Who or what will President Trump go after before the end of 2025?
➕
Plus
171
Ṁ72k
2026
95%
Jack Smith
93%
Zohran Mamdani
85%
Leakers
83%
National Institutes of Health
83%
Bruce Springsteen
82%
The New York Times (NYT)
81%
Panama
80%
Alexander Vindman
78%
Solar Energy
76%
Stephen Colbert
74%
Joe Biden
73%
The Atlantic
70%
Greenland
68%
Barack Obama
65%
Beyoncé
63%
Ann Selzer
62%
the National Archives
60%
Michael Cohen
60%
Rosie O'Donnell
58%
Fluoride

Between inauguration day and the end of the year.

‘Go after’ in the sense of making their lives difficult in some public way, causing them financial hardship, etc.. In most cases, a post or something spoken during an interview only will not count, will have to be accompanied by some specific action. I will be the final judge of any edge-cases but will read any sources or arguments made in the comments.

Let’s see where this goes. N/As on added items that are ridiculously broad or way too difficult to prove.

If not elected, not elected resolves yes, everything else no immediately after election results.

  • Update 2025-02-01 (PST): 'Going after someone' includes actions taken against loyalists, such as Liz Cheney & Jan 6 Committee. (AI summary of creator comment)

  • Update 2025-07-02 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): In response to a question about what action would qualify for the 'Biden's family' option, the creator gave an example: removing Secret Service protection.

Get Ṁ1,000 play money
Sort by:
Rosie O'Donnell

@CryptoNeoLiberalist You’ve got to be fucking kidding me.

reposted

@CryptoNeoLiberalist You’ve got to be fucking kidding me.

Rosie O'Donnell
bought Ṁ50 Rosie O'Donnell YES

Seems likely to me

I haven't verified these myself, but perhaps they should all resolve YES:

Zohran Mamdani

I'm confused by some of these. for example, how did he go after Biden's family, and why does it seem so likely that he'll go after Beyonce?

bought Ṁ165 Answer #tAn6L5uULA YES

@ZaneMiller Removed secret service protection or something like that.

@Predictor this should resolve yes already.

Trump even doubled down today https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/114776149269773065

@dgga Why, what’s up with it?

Solar Energy

About 43% of all solar energy is on farmland, according to the USDA. A targeted disincentive for renewables on farmland is a major blow to solar and wind. https://heatmap.news/plus/the-fight/spotlight/trump-targets-solar-on-farmland

@Marnix From that article it only looks like federal money going towards solar energy will be disincentivized if it conflicts in some way with agricultural interests. I'm uncertain whether that counts as causing financial hardship or merely no longer contributing financial support.

Another way of looking at this is whether we frame in terms of Trump the person (who is also US president) or the President of the United States officially acting as the embodiment of Federal Government (who is also Trump the individual).

since the criteria includes financial hardship: these birds are singled out for tariffs as the only residents of their island! https://www.wired.com/story/trump-tariffs-antarctic-islands-heard-mcdonald/

bought Ṁ2 Answer #9d03b1c07eff NO

why was 'Universities' resolved?

bought Ṁ170 Answer #77d24754cfb8 YES

Joe Biden, Alexander Vindman, Liz Cheney all had their security clearances revoked. Doesn't necessarily count as something that "makes their life harder," for Vindman, as he hasn't had active clearance for years but I would argue this should be a YES for Cheney (attorney) and probably Biden, too as the point of revoking his clearance is specifically revenge.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c74kg3e2m08o.amp

bought Ṁ180 Answer #gnItOZlsLL YES
bought Ṁ50 Answer #OszyIcz8Lh YES
Comment hidden