Who will Trump speak to in July?

What is happening now

Polymarket is currently hosting a high-volume prediction event titled “Who will Trump speak to in July?”. This is a multi-market event where traders bet on whether Donald Trump will have a verbal interaction—defined as in-person, phone, or video calls—with various global political figures during the month of July 2026. While the event has entered its “expired pending resolution” phase, the massive trading volume indicates significant market interest in the diplomatic and political signaling associated with Trump’s potential communications.

The market is currently processing several distinct sub-markets, ranging from high-probability “Yes” outcomes for certain figures to near-certain “No” outcomes for others. The sheer scale of the volume—exceeding $700,000 across the event—highlights how prediction markets are being used to gauge the likelihood of unconventional diplomatic channels or high-profile political meetings.

How the market is structured

This is a multi-outcome event composed of several individual binary markets. Each sub-market focuses on a specific individual and asks a “Yes/No” question regarding a verbal interaction with Trump within the July 2026 timeframe. The market structure is highly fragmented, with different figures carrying vastly different probabilities:

• Confirmed/Resolved Outcomes: Certain markets, such as those involving Volodymyr Zelenskyy, Mohammed bin Salman, Vladimir Putin, Ahmed al-Sharaa, Mark Rutte, and Friedrich Merz, have already resolved to “Yes” (trading at 1.00), indicating that these interactions were confirmed by credible media or official statements.
• High-Probability “No” Outcomes: For most other figures, the market is heavily skewed toward “No.” For example, the market for Nicolás Maduro shows a “No” price of 0.9935, implying a 99.35% market consensus that no such interaction occurred. Similar extreme “No” pricing is seen for Kim Jong Un (99.7% No) and Xi Jinping (99.8% No).
• Low-Probability “Yes” Outcomes: A few markets maintain a non-zero, albeit negligible, “Yes” price, such as Ursula von der Leyen (25.6% Yes) and Elon Musk (5.4% Yes), representing the remaining speculative tail for potential interactions.

Path to the leading outcome

Because the event is in the resolution phase, the “path” to the leading outcome has effectively closed. However, the mechanics for how these markets reached their current state were driven by two primary triggers:

• Credible Media Reporting: The primary driver for a “Yes” resolution was the emergence of reports from reputable news wires confirming verbal or in-person contact.
• Official Statements: In cases where media reporting was ambiguous, the market relied on explicit claims from the individuals themselves or their official representatives. For a “Yes” to hold, the claim had to be unambiguous and not contradicted by the other party within a three-day window.

What could change the pricing

As the market is currently in the “expired pending resolution” phase, the pricing is no longer subject to standard market fluctuations. The final settlement depends entirely on the verification of events that occurred before the July 31, 2026, deadline. The only factor that could change the current “No” or “Yes” status is a resolution dispute regarding the definition of “verbal interaction.”

If a reported interaction (such as a phone call) is contested by one of the parties or if the media consensus remains divided, the market’s strict resolution criteria—which requires an unambiguous confirmation—could lead to a “No” resolution even if an interaction was rumored to have taken place. This “high bar” for verification is a critical component of the market’s risk profile.

Editorial read

This Polymarket event serves as a masterclass in how prediction markets quantify diplomatic uncertainty. Unlike standard political betting, this event focuses on the *mechanics* of communication rather than just the *intent* of the communication. The massive volume in the Zelenskyy and Bin Salman markets suggests that traders were heavily positioned on the inevitability of these interactions, whereas the near-zero prices for Maduro and Kim Jong Un reflect a market that views such interactions as politically impossible or highly unlikely within the specified window.

The high liquidity and volume across the event suggest that this was not merely a “toy” market for enthusiasts, but a significant venue for traders to hedge or speculate on the geopolitical landscape of 2026. The fact that several markets resolved to “Yes” underscores the market’s ability to act as a real-time verification tool for high-stakes international diplomacy.