Will a comprehensive border security bill become law before January 2027?
Peer-to-Peer Order Book
Live- A participant offers to buy or sell a contract at a price they choose.
- Another participant takes the opposite side.
- The exchange matches the orders and holds the collateral.
- Correct contracts settle at $1.00 · incorrect at $0.00.
- Fees are shown before any order is submitted.
Video Briefing
What this market asks
In plain language: forecasters are estimating the probability that the outcome in the question actually happens by the deadline. The market currently prices 62% YES / 38% NO. Resolution is mechanical — it depends only on the criteria and sources below, not on opinions, headlines, or who "deserves" to win the argument.
- ▸ H.R. 410 (Border Security Modernization Act) passed the House with 34 crossover votes.
- ▸ Border funding is attached to a must-pass appropriations vehicle in current Senate drafts.
- ▸ Members from both parties in competitive districts want an enforcement vote before November.
- ▸ Asylum-standard language has collapsed three prior negotiated packages at the last stage.
- ▸ Some members prefer keeping the issue unresolved as a midterm campaign contrast.
- ▸ A standalone funding bill without policy changes would resolve this market NO.
Resolution criteria
Resolves YES if a bill appropriating new border security funding AND changing at least one statutory enforcement authority (asylum processing, detention capacity, or entry standards) is signed into law before January 1, 2027.
- Any participant may flag a resolution within 72 hours with cited evidence.
- Trading pauses; positions freeze at last price while flags are reviewed.
- An independent resolution council (rotating, disclosed members) rules within 14 days using only the stated sources.
- Rulings are published with full written reasoning; credits settle after publication.
Related on Quorly
Discussion · 892 comments
LiveCommittee calendar update: relevant action is now scheduled. In backtests of this market class, a scheduled action adds ~6 points to YES within a week.
Committee calendar update: relevant action is now scheduled. In backtests of this market class, a scheduled action adds ~6 points to YES within a week.
Following this one closely. The resolution criteria are unusually clean, which is why participation is this high (16.8K forecasters).
The NO side is about timelines, not merits. Even if the outcome eventually happens, the deadline in the criteria is doing a lot of work.
Committee calendar update: relevant action is now scheduled. In backtests of this market class, a scheduled action adds ~6 points to YES within a week.
This market pairs well with the related Pulse question — the gap between public sentiment and market probability is the interesting signal here.
YES at 62% is the value side. When the resolution source is this mechanical, momentum in the underlying process matters more than commentary.
The NO side is about timelines, not merits. Even if the outcome eventually happens, the deadline in the criteria is doing a lot of work.
The market is underpricing this. Base rates on comparable outcomes put fair value closer to 70%. Holding YES at 57 entry.
YES at 62% is the value side. When the resolution source is this mechanical, momentum in the underlying process matters more than commentary.
The market is underpricing this. Base rates on comparable outcomes put fair value closer to 70%. Holding YES at 57 entry.
Fading the crowd here. "Asylum-standard language has collapsed three prior negotiated packages at the last stage." That blocker has killed similar outcomes repeatedly — I have fair value near 52%.