Disclaimer: this is a new market, and I plan to evolve the description to better reflect the concept I’m trying to capture and reduce potential ambiguity in the resolution criteria, at least for the first few months.

The end of this market is January 20, 2029 regardless of when Trump actually leaves office.

This market resolves YES if the Federal Reserve formally changes its 2% inflation target before January 20, 2029. It would resolve immediately; the question is “will it change” not what it will be at the end.

Resolution will be determined by official statements from the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) or the Federal Reserve's Statement on Longer-Run Goals and Monetary Policy Strategy, available at https://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/fomcstatement.htm.

Any material modification to the stated inflation target—whether higher, lower, or to a range—constitutes a change.

The market resolves NO if the Fed maintains the 2% target through the end of Trump's term, even if the Fed adjusts its framework or approach to achieving that target.

FAQ.

1. What if they no longer formally mention a specific inflation target? Resolves YES

2. What constitutes “material” change? Let’s say 25bps, so any change where it is less than 2.25% or greater than 1.75% would be insufficient for YES. I am open to refining that if someone convinces me otherwise, though I think it’s an unlikely scenario.

3. What if they don’t change the stated strategy but are clearly operating inconsistently with it? Insufficient to resolve YES

4. What if the Fed has inconsistencies, eg some Fed officials make speeches saying the target has changed, but their published strategy remains unchanged? The change must be formal to resolve YES. If they continue to maintain the website in a way similar to today with a stated strategy, it’s likely that would need to change to count. If a governor makes controversial comments in a speech, that is not sufficient. If the Fed chair repeatedly references a new target but the written policy hasn’t changed that’s probably sufficient for YES. I’d love to add guidelines to make this less discretionary.

5. What if the PCE methodology changes or they select a different statistic that has the same essential effect? In concept, this resolves YES. In practice, I expect it will likely be controversial and will bias towards requiring strong evidence that the change was motivated by the spirit of this question.

I’ll add more clarifications as needed. Please ask questions or make suggestions to further reduce ambiguity.

I plan to bet in this market. I will defer to mods or some fair resolution mechanism if the resolution becomes controversial.

Further AI generated context…

Background

The Federal Reserve currently seeks to achieve inflation at the rate of 2 percent over the longer run. The 2025 review took as given the FOMC's previously articulated longer-run inflation goal of 2 percent. This target has been in place since 2012 and was reaffirmed in the Fed's most recent framework review in August 2025.

The committee continues to expect inflation to hold above its 2% target until 2028. Trump has signaled he will litmus test his choice for Fed chair, using a preference for lower rates as a barometer, rather than someone committed to the Fed's dual mandate of stable prices and full employment.

Considerations

The Fed's 2% target is a long-standing institutional commitment that has survived multiple economic crises and policy reviews. While Trump's incoming Fed chair may prioritize rate cuts, changing the inflation target itself would be a dramatic departure from decades of central banking practice and would require formal FOMC approval. The distinction between adjusting policy tools (interest rates, asset purchases) and changing the target itself is crucial—the former is routine, the latter would be extraordinary.