What Prediction Markets Are Forecasting
Prediction markets currently give about a 65% probability that former President Donald Trump will take federal action to restrict mail-in voting or voting machines before June 30, 2026. In simpler terms, traders collectively see a roughly 2 in 3 chance that a ban or major restriction will be enacted. This shows the market views such a policy move as more likely than not, but far from certain.
Why the Market Sees It This Way
Two main factors are driving these odds. First, Trump has consistently and publicly criticized both mail-in voting and electronic voting machines since the 2020 election, framing them as sources of fraud. His August 2025 announcement specifically promised action on this issue, so traders are betting he will try to follow through.
Second, the feasibility of such a ban faces major hurdles. Election administration in the U.S. is largely controlled by states, not the federal government. A federal ban would likely require legislation from Congress, which could be difficult to pass even with a friendly majority, or an executive order that would face immediate legal challenges. The market’s 65% probability seems to balance Trump’s stated intent against these significant political and legal barriers.
Key Dates and Events to Watch
The deadline for this market is June 30, 2026. The most important events to watch will be any proposed legislation in Congress, especially in the early part of the 2026 session. A draft bill being introduced and gaining Republican support would increase the probability. Conversely, if mid-2026 approaches with no bill or executive order in the pipeline, the “No” probability will likely rise. Court rulings on any related state-level voting changes could also signal how the judiciary might view a federal action.
How Reliable Are These Predictions?
Prediction markets have a mixed record on complex political outcomes that hinge on procedure and legal battles. They are generally good at aggregating sentiment about a leader’s stated goals. However, they can sometimes overestimate the chance of dramatic policy changes, especially when those changes require navigating a complex system of checks and balances. In this case, the 65% probability reflects a real commitment from a key figure, but the actual outcome will depend on messy political and legal realities that are hard to price perfectly.
