← Back to scans

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

KXFEDEND-29-JAN20 · Politics · 2026-05-12
4%
Agent
10%
Market Price
-5.9%
Edge
75%
Confidence
Volume: 109,324
Spread: 0.3c
Days to resolution: 983
Markets in event: 1
Final Rationale
My independent estimate of 2% rests on solid structural reasoning: formal Fed abolition requires 60 Senate votes (Republicans have ~53, with Tillis-type defectors), there is no pending legislation, Bessent's stated goal is 'shake up' not abolition, and SCOTUS's October 2025 Cook intervention signals judicial protection. I PARTIALLY ACCEPT the Devil's Advocate critique on resolution ambiguity and long-horizon tail risk — sq2's 40% probability of compromised independence could plausibly bleed into a liberal resolution reading, and 983 days is enough time for unforeseen restructuring scenarios, so I adjust to 4%. I REJECT full convergence to the 10% market because the market is thin (287 contracts/day, anomalous $0.998 spread) and likely conflates Fed-independence conflict news with formal abolition; the +3.3% trend reflects Powell/Cook drama, not abolition progress. My 6-point deviation from the market is justified by the specific resolution language requiring the Fed to have 'ended' and by the absence of any concrete abolition pathway as of May 2026.
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 $t{=}0$.
$n = 58$ follow-ups
Re-scan Context
This market has been scanned before. Previous predictions:
DatePredictedMarket PriceConfidence
2026-04-11 3% 9% 85%
1. Planner Opus · Fermi decomposition + tool plan
Tools chosen: kalshi_data kalshi_orderbook article_search web_search congress_bills court_docket wikipedia_lookup code_execution
Sub-questions (Fermi decomposition)
  1. Will Congress pass legislation to abolish or fundamentally restructure the Federal Reserve System before January 20, 2029? (w=0.40)
  2. Will Trump successfully fire or force out the Federal Reserve Chair and install loyalists in a way that effectively ends the Fed's independence before January 20, 2029? (w=0.25)
  3. Has Trump made credible, specific legislative or executive actions toward abolishing the Federal Reserve (beyond rhetorical statements) as of May 2026? (w=0.20)
  4. Will there be a Supreme Court ruling or legal mechanism that enables the executive branch to effectively dissolve the Federal Reserve System before January 20, 2029? (w=0.15)
Planner reasoning
This question asks whether the entire Federal Reserve System will be ended (abolished) before January 20, 2029 — approximately 983 days away. This is a fundamentally different question from whether Trump will fire the Fed Chair or pressure monetary policy. 'Ending' the Federal Reserve would require an Act of Congress repealing the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, as the Fed is a congressionally-created institution. Key reference classes: (1) The US has abolished central banks twice before (1811, 1836) but both via Congressional inaction/veto of charter renewal, not during the Fed era; (2) The Fed has survived 113 years including major political opposition (e.g., Ron Paul's 'End the Fed' movement never gained legislative traction); (3) No serious congressional abolition bill has come close to passage in the modern era. Causal mechanisms that could lead to YES: Trump makes abolition a legislative priority, Republicans achieve filibuster-proof Senate majority (60+ seats, currently ~53 seats) or invoke nuclear option for legislation, markets/economy survive the disruption. What makes this different from 'Will Trump fire the Fed Chair': Firing the chair is legally contested but feasible; abolishing the Fed requires affirmative supermajority congressional action, full replacement financial infrastructure, and would trigger catastrophic market reactions that would create massive political resistance. Temporal analysis: For YES to occur by Jan 2029, Congress would need to introduce, debate, pass through committee, floor vote in both chambers, and sign legislation within ~983 days — while managing the financial system transition. Even the most aggressive timeline for such institutional dismantling would be 2-3 years minimum and would face intense opposition from financial industry, foreign central banks, and bond markets. The probability is extremely low, likely in the 1-3% range, driven almost entirely by tail-risk scenarios.
2. Research Parallel tool calls · legacy v2
ToolStatusTimeItemsSummary
kalshi_data OK 2.7s -
kalshi_orderbook OK 0.5s -
article_search OK 1.1s -
web_search OK 44.2s -
congress_bills OK 1.2s -
court_docket OK 2.2s -
wikipedia_lookup OK 2.3s -
code_execution OK 0.0s -
3. Evidence Synthesis Sonnet · 18 items · legacy v2
#StrengthCredibilityDirectionSourceClaimPriced In
1 STRONG 85 ↓ DOWN congress_bills No bills to abolish or fundamentally restructure the Federal Reserve were found among the 10 bills retrieved from Congress; legislative focus is entirely on unrelated matters. Yes
2 STRONG 80 ↓ DOWN wikipedia_lookup The Federal Reserve was created by the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 and has survived 113 years including major political opposition such as Ron Paul's 'End the Fed' movement, which never gained legislative traction. Yes
3 MODERATE 72 ↓ DOWN article_search A Stanford constitutional law professor writing in September 2025 discussed preserving Fed independence by splitting the agency, suggesting the congressional discussion is about reform or preservation — not abolition. Yes
4 MODERATE 65 ↓ DOWN code_execution Historical base rate of Federal Reserve abolition per year is 0.0; even at an assumed 1%/year rate, the probability of abolition within 2.69 years is only ~2.7%. Yes
5 MODERATE 60 ↑ UP kalshi_data The Kalshi market 'Will Trump end the Federal Reserve before Jan 20, 2029?' is currently priced at 10%, up 3.3% in the last 7 days and up 1% over 30 days, with average daily volume of 287 contracts. No
6 STRONG 88 NEUTRAL article_search Trump fired Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook in August 2025 — an unprecedented move — but Cook challenged it legally, and the Supreme Court intervened in October 2025, allowing her to remain at her post on an interim basis. Yes
7 STRONG 85 ↑ UP article_search Federal prosecutors opened a criminal investigation of Fed Chair Jerome Powell in January 2026 over his testimony about the Fed's $2.5 billion headquarters renovation; Powell stated this was due to ongoing pressure from the administration over interest rates. Yes
8 STRONG 82 ↑ UP web_search Powell's term as Fed chair ended in May 2026; Powell stated he plans to stay until a replacement is appointed, and Trump was pushing for his replacement — though the DOJ investigation may complicate the appointment of a new chair. Yes
9 MODERATE 75 ↑ UP web_search Stephen Miran was confirmed as a Fed governor and maintained ties to the Trump administration, and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent signaled the administration intends to 'shake up' the Federal Reserve after Powell steps aside. Yes
10 MODERATE 78 ↓ DOWN web_search Senator Thom Tillis (Republican, Banking Committee) expressed bipartisan alarm that the Trump administration was 'actively pushing to end the independence of the Federal Reserve,' indicating congressional concern but also resistance. Yes
11 STRONG 85 ↑ UP article_search Trump asked House Republicans in July 2025 whether he should fire Powell, and by August had already attempted to fire Lisa Cook — showing a pattern of escalating executive action against Fed independence, though not 'ending' the Fed itself. Yes
12 MODERATE 70 ↓ DOWN article_search A high-yield savings account article from May 2026 describes the Federal Reserve as having 'begun easing its benchmark rate,' indicating the Fed is still functioning as of May 2026. Yes
13 STRONG 82 ↓ DOWN article_search No specific legislation or executive orders directed at abolishing the Federal Reserve have been identified in the research; Trump's actions have targeted personnel (Cook firing, Powell pressure) rather than the institution's existence. Yes
14 STRONG 80 ↓ DOWN web_search The Trump administration's approach to the Fed as of May 2026 is focused on personnel replacement and reducing independence, not abolition — Treasury Secretary Bessent's stated goal is to 'shake up' the Fed, not end it. Yes
15 MODERATE 78 NEUTRAL article_search The DOJ criminal investigation of Powell and the attempted firing of Lisa Cook represent concrete executive actions against the Fed, but these are aimed at undermining independence/personnel — not legislative abolition. Yes
16 STRONG 85 ↓ DOWN web_search The Supreme Court intervened in October 2025 to allow Lisa Cook to remain at her post on an interim basis, suggesting the Court is checking — not enabling — executive action to dismantle Fed independence. Yes
17 MODERATE 72 ↓ DOWN article_search A constitutional law professor at Stanford wrote in September 2025 that the 'far more consequential' legal question is whether the president may fire all Fed board members at will — but framed this as a legal constraint to prevent, not a mechanism to enable dissolution. Yes
18 STRONG 90 ↓ DOWN wikipedia_lookup The Federal Reserve is a congressionally-created institution established by the Federal Reserve Act; its dissolution would require an affirmative Act of Congress, not an executive action or Supreme Court ruling alone. Yes
Information Gaps
  • No data on whether any 'End the Fed' or Federal Reserve abolition bills have been introduced in the 119th Congress (2025-2026)
  • No data on the current status of Lisa Cook's lawsuit against her firing — a Supreme Court ruling on executive removal power could be relevant to sq4
  • No data on who Trump has nominated or is considering to replace Powell as Fed Chair, and whether nominees have expressed views on abolition vs. reform
  • No data on whether the criminal investigation of Powell has proceeded to indictment or been dropped
  • No data on Senate vote counts or Republican caucus views on Fed abolition legislation — key for sq1's filibuster threshold
  • No data on financial market reactions to the escalating Fed conflicts, which would be a key political constraint
  • Unclear whether the resolution criteria for this question would be satisfied by 'effectively ending independence' (sq2) vs. formal legal abolition
Key Uncertainties
  • Whether Trump's escalating conflict with the Fed (criminal investigation of Powell, firing Cook) represents a stepping stone toward formal abolition or an endpoint of executive pressure tactics
  • How the Supreme Court will ultimately rule on presidential removal power over Fed governors — this could either constrain or enable executive takeover
  • Whether Powell's departure in May 2026 and replacement by a Trump loyalist constitutes 'ending Fed independence' under the resolution criteria
  • Whether Republicans could invoke the nuclear option to eliminate filibuster for legislation abolishing the Fed — currently no evidence this is being considered
  • The question resolution language — 'Federal Reserve System has ended' — likely requires formal abolition, not just compromised independence; this distinction is critical
  • Whether a severe economic shock or financial crisis could shift political calculus rapidly
Market Context
Price: 0.1 · 7d: +0.033 · 30d: +0.01
Volume: LOW-MODERATE · Depth: HIGH (depth=692,480 contracts noted, though bid/ask at $0.00 suggests thin active orders)
Reliability: LOW-MEDIUM — The 10% price seems significantly higher than base-rate analysis would suggest (historical base rate 0%, analytical estimates ~2-3%). Recent 7-day spike of +3.3% may reflect Trump/Fed conflict escalation news but the market may be overpriced relative to the specific question of formal abolition. Low average daily volume (287 contracts) limits reliability. The orderbook shows spread of $0.998, which is unusual and may indicate data anomalies.
4. Independent Forecaster Opus · No market price · legacy v2 Did NOT see market price
Independent estimate: 2% (88% confidence)
base rate
2%
88% conf
evidence driven
2%
88% conf
contrarian
2%
88% conf
Spread
0pp
Low disagreement
sq1: Will Congress pass legislation to abolish or fundamentally restructure the Federal Reserve System before January 20, 2029?
1%
Base rate: zero abolitions of the Fed in 113 years; no abolition bill has come close to passage. No bills currently pending. Senate filibuster (60 votes needed) is a hard structural barrier with only ~53 Republicans, and Tillis-type Republicans publicly opposing. 'Fundamentally restructure' is ambiguous but the question resolution requires the Fed to have 'ended.' Estimate: 1%.
sq2: Will Trump successfully fire/install loyalists effectively ending Fed independence before Jan 20, 2029?
40%
Strong evidence Trump is replacing Powell (term ended May 2026), Miran confirmed, Bessent signaling shake-up, DOJ pressure on Powell, Cook firing attempted. Plausible Trump installs loyalist chair and majority of governors by 2028. However, 'effectively ending independence' is not the same as 'ending the Fed' per resolution criteria. Even with loyalist board, Fed continues to exist as institution. Estimate 40% that independence is effectively ended, but this likely doesn't satisfy resolution.
sq3: Has Trump made credible specific legislative/executive actions toward abolishing the Fed (beyond rhetoric) as of May 2026?
3%
Evidence is clear: all Trump actions target personnel and independence, not institutional abolition. Bessent's stated goal is 'shake up,' not end. No EO or legislation proposed. Estimate: 3%.
sq4: Will SCOTUS ruling or legal mechanism enable executive branch to dissolve the Fed before Jan 20, 2029?
2%
SCOTUS already intervened to protect Cook in Oct 2025, signaling check on executive power over Fed. Fed is a congressional creation; no constitutional mechanism for executive dissolution. Even a maximalist removal-power ruling enables personnel control, not dissolution. Estimate: 2%.
Show full reasoning trace
base rate: Zero abolitions of the Federal Reserve in 113 years. Two prior US central banks ended via charter non-renewal, not active abolition. Modern era: no abolition bill has reached a floor vote. Base rate per year ~0%, yielding <3% over 2.7 years even with generous assumptions.
evidence updates: Trump's escalating conflict with Fed (Cook firing, Powell DOJ probe, pushing replacement) pushes UP sentiment about Fed independence loss but NOT about institutional abolition — all actions presuppose Fed's continued existence. SCOTUS intervention on Cook pushes DOWN. No legislative activity pushes DOWN strongly. Bessent's 'shake up' language explicitly contrasts with abolition.
combination method: Weighted average mechanically gives ~11%, but sq2 measures wrong concept (independence vs. existence). Resolution requires Fed to have 'ended' as an institution — formal dissolution. The relevant sub-questions are sq1, sq3, sq4, all of which are ~1-3%.
final: The Federal Reserve will almost certainly continue to exist as an institution through Jan 2029, even if its independence is compromised and leadership is replaced with Trump loyalists. Formal abolition requires 60 Senate votes plus House passage plus presidential signature plus replacement financial infrastructure — none of which has even begun. Final estimate: 2%.
ensemble: {'ensemble_count': 3, 'perspectives': {'base_rate': {'p_yes': 0.02, 'confidence': 0.88}, 'evidence_driven': {'p_yes': 0.02, 'confidence': 0.88}, 'contrarian': {'p_yes': 0.02, 'confidence': 0.88}}, 'spread': 0.0, 'individual_p_yes': {'base_rate': 0.02, 'evidence_driven': 0.02, 'contrarian': 0.02}}
5. Devil's Advocate Sonnet · legacy v2 Market price revealed
Overconfidence Missing Info Reasoning Flaw
Challenges
  1. Resolution criteria ambiguity is the biggest blind spot. The forecaster assumes 'end the Fed' requires formal legal abolition, but Kalshi/Polymarket resolution criteria for such questions sometimes include 'effectively ending' the institution or replacing it with something fundamentally different. If sq2 (40% chance of effectively ending independence) could plausibly satisfy resolution under a liberal reading, the 2% estimate is too low. The forecaster should explicitly check the resolution source rather than assume strict construction.
  2. Ensemble shows zero spread (0.02/0.02/0.02) across base_rate, evidence_driven, and contrarian perspectives. This is a red flag for groupthink in the ensemble — a genuine contrarian view should consider scenarios like (a) constitutional crisis enabling executive dissolution, (b) Fed renamed/restructured into Treasury, (c) liberal resolution interpretation. Identical outputs across perspectives suggests the ensemble isn't actually probing alternative framings.
  3. Confidence of 0.88 with 983 days to resolution is high. Many low-probability tail events can develop over 2.7 years (financial crisis triggering radical restructuring, SCOTUS removal-power ruling, GOP supermajority scenarios). Confidence should be lower given the long horizon.
  4. The market at 10% with a +3.3% 7-day trend may reflect informed traders pricing in (a) resolution ambiguity risk, (b) tail scenarios the forecaster has dismissed. While the market is low-volume, dismissing it entirely without considering whether traders are pricing resolution-criteria risk is a reasoning gap.
Suggested adjustment: +2pp
Adjust upward modestly (from 2% to ~4%) primarily because of resolution-criteria ambiguity risk (sq2 outcomes might satisfy a liberal interpretation) and the long 983-day horizon admitting tail scenarios. Not adjusting all the way to the market because the core analysis (formal abolition extremely unlikely) is sound, but the ensemble's zero spread and high confidence suggest the forecaster has underweighted resolution ambiguity and tail risk.
Market comparison: Forecaster: 2%, Market: 10%. The 8-point divergence is partially justified by sound base-rate reasoning, but the market may be pricing resolution-criteria ambiguity and tail scenarios that the forecaster's ensemble (zero spread) has not seriously considered. A small upward adjustment is warranted on reasoning grounds, not market-conformity grounds.
6. Aggregator Opus · final calibrated forecast
4% (75% confidence)
My independent estimate of 2% rests on solid structural reasoning: formal Fed abolition requires 60 Senate votes (Republicans have ~53, with Tillis-type defectors), there is no pending legislation, Bessent's stated goal is 'shake up' not abolition, and SCOTUS's October 2025 Cook intervention signals judicial protection. I PARTIALLY ACCEPT the Devil's Advocate critique on resolution ambiguity and long-horizon tail risk — sq2's 40% probability of compromised independence could plausibly bleed into a liberal resolution reading, and 983 days is enough time for unforeseen restructuring scenarios, so I adjust to 4%. I REJECT full convergence to the 10% market because the market is thin (287 contracts/day, anomalous $0.998 spread) and likely conflates Fed-independence conflict news with formal abolition; the +3.3% trend reflects Powell/Cook drama, not abolition progress. My 6-point deviation from the market is justified by the specific resolution language requiring the Fed to have 'ended' and by the absence of any concrete abolition pathway as of May 2026.