← Back to scans

Will Tulsi Gabbard leaves Director of National Intelligence (DNI) before May 1, 2026?

KXGABBARDOUT-26-MAY01 · Politics · 2026-04-13
10%
Agent
3%
Market Price
+6.7%
Edge
62%
Confidence
Volume: 71,655
Spread: 5.3c
Days to resolution: 18
Markets in event: 5
Final Rationale
My independent estimate of 14% was built on the Axios near-firing report as the primary evidence driver, but the Devil's Advocate correctly identified several reasoning flaws that I accept. ACCEPT Challenge 1 & 6: The temporal calibration issue is valid — presidential firing impulses typically play out over months (Tillerson, Sessions, Mattis all lasted 1-2+ years after first friction), so the 8% uplift for an 18-day window was too large; adjusting down ~3-4%. ACCEPT Challenge 3: The market's steady decline from ~32% to 9% over 30 days is a strong temporal signal that the crisis has passed with each day of inaction. PARTIALLY ACCEPT Challenge 5: Roger Stone's successful intervention does represent a protective factor, though such protection can be temporary. ACCEPT Challenge 4: The 3% 'already left' component was too high given strong spokesperson confirmation; reducing to ~1%. After these adjustments, my estimate drops to ~10-11%. The highly liquid market at 9% with deep orderbook and sustained declining trend deserves significant deference, and my remaining 1% premium over the market reflects the genuine but diminishing uncertainty from the unknown underlying cause of Trump-Gabbard friction and Trump's unpredictability.
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 $t{=}0$.
$n = 49$ follow-ups
1. Planner Opus · Fermi decomposition + tool plan
Tools chosen: kalshi_data kalshi_orderbook web_search article_search
Sub-questions (Fermi decomposition)
  1. Is Tulsi Gabbard currently still serving as DNI as of April 13, 2026? (w=0.30)
  2. Will Tulsi Gabbard be fired, resign, or otherwise leave the DNI role before May 1, 2026? (w=0.50)
  3. Are there credible reports or signals (political pressure, scandal, policy disputes) that would make Gabbard's departure likely in the next 18 days? (w=0.20)
Planner reasoning
This question resolves in 18 days and is essentially about whether Gabbard leaves her DNI post before May 1, 2026. The key analytical steps are: (1) confirm her current status — is she still serving as of today? If she has already left, this resolves YES immediately. (2) Assess the base rate of cabinet-level departures in a Trump administration context over any given 18-day window — historically this is low absent a specific triggering event. (3) Look for any specific triggering signals: Congressional pressure, intelligence scandals, policy disputes with Trump, or personal decisions to leave. The Trump administration had high turnover in the first term, but Gabbard was a Trump loyalist appointment, which reduces voluntary firing risk. The short 18-day window sharply limits the probability unless there's an imminent known catalyst. The Kalshi market price will be highly informative here as a crowd-aggregated signal. Key causal mechanisms: Trump could fire her if she falls out of favor; she could resign due to internal conflicts; or a scandal could force departure. Without a known catalyst, the base rate for any specific 18-day window is roughly 1-3% for any given cabinet member.
2. Research Parallel tool calls · legacy v2
ToolStatusTimeItemsSummary
kalshi_data OK 1.3s -
kalshi_orderbook OK 0.1s -
web_search OK 60.6s -
article_search OK 0.1s -
3. Evidence Synthesis Sonnet · 9 items · legacy v2
#StrengthCredibilityDirectionSourceClaimPriced In
1 STRONG 80 ↓ DOWN web_search As of April 12–13, 2026, Tulsi Gabbard is confirmed to still be serving as DNI; her spokesperson affirmed her ongoing commitment to the role. Yes
2 MODERATE 65 ↓ DOWN web_search Viral claims on April 6–7, 2026 that Gabbard was fired were unverified and appear to have originated from a single social media post; no official confirmation of departure exists. Yes
3 STRONG 82 ↓ DOWN web_search White House Communications Director Steven Cheung stated on April 3, 2026 that Trump has 'total confidence' in Gabbard and called removal rumors 'totally fake news.' Yes
4 STRONG 75 ↑ UP web_search Axios reported (April 10–12, 2026) that Trump came close to firing Gabbard but was talked out of it by Roger Stone, suggesting her position was more precarious than publicly acknowledged. No
5 STRONG 78 ↓ DOWN kalshi_data Kalshi market currently prices Gabbard's departure before May 1, 2026 at 9%, down 6% in the last 7 days and down 23% over the last 30 days, suggesting the crowd sees this as increasingly unlikely. Yes
6 MODERATE 72 ↓ DOWN kalshi_orderbook The Kalshi orderbook shows high liquidity (depth 15,410) with a no_bid of $0.33, indicating strong market conviction that Gabbard will NOT leave before May 1. Yes
7 MODERATE 70 ↑ UP web_search Roger Stone's reported intervention to save Gabbard's job reveals genuine behind-the-scenes pressure and signals that her relationship with Trump is not entirely stable, representing a latent firing risk. No
8 MODERATE 60 ↓ DOWN web_search No specific imminent policy dispute, scandal, or congressional action has been identified that would force Gabbard's departure in the next 18 days; the administration appears focused on other matters. Yes
9 MODERATE 72 ↓ DOWN kalshi_data The 30-day price decline of 23 percentage points on the Kalshi market (from ~32% to 9%) suggests that earlier fears of Gabbard's departure have significantly faded as no catalyst has materialized. Yes
Information Gaps
  • No direct reporting on the specific reason(s) Trump nearly fired Gabbard — the underlying policy dispute or personal conflict is unknown, making it hard to assess whether it has been fully resolved.
  • No independent verification of the Roger Stone intervention story beyond Axios reporting; the full context of what triggered Trump's near-firing decision is unclear.
  • No information on whether any new intelligence failures, leaks, or Congressional investigations targeting Gabbard are pending that could re-escalate firing pressure.
  • No data on Gabbard's own state of mind or whether she might consider voluntary resignation.
  • The article_search returned 0 results, limiting corroboration of web search findings.
Key Uncertainties
  • Whether the underlying issue that nearly led to Gabbard's firing has genuinely been resolved, or whether Trump could revisit the decision without further intervention from Stone or others.
  • Trump's historically unpredictable firing behavior — a sudden mood shift or new controversy could trigger departure even without a visible buildup.
  • Whether the Roger Stone intervention is a one-time stabilizer or creates a durable buffer for Gabbard through May 1.
  • Whether any new intelligence controversies (e.g., leaks, failures, foreign policy crises) could emerge in the next 18 days that implicate the DNI office.
Market Context
Price: 0.09 · 7d: -0.06 · 30d: -0.23
Volume: HIGH — ~2,851 contracts/day average · Depth: HIGH — 15,410 depth with strong no-side liquidity
Reliability: HIGH — high volume, deep orderbook, sustained multi-week trend makes this a well-informed market signal
4. Independent Forecaster Opus · No market price · legacy v2 Did NOT see market price
Independent estimate: 14% (45% confidence)
base rate
14%
45% conf
evidence driven
14%
45% conf
contrarian
14%
45% conf
Spread
0pp
Low disagreement
sq1: Is Tulsi Gabbard currently still serving as DNI as of April 13, 2026?
97%
Strong evidence confirms she is still serving as of April 12-13, 2026. Her spokesperson affirmed ongoing commitment, and viral firing claims from April 6-7 were debunked. The base rate for a cabinet member still being in their role on any given day is very high (~99%+). The only downward pressure is the unverified rumors, but these were explicitly denied. Final: 97%.
sq2: Will Tulsi Gabbard be fired, resign, or otherwise leave the DNI role before May 1, 2026?
12%
Base rate: In Trump's first term, cabinet-level turnover was historically high (~40% turnover per year across all positions), but for any specific 18-day window, the probability of departure for a specific official is roughly 2-3% (roughly 4-5 departures per year across ~25 cabinet-level positions = ~0.2 departures per position per year = ~1% per 18-day window). However, several factors push this UP significantly: (1) The Axios report that Trump nearly fired Gabbard and was only talked out of it by Roger Stone pushes UP by ~5-7%. This is a strong signal — when a president comes close to firing someone, the underlying friction often resurfaces. (2) Trump's well-documented pattern of eventually firing people he's considered firing pushes UP by ~2-3%. (3) The fact that the specific underlying dispute is unknown means it could re-emerge. Pushing DOWN: White House 'total confidence' statement (~-2%), no imminent scandal or congressional action (~-1%), and the short 18-day window inherently limits probability. Net estimate: Base 2-3% + up ~8% - down ~3% = ~10-12%. I'll set at 12%.
sq3: Are there credible reports or signals that would make Gabbard's departure likely in the next 18 days?
20%
Base rate for 'credible signals of imminent departure' for any cabinet member at a random time: maybe 5-10%. The Roger Stone intervention story is a moderate-to-strong signal pushing UP by ~8-10% — it reveals genuine behind-the-scenes instability. However, pushing DOWN: no specific imminent scandal, policy dispute, or congressional action identified (~-3%), and the White House publicly backed her (~-2%). The information gap about why Trump nearly fired her is concerning — if it's a personality clash, those tend to recur with Trump. Final: ~20%.
Show full reasoning trace
base rate: Cabinet-level departures in any 18-day window: ~1-3% base rate. Trump admin first-term had higher turnover (~40%/year across all cabinet positions), suggesting maybe 2-4% for any specific 18-day window for a given official.
evidence updates: The Axios report of Trump nearly firing Gabbard is the single most important piece of evidence, pushing probability UP significantly from the 2-3% base rate to ~10-12%. The White House confidence statement and lack of imminent triggers partially offset this. The unknown underlying cause of the near-firing creates meaningful uncertainty.
combination method: Conditional: small probability she already left (3%) plus probability she leaves in next 18 days given she's still serving (~12%). Total ~14%.
final: Gabbard is almost certainly still serving, but the near-firing report from Axios represents a genuine elevated risk above the base rate. Trump's pattern of eventually acting on firing impulses, combined with the short but non-trivial 18-day window and unknown underlying friction, justifies a probability of ~14%. This is well above the base rate but still reflects that most cabinet members who survive a near-firing episode don't depart within 18 days.
ensemble: {'ensemble_count': 3, 'perspectives': {'base_rate': {'p_yes': 0.14, 'confidence': 0.45}, 'evidence_driven': {'p_yes': 0.14, 'confidence': 0.45}, 'contrarian': {'p_yes': 0.14, 'confidence': 0.45}}, 'spread': 0.0, 'individual_p_yes': {'base_rate': 0.14, 'evidence_driven': 0.14, 'contrarian': 0.14}}
5. Devil's Advocate Sonnet · legacy v2 Market price revealed
Reasoning Flaw Overconfidence Math Error
Challenges
  1. The base rate calculation appears inflated. The forecaster estimates 2-3% base rate for an 18-day window, then adds ~8% from the Axios near-firing report and subtracts ~3% for offsetting factors, arriving at ~12%. But the +8% uplift from a single near-firing episode seems disproportionately large. Historical evidence suggests that when presidents are talked out of firing someone, the median time to eventual departure is measured in months, not weeks. The 8% uplift for an 18-day window specifically seems too high.
  2. The ensemble provides zero diversity — all three perspectives (base_rate, evidence_driven, contrarian) produce identical 14% estimates with identical confidence of 0.45. A genuine contrarian perspective should have produced a meaningfully different estimate, suggesting the ensemble was not actually used to stress-test the forecast.
  3. The forecaster correctly notes that the 30-day market decline from ~32% to 9% suggests the threat has diminished over time, but then doesn't adequately incorporate this temporal signal into their own estimate. If the near-firing incident occurred around early April and the market has been steadily declining since, this suggests the information is being priced as increasingly stale — the crisis passed, and each passing day without action reduces the probability further.
  4. The combination method has a subtle issue: P(leaves) = P(already left) + P(still serving) × P(leaves given still serving) = 0.03 + 0.97 × 0.12 = 0.1464. But the 3% probability of already having left seems too high given the strong evidence she's still serving (spokesperson confirmation as of April 12-13). This should be closer to 1%, which would bring the total to ~0.01 + 0.99 × 0.12 = ~0.129.
  5. The Roger Stone intervention is treated as both evidence of instability AND as a stabilizing factor (Stone talked Trump out of it), but the forecaster weights the instability aspect much more heavily. If Stone successfully intervened, this also means there are influential people actively working to keep Gabbard in place, which is a protective factor that deserves more weight.
  6. The forecaster lists 'Trump's pattern of eventually firing people he's considered firing' as pushing up by 2-3%, but this pattern typically plays out over months to years (e.g., Tillerson, Sessions, Mattis all lasted 1-2 years after first friction). Applying a meaningful uplift for an 18-day window based on a pattern that operates on much longer timescales is an error in temporal calibration.
Suggested adjustment: -3pp
The base rate uplift from the near-firing report is too large for an 18-day window — historical patterns of presidential firing impulses typically play out over months. The ensemble provides no genuine diversity. The temporal signal from the steadily declining market (from 32% to 9% over 30 days) suggests the crisis has passed and each day without action reduces probability. The Roger Stone stabilizing effect is underweighted. Adjusting down from 0.14 to ~0.11 based on these reasoning flaws, particularly the temporal calibration issue.
Market comparison: Forecaster: 14%, Market: 9%. The 5-point divergence is modest. The market is highly liquid with strong no-side depth and a clear declining trend, suggesting well-informed participants have been steadily reducing the probability as the near-firing crisis fades. The forecaster's reasoning flaws (overweighting the near-firing uplift for a short window, zero ensemble diversity, underweighting the stabilizing Stone intervention) partially explain the divergence. However, the forecaster does identify genuine uncertainty from the unknown underlying cause of friction, which justifies some premium above the market.
6. Aggregator Opus · final calibrated forecast
10% (62% confidence)
My independent estimate of 14% was built on the Axios near-firing report as the primary evidence driver, but the Devil's Advocate correctly identified several reasoning flaws that I accept. ACCEPT Challenge 1 & 6: The temporal calibration issue is valid — presidential firing impulses typically play out over months (Tillerson, Sessions, Mattis all lasted 1-2+ years after first friction), so the 8% uplift for an 18-day window was too large; adjusting down ~3-4%. ACCEPT Challenge 3: The market's steady decline from ~32% to 9% over 30 days is a strong temporal signal that the crisis has passed with each day of inaction. PARTIALLY ACCEPT Challenge 5: Roger Stone's successful intervention does represent a protective factor, though such protection can be temporary. ACCEPT Challenge 4: The 3% 'already left' component was too high given strong spokesperson confirmation; reducing to ~1%. After these adjustments, my estimate drops to ~10-11%. The highly liquid market at 9% with deep orderbook and sustained declining trend deserves significant deference, and my remaining 1% premium over the market reflects the genuine but diminishing uncertainty from the unknown underlying cause of Trump-Gabbard friction and Trump's unpredictability.
7. Entry Decision Opus Trader
Side
YES
Position Size
$500
Contracts
15152
Trader Confidence
62%
Trade Rationale
The forecast estimates 10% probability versus a market price of 3.3%, giving a ~6.7% edge on YES. However, this is a low-probability event where the edge is modest in absolute terms, and the Devil's Advocate flagged reasoning flaws including overconfidence and math errors that led to a recommended downward adjustment. The forecaster confidence is moderate at 0.62. The market has been steadily declining from ~32% to 3.3%, suggesting the crisis has passed and the market is pricing in very low departure probability. While there's a genuine edge based on Trump's unpredictability and the Axios near-firing report, buying YES at 3.3% means we need the event to actually happen to profit — and at 10% estimated probability, we lose 90% of the time.
Allocation Logic
Minimum position size of $500 given the modest 6.7% edge on a low-probability event with moderate forecaster confidence. The asymmetric payoff (buying at $0.033 for potential $1.00) is attractive but the high loss rate tempers sizing.
Entry price: $0.03
Current: $0.04
Status: WON
P&L: $106.06