Will FISA Section 702 be reauthorized with a warrant requirement before 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.
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 29% YES / 71% NO. Resolution is mechanical — it depends only on the criteria and sources below, not on opinions, headlines, or who "deserves" to win the argument.
- ▸ The warrant amendment failed on a tie vote last reauthorization — the closest margin ever.
- ▸ An unusual left-right coalition (privacy progressives + libertarian conservatives) is intact.
- ▸ Recent inspector-general findings on query abuses strengthened the amendment's case.
- ▸ Intelligence committee leadership in both parties opposes warrants as operationally unworkable.
- ▸ The administration has signaled a veto threat over warrant language.
- ▸ A short-term clean extension is the most likely outcome given the calendar.
Resolution criteria
Resolves YES if Section 702 reauthorization enacted before January 1, 2027 includes a probable-cause warrant requirement for U.S.-person queries (limited exceptions for exigency/consent permitted).
- 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 · 167 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.
Following this one closely. The resolution criteria are unusually clean, which is why participation is this high (5.3K forecasters).
Fading the crowd here. "Intelligence committee leadership in both parties opposes warrants as operationally unworkable." That blocker has killed similar outcomes repeatedly — I have fair value near 19%.
YES at 29% 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 37%. Holding YES at 24 entry.
This market pairs well with the related Pulse question — the gap between public sentiment and market probability is the interesting signal here.
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.
YES at 29% 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.
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.
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.
The market is underpricing this. Base rates on comparable outcomes put fair value closer to 37%. Holding YES at 24 entry.