assumed; accounting changes might count; there are 353 days of unobserved data; and DOGE activity could accelerate. Even if the contrarian still lands below 10%, it shouldn't be identical to the base rate perspective.
  5. The forecaster gives 92% confidence despite multiple significant information gaps (no Q4 2024 baseline data, no FY2026 data, unclear resolution criteria, uncertain legislative status). High confidence is inconsistent with these gaps, particularly given that resolution is nearly a year away.
Suggested adjustment: +3pp
The forecast should be adjusted upward slightly (to ~7%) due to: (1) genuine uncertainty about resolution criteria — if accounting reclassifications count, the Education Department change alone nearly meets the threshold; (2) 353 days remain with no FY2026 data, meaning the forecaster is extrapolating from incomplete information; (3) the zero-spread ensemble indicates insufficient consideration of alternative scenarios. The adjustment is NOT driven by market conformity but by the identified information gaps and the possibility that the resolution mechanism is more accommodating than the forecaster's strict interpretation assumes.
Market comparison: Forecaster: 4%, Market: 8.6%. The 4.6% divergence is modest in absolute terms. The market's higher price likely reflects some probability weight on the accounting/reclassification pathway (Education Department $234B change potentially counting toward resolution). The forecaster's estimate may be slightly too low given genuine uncertainty about resolution criteria and significant information gaps, but the directional call (very unlikely) is well-supported by evidence. The market price at 8.6% with strong NO-side orderbook pressure is consistent with the event being very unlikely but not impossible.
6. Aggregator Opus · final calibrated forecast
6% (82% confidence)
My independent estimate of 4% was based on overwhelming evidence that federal spending is increasing, not decreasing: FY2025 outlays are $275B higher than FY2024, mandatory spending growth is structural, and DOGE savings haven't materialized in aggregate data. I PARTIALLY ACCEPT Challenge 1 (resolution criteria ambiguity) and Challenge 2 (the Education Department $234B accounting reclassification could nearly meet the threshold alone under favorable interpretation), which together warrant an upward adjustment of ~2%. I PARTIALLY ACCEPT Challenge 3 (353 days of unobserved data) but note the structural trajectory is strongly upward. I REJECT most of the confidence critique — while information gaps exist, the fundamental fiscal dynamics are well-established. The market at 8.6% with high liquidity and strong NO-side orderbook depth confirms this is very unlikely; my 6% estimate sits between my independent forecast and the market, reflecting that the accounting reclassification pathway is a real but narrow possibility that the market may be slightly overweighting.