Who will be Trump's next Secretary of Defense?
Short Answer
The model sees potential mispricing for 'No other person' (28.6% model vs 52.0% market) as Trump's next Secretary of Defense, suggesting a different individual is more likely to be appointed.
1. Market Behavior & Drivers
This market's price action has been entirely static, exhibiting a completely sideways trend since its inception. The perceived probability for this outcome has remained unchanged at its initial offering price of 3.9% across all recorded data points. The chart shows no significant price movements, spikes, or drops, resulting in a flat line with a price range of zero.
The complete lack of price fluctuation is a direct result of zero trading activity. With a total volume of zero contracts traded, there has been no buying or selling pressure to influence the price in either direction. As there have been no price movements, there is no market activity to correlate with any external events or news. This absence of trading indicates an extremely illiquid market and a lack of trader engagement or conviction at the current price.
The chart suggests that the market is currently dormant. The 3.9% price merely represents an initial offering rather than a reflection of active, collective sentiment or speculation. Consequently, no meaningful support or resistance levels have been established. The primary takeaway from the chart is the complete lack of market participation.
- Christopher C. Miller is favored, a "loyalist reformer" and former Acting Secretary. Keith Kellogg is a trusted national security ally with continued Trump access. Trump's transition team prioritizes "loyalist reformers" over traditional defense hawks. Tom Cotton is explicitly disfavored by the transition team's ideological preference. * Other candidates show policy alignment but lack current direct engagement with Trump.
Who Wins and Why
| Outcome | Market | Model | Why |
|---|---|---|---|
| No other person | 52.0% | 28.6% | No single alternative candidate has emerged as a strong, widely favored contender at this time. |
| Ron DeSantis | 16.0% | 11.1% | Ron DeSantis is a prominent Republican, but has not been strongly linked to the SecDef role. |
| Dan Driscoll | 47.0% | 27.8% | Dan Driscoll's specific qualifications or links to the role are not widely reported. |
| Tom Cotton | 2.9% | 1.2% | Tom Cotton is a hawkish Senator with military background, often mentioned for national security roles. |
| Elbridge Colby | 0.1% | 0.1% | Elbridge Colby is a defense policy expert, but lacks strong direct links to Trump for the role. |
2. Price Chart
Historical Price (Probability)
Outcome probability
Date
3. Market Data
Contract Snapshot
The Kalshi market "No other person" resolves to "Yes" if Donald Trump appoints a new Secretary of Defense before January 20, 2029, and that individual is neither Dan Driscoll nor Ron DeSantis. Conversely, it resolves to "No" if either Dan Driscoll or Ron DeSantis is appointed, or if no new Secretary of Defense is appointed by the deadline. Acting and interim positions do not count, and the market closes early upon the event's occurrence, or by January 20, 2029, at 10:00 am EST.
Available Contracts
Market options and current pricing
| Outcome bucket | Yes (price) | No (price) | Last trade probability |
|---|---|---|---|
| No other person | $0.49 | $0.53 | 52% |
| Dan Driscoll | $0.09 | $0.94 | 47% |
| Ron DeSantis | $0.15 | $0.89 | 16% |
| Steve Feinberg | $0.04 | $0.98 | 9% |
| Joni Ernst | $0.10 | $0.95 | 6% |
| Wesley Hunt | $0.04 | $0.99 | 5% |
| Mike Pompeo | $0.04 | $1.00 | 5% |
| Keith Kellogg | $0.04 | $1.00 | 4% |
| Mike Rogers | $0.03 | $1.00 | 3% |
| Tom Cotton | $0.03 | $0.99 | 3% |
| Bill Hagerty | $0.02 | $1.00 | 2% |
| Christopher Miller | $0.02 | $1.00 | 2% |
| Mike Gallagher | $0.02 | $1.00 | 2% |
| Trae Stephens | $0.02 | $1.00 | 2% |
| Mike Waltz | $0.01 | $1.00 | 1% |
| Tulsi Gabbard | $0.01 | $1.00 | 1% |
| Elbridge Colby | $0.00 | $1.00 | 0% |
Market Discussion
The main viewpoint among traders revolves around the market's premise, with participants arguing that the position of "Secretary of Defense" no longer exists and has been replaced by "Secretary of War." There are no specific arguments presented for or against any candidate's appointment, or for the "No other person" outcome. The notable insight is this apparent confusion among some participants regarding the official title of the cabinet position, leading them to suggest the market should be void.
4. Trust Index
Official decision: one office decides and holds the answer before the public
Integrity risk· Information exposure
How it adds up
Integrity80% of score67Caution
Trade quality20% of score61Caution
Includes the cost to trade: a $10,000 order loses about 13760% of the price to slippage.
Trust score66Caution
Weighted blend with hard caps — a critically weak safety pillar, or a severe trading anomaly, caps the total regardless of the rest. Full methodology · About the Trust Index
Trust profile
Integrity4 screens run · 3 don't apply · 3 awaiting data
5. Who Gains Most Face-Time in Trump National Security Briefings?
| Key Ally Engagement | Lt. Gen. Keith Kellogg remains an active ally in Trump's national security discussions [1]. |
|---|---|
| Approved Foreign Trip | Kellogg's March 2024 Israel visit with Trump allies was explicitly approved by Donald Trump [2]. |
| Other Candidate Details | Insider reporting on private face-time for Mike Waltz and others is not extensively detailed [3]. |
Retired Lt. Gen. Keith Kellogg continues to be a prominent figure in Donald Trump's national security discussions. Kellogg, who previously served as Acting National Security Advisor, remains a key ally and actively participates in foreign policy discussions approved by the former president [1]. His ongoing engagement was highlighted by a sanctioned March 2024 visit to Israel alongside other Trump allies, underscoring his sustained relevance within Trump's national security circle [2].
Specific details on private face-time for other candidates are scarce in available reporting. While Donald Trump has reportedly offered access to "national security briefings" to campaign donors, detailed insider campaign reporting on which potential Secretary of Defense candidates, such as Mike Waltz, are currently gaining the most private face-time or mentions in briefings at Mar-a-Lago or Bedminster is not extensively detailed [3]. The available information primarily emphasizes Kellogg's specific and approved interactions, contrasting with a general lack of similar explicit details for other candidates [2].
6. How Do Senators Ernst and Cotton Align With Project 2025 Defense Goals?
| Sen. Joni Ernst Alignment | Supports religious liberty protections and halting military vaccine requirement; notes Army 20,000 short on recruiting goals [1] |
|---|---|
| Sen. Tom Cotton Alignment | Advocates strong military, criticizes "wokeness," supports readiness policies [2] |
| Project 2025 Defense Focus | Reasserts presidential control over DoD, reforms military culture, prioritizes combat readiness and recruitment [2] |
Senators Joni Ernst and Tom Cotton demonstrate strong alignment with Project 2025 defense recommendations. The Heritage Foundation's Project 2025 "Mandate for Leadership" defense chapter emphasizes reasserting presidential control over the Department of Defense and reforming military culture by removing "woke" policies like Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion initiatives [2]. It also calls for prioritizing combat readiness and recruitment, a return to a "warfighting culture," addressing declining recruitment, and ensuring religious freedom for service members [2].
Senator Ernst's public statements reflect key Project 2025 concerns. Her positions include supporting "religious liberty protections" and "halting military vaccine requirement," while also noting the Army's significant recruitment shortfall [1]. These stances directly mirror the "Mandate for Leadership's" focus on recruitment challenges and religious freedom within the armed forces [2].
Senator Cotton also consistently advocates for Project 2025's central themes. He advocates for a strong military focused on warfighting, criticizes perceived "wokeness" in the armed forces, and supports policies to enhance readiness [2]. Former Acting Secretary of Defense Chris Miller is broadly expected to align with these goals given his past role in the Trump administration.
7. Did Stephen Feinberg Back Pete Hegseth's Secretary of Defense Appointment?
| Hegseth's Cabinet Role | Confirmed as Secretary of Defense [1] |
|---|---|
| Stephen A. Feinberg's Donor Role | Significant donor to "Rebuilding America Now PAC" [2] |
| Direct Backing for Hegseth's Appointment | No specific financial or public endorsement found from Feinberg, Mercer, or "Rebuilding America Now PAC" [1] |
Pete Hegseth secured confirmation as Secretary of Defense. He was successfully confirmed to the position in the Donald Trump administration after navigating a narrow Senate vote, which ultimately required a tie-breaking decision by the Vice President [1]. His journey from a potential nominee to a confirmed cabinet member was closely observed by prediction markets, which provided real-time odds for various cabinet roles, including the Secretary of Defense [3].
Key conservative donors' direct support for Hegseth remains unclear. Stephen A. Feinberg is identified as a significant figure among major conservative donors, having contributed to the "Rebuilding America Now PAC" [2]. This political action committee is known to have received donations from a variety of sources [4]. However, the available research does not provide specific information detailing significant financial or public endorsement backing for Pete Hegseth directly from Stephen A. Feinberg, Rebekah Mercer, or the "Rebuilding America Now PAC" in connection with his appointment [1].
Sources (4)
- 1Hegseth confirmed as next defense secretary by narrow Senate votenavytimes.com
- 2Donation: Stephen Feinberg, Rebuilding America Now - LittleSislittlesis.org
- 3Who will be Trump's Defense Secretary? Predictions & Od... | Polymarketpolymarket.com
- 4Rebuilding America Now PAC Donors • OpenSecretsopensecrets.org
8. How Do Trump's Loyalty Tests Influence Pentagon Appointments?
| Trump's Priority | Loyalty in next Pentagon chief appointment [1] |
|---|---|
| Syria Withdrawal Criticism | Faced strong criticism from Key Republicans and lawmakers [2] |
| Pompeo on Generals | Generals were "acting in ways that were political" under Trump [3] |
Trump's first-term decisions established significant "loyalty tests" for future appointees. His unexpected withdrawal of U.S. troops from Syria drew sharp criticism from "Key Republicans" and lawmakers, creating a potential liability for any candidate who opposed the decision [2]. This aligns with Trump's stated emphasis on appointing a "loyalist" as Pentagon chief [1]. Furthermore, his strained relationships with prominent figures such as former Defense Secretary Jim Mattis and Gen. Mark Milley established a precedent where perceived disloyalty could disqualify military leadership [1].
Candidates navigate loyalty tests with varying strategies and past statements. Mike Pompeo, who served as Trump's Secretary of State, aligns with the "Trump World" framework of loyalty by stating that generals under Trump were "acting in ways that were political" [3]. This stance potentially positions Pompeo favorably by echoing Trump's skepticism of the military establishment. Conversely, Tom Cotton has publicly refuted "right-wing pundits," demonstrating his awareness and defense against loyalty tests emanating from within his conservative base [4].
MAGA factions actively highlight loyalty issues to vet candidates. "MAGA loyalists" are specifically "take[n] aim at GOP senator[s]" regarding key defense appointments, indicating a deliberate effort to ensure candidates align with Trump's policy preferences [5]. This dynamic is part of what has been called "Trump World's Confirmation Playbook," which leverages "MAGA Dogs" to enforce loyalty during the appointment process [6]. Any candidate for a top defense post will therefore likely face intense scrutiny from these factions concerning their past positions on issues such as Syria, NATO, and their relationships with military leadership [5].
Sources (6)
- 1Trump is likely to name a loyalist as Pentagon chief after tumultuous first termksat.com
- 2Key Republicans, Dems blast Trump’s surprise withdrawal from Syriadefensenews.com
- 3Pompeo Says Generals Were ‘Acting in Ways That Were Political’ Under Trump – IJRijr.com
- 4Tom Cotton Rips Right-Wing Pundits Who Sound Like Liz Warrenmediaite.com
- 5MAGA loyalists take aim at GOP senator as key Trump defense post sparks controversy: 'Why the opposition?'foxnews.com
- 6Trump World’s Confirmation Playbook: Speak Loudly and Unleash the MAGA Dogsthebulwark.com
9. Who Vets Defense Nominees for Trump's Transition Team?
| Pentagon Transition Lead | Robert Wilkie [1] |
|---|---|
| Key Defense Player | Kash Patel [1] |
| National Security Leads | Robert C. O'Brien and John Ratcliffe [2] |
Several key figures are tasked with vetting potential defense nominees for Donald Trump's nascent transition team. Robert Wilkie, who previously served as Secretary of Veterans Affairs, is leading the specific Pentagon transition efforts [1]. Kash Patel, identified as a significant player in a potential second Trump administration, previously headed the Pentagon transition in 2020 [1]. Beyond these defense-focused leads, Robert C. O'Brien, Trump's former National Security Advisor, and John Ratcliffe, Trump's former Director of National Intelligence, are overseeing the broader National Security policy area for the transition, making them highly influential in vetting high-level defense appointments [2].
Loyalty and alignment with the "MAGA agenda" guide nominee selection. The collective ideology of these gatekeepers and the broader transition structure places a strong emphasis on personal loyalty to Donald Trump and commitment to advancing his "MAGA agenda" [2]. Given this primary focus on personal allegiance and alignment with Trump's specific policy vision, their preferences are likely to favor perceived loyalist reformers over traditional defense hawks. Figures such as Christopher C. Miller or Keith Kellogg align more closely with the profile of individuals who have demonstrated unwavering dedication to Trump's leadership and policy direction, suggesting a preference for those viewed as direct extensions of Trump's will [2].
