See this article for context:

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2025/03/trump-administration-accidentally-texted-me-its-war-plans/682151/

Resolves YES if Michael Waltz, one of his staff members, or anyone else implicated in the war plans breach described by Jeffrey Goldberg in the Atlantic, is fired or resigns by the end of June for this reason.

Resolves YES if someone is fired and it's not explicitly stated why, or an excuse is given that is different than this one, but the consensus of trustworthy/media sources are at least fairly confident that it is because of this breach.

Must happen by the end of June.

Update 2025-03-27 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): Important Update on Resolution Criteria:

Resignations linked to perjury: A resignation that occurs because an individual perjures themselves in relation to the breach described in the article will count.

Connection to the breach is required: The resignation must clearly be tied to the war plans breach as discussed, even if the stated reason (perjury) is not the exact wording used in the market description.

Update 2025-05-01 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): * The creator will resolve YES if there is reporting indicating even a loose consensus among trustworthy/media sources that the Signal group chat was one of the reasons for a relevant firing or resignation.

This applies even if there are no explicit leaks or interviews confirming the reason, provided the media consensus suggests the Signal group chat was a likely factor.

The market may still resolve NO if reporting strongly indicates the firing/resignation was for entirely unrelated reasons.

Update 2025-05-01 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): * A staff member (such as Alex Wong) leaving their current position specifically to take up a new role accompanying a promoted superior (like Michael Waltz moving to the UN) will not be considered a firing or resignation "for this reason" (the Signal group chat breach), even if that staff member was implicated in the breach.

Update 2025-05-01 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): * The outcome of any Senate confirmation process for Michael Waltz is not directly relevant to the market's resolution.

The market will resolve YES if there is reporting from multiple credible news sources indicating that a nomination (e.g., for a UN position) was made with the intention of removing Waltz from his current role due to the Signal group chat scandal (and potentially other scandals), even if the nomination was expected or intended to fail.

Resolution depends on reporting about the reasons for Waltz potentially stepping down, focusing on whether the Signal group chat scandal was a motivating factor for the removal, rather than assumptions about political strategy.

The creator notes this situation involves genuine uncertainty.

Update 2025-05-01 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): * Regarding Alex Wong: If he is not offered another position (e.g., following Waltz to a potential new role) and reporting indicates he was let go specifically because of the Signal leaks, this would likely resolve YES.

Crucially, reporting must distinguish this reason from him being let go merely due to his closeness to Waltz or other reasons unrelated to the leaks.

Update 2025-05-06 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): The creator has outlined the resolution process if the situation remains ambiguous at market close at the end of June:

Consultation with trusted users: The creator will consult with other trusted Manifold users (who are not shareholders in this market).

Resolution outcomes based on this consultation:

If a consensus (YES/NO) is reached between the creator and these users, the market will resolve accordingly.

If sentiments are mixed, the market may resolve to PROB. This will be based on an average percentage assessment from the consulted users.

Assessment criteria for consultation: Consulted users will be asked to provide a percentage (0-100%) reflecting their assessment of whether the Signal group chat played a first-order and significant role in any relevant individual losing their position. (0% = no such role; 100% = indisputably played such a role).

Exclusion of indirect causes: The evaluation will focus on first-order effects of the Signal group chat scandal. The creator is not inclined to consider second-order causes (e.g., the scandal leading to other conflicts which then caused a departure) as a primary basis for a YES resolution.

Update 2025-05-06 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): * The creator has confirmed that the market will not resolve N/A.

If, after the consultation process detailed in the May 6th, 2025 update, sentiments remain mixed and a YES/NO consensus is not reached, a PROB resolution will be utilized. This approach is intended to capture the market's uncertainty.