Bitcoin Magazine

Oklahoma Introduces Bill Allowing State Employees and Vendors to Be Paid in Bitcoin

Oklahoma lawmakers introduced legislation this week that would allow state employees, vendors, private businesses, and residents to negotiate and receive payments in bitcoin.

Senate Bill 2064, introduced by Senator Dusty Deevers during the 2026 legislative session, establishes a legal framework for the use of bitcoin as a medium of exchange and compensation without designating it as legal tender.

The bill explicitly states that it does not conflict with the U.S. Constitution’s prohibition on states coining money or declaring legal tender other than gold and silver, instead recognizing bitcoin as a financial instrument operating within existing legal frameworks.

If enacted, the bill would permit Oklahoma state employees to elect to receive salaries or wages in bitcoin, either based on the asset’s market value at the start of a pay period or at the time of payment. 

Employees would be allowed to revise their payment preference at the beginning of each pay period and could choose to receive compensation in bitcoin, U.S. dollars, or a combination of both. 

Payments would be deposited either into a self-hosted wallet controlled by the employee or into a third-party custodial account designated by the employee.

The legislation would also allow vendors contracting with the state to opt into receiving payment in bitcoin on a per-transaction basis. The bitcoin value of those payments would be determined by the market price at the time of the transaction unless otherwise agreed upon in writing.

Beyond state payroll and procurement, the bill broadly authorizes private businesses and individuals in Oklahoma to negotiate and receive payments in bitcoin, reinforcing its use as a voluntary medium of exchange across the state economy.

SB 2064 includes provisions aimed at reducing regulatory friction for bitcoin-native businesses. Firms that deal exclusively in digital assets and do not exchange them for U.S. dollars would be exempt from Oklahoma’s money transmitter licensing requirements, according to legislation text. 

The bill directs the Oklahoma State Treasurer to issue a request for proposals for a digital asset firm to process bitcoin payments for state employees and vendors.

In selecting a provider, the Treasurer must consider factors including fees, transaction speed, cybersecurity practices, custody options, and any relevant state licenses. The Treasurer would be required to finalize a contract with a provider by January 1, 2027, and is authorized to promulgate rules to implement the program.

Back in January 2025, Oklahoma State Senator Dusty Deevers introduced a similar initiative called the Bitcoin Freedom Act (SB 325). It was a bill designed to let employees, vendors, and businesses voluntarily receive and make payments in Bitcoin while creating a legal framework for its use in the state’s economy.

Oklahoma’s bitcoin adoption echoes other U.S. states

This move follows other states like New Hampshire and Texas in exploring ways to integrate Bitcoin into public finance. 

New Hampshire passed the nation’s first Strategic Bitcoin Reserve law, allowing the state to hold up to 5% of its funds in high-market-cap digital assets and even approve a bitcoin-backed municipal bond.

Texas, meanwhile, has paired legislation with action, creating a Strategic Bitcoin Reserve and making the first U.S. state Bitcoin ETF purchase of around $5 million, framing it as both a hedge against economic volatility and a step toward modernizing state finances. 

If passed, SB 2064 would take effect on November 1, 2026, positioning Oklahoma among a small but growing number of U.S. states exploring direct integration of bitcoin into government payment systems.

The Oklahoma Tax Commission would also be required to issue guidance on the tax treatment of digital assets received as payment by January 1, 2027, addressing an area that has often created uncertainty for employees and employers alike.

This post Oklahoma Introduces Bill Allowing State Employees and Vendors to Be Paid in Bitcoin first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Micah Zimmerman.

Interview transcript:

Terry Gerton A couple of months ago, we covered your first report in this disaster assistance high-risk series where you looked at the federal response workforce. You’re back with report number two, looking at state and local response capabilities. Talk to us about the headlines.

Chris Currie The headline for this report is that the capabilities of state and local governments across the country vary drastically for a disaster or other type of event. You know, what we did is we actually look at data that the states prepare and provide to FEMA as part of their justification for federal preparedness grants. It’s meant to be a very, very honest self-assessment of capabilities. And for that reason, we actually don’t provide states individually, we sort of roll it up and wrap it up anonymously because some of that information, as you imagine, could be sensitive. We looked at states that have been involved in major disasters over the last two to three years, and some of these states are very experienced, large states, and even they vary in terms of their capabilities. There’s actually 32 capabilities that FEMA sets in the National Preparedness System that you want to achieve to be prepared to respond for a disaster or a large event. And states vary. Some of the areas, they were less than 10% prepared — met less than 10% of those capabilities — and others, they were much more. So the reason that’s important right now is to understand that if you were to change the support that FEMA and the federal government provide to states quickly, then they’re going to have capability gaps that are going to have to get filled.

Terry Gerton Let’s talk about some of the support that FEMA does provide. One of the ways that they support the states is through preparedness grants, and those help build local capacity. What did you find as you dug into the preparedness grants?

Chris Currie Those preparedness grants started after 9/11, and since 9/11, there’s been over $60 billion provided to states. It’s the main way that the federal government transfers funds to state and local governments to get them ready to handle something bad that could happen, not just a natural disaster, but it could be a terrorist attack. And those grants have built capabilities tremendously over the years. But those capabilities change over time, and we identify through real-world events and exercises the gaps that still need to be addressed. So I’ll give you a great example. After Hurricane Helene and after other disasters, housing for disaster survivors is always a perennial challenge. Housing is a capability area that is assessed and we want to build up through these preparedness grants. It’s an area that states, even very experienced disaster states, still fall short of in terms of their capabilities. And the federal government kind of comes in after a disaster and provides a lot of that support because states don’t. So if the federal governments not going to provide it, then someone else is going to have to provide it. And that’s going to be someone at the state or local level.

Terry Gerton Talk to me about the flexibility and the allocation framework for these grants. Is it meeting requirements? Does it seem to be focused on the places that have the greatest need?

Chris Currie There’s a couple different ways they’re given out. There’s a portion of the grants that are supposed to go towards certain national priorities, and FEMA sets those targets. So think about things like election security or other national priorities. But then a large part of the grant, they’re discretionary, and the states can use them and they’re supposed to use them in the areas where they assess they have gaps. And that’s the data I was talking about earlier that we provided. For example, certain states may have gaps in their ability to handle a mass casualty situation or may struggle to house disaster survivors because they don’t have a lot of housing stock or rental. So those are things they’re supposed to identify and then target those grants towards those specific areas, which makes sense. You want to close your gaps so you’re ready to go when something happens.

Terry Gerton FEMA also provides a great deal of training and technical assistance. How effective has that been in helping states be ready?

Chris Currie This is, I think, one of the biggest success stories since Hurricane Katrina. If you remember Hurricane Katrina, the issue was the role of various levels of government was not clear, and thus, nobody stepped up and was proactive in responding to that event. And people lost their lives. Since that time, the National Preparedness System and FEMA leading that has been extremely effective through exercises, through training, through just regional relationships in taking care of a lot of those problems. So today we are way more proactive and responsive to disasters than we were 20 years ago in Hurricane Katrina. So that’s a huge success story. Having said that, a disaster is a disaster. There’s always going to be things that happen that you don’t expect. And there’s areas where states still have major gaps and require resources and people to address those. And the federal government comes in fills a lot of those gaps. Here’s a great example. Hurricane Helene happened and devastated a very remote part of our country in places like rural Tennessee and North Carolina and Virginia. States and localities don’t have the search and rescue assets for such a large swath of that kind of terrain. Federal government provided a lot of that. They provided a lot of the air support, the land support, the temporary bridges — Army Corps of Engineers. You know, the federal government really kicks in when something’s too big for a state or locality to handle.

Terry Gerton I’m speaking with Chris Currie. He’s director, Homeland Security and Justice at GAO. So Chris, all of this begs the question. This administration has been very clear that it wants states and localities to pick up more of the disaster response mission and that it wants a much smaller FEMA. Given what you found in your first study about the federal response workforce and the impacts of downsizing there, and now the variability in state and local readiness, what are the implications for national disaster response?

Chris Currie I want to make one thing really clear, because all I know is what we know now and the data that we’ve looked at. And I want it to be clear that nothing has changed in terms of FEMA’s responsibilities today. There’s been a lot of talk about it. There’s the president’s council that studied it. But there has been no change so far. So FEMA is still responsible for what it was responsible for two years ago. They have lost some staff. We looked at that in our first report, as you mentioned. They have lost about 1,000 staff, and maybe a little bit more than that, at this point, but they haven’t been cut drastically or cut in half as has been discussed. So they still have the same responsibilities and they’re still performing the same functions on disasters throughout the country, even though last year we didn’t have a huge land-falling hurricane. So what’s important about that is that everybody’s waiting to hear what the next steps are going to be and what’s going to happen to FEMA. One of the things we wanted to do in this report is we wanted to provide a comprehensive picture of preparedness to show what’s going to be necessary if that FEMA support is pulled back or FEMA is made smaller. And the bottom line is that states and localities are going to have to do more. However, it’s going to be critical that they have the time to prepare for that. For example, a lot of the assistance that’s provided to individual survivors, like cash payments and housing, that comes from the federal government. It does not come from the state or local government. So if FEMA is not going to be providing that, the state of the locality is going to have to fill that need. And that requires a lot of money and a lot preparation and planning that you can’t just turn on in a heartbeat. You don’t want to start figuring out programs to help people after a disaster happens.

Terry Gerton You bring up a good point on that time to prepare. As you did the survey, you talked to lots of state and local response officials. What did they tell you, beyond time to prepare, that they were going to need to be effective?

Chris Currie Very simple: Just tell us what we need to do. Tell us what were going to expect from you, the federal government. Nobody knows right now. The FEMA Council has not finished its work. There has been reform legislation introduced in the House and in the Senate, but nothing has passed yet. So the key message is, tell us what the roles and responsibilities are going to be so we know what to prepare for, so we don’t get caught flat-footed in the case of something really bad happening. One of my fears is that last year, like I said, we didn’t have a large land-falling hurricane. It was the first year in a long time we did not. We did not have a catastrophic disaster, other than Los Angeles fires early in the year. So my fear is that folks are going to look at last year and say, hey, things have gone pretty well. We don’t need to be thinking about it. And that is an absolute mistake. Because we’ve seen in years like 2017, 2018, 2024 — my fear is we’re going to have another situation this year or next with multiple concurrent disasters, and we’re just not going to the resources to deal with them.

Terry Gerton So what will you be watching for in the next few months to see if Congress and the federal government and the states have taken your recommendations on board?

Chris Currie Well, when the FEMA Council report comes out, I would like to see, in whatever the execution is for FEMA reform or the changes in how the system works now, an understanding of how this needs to be rolled out so states and localities can prepare and have as clear roles and responsibilities as possible. We’d also like to see them address many of the problems that we’ve pointed out. And to be clear, we’ve pointed out a number of issues with FEMA, particularly in the frustrating recovery phase. I want to see that they’re making sure that we don’t break what’s not broken and we fix the issues that are broken. And there are a number those things.

The post Readiness gaps may leave communities vulnerable when the next disaster strikes first appeared on Federal News Network.

In a small clinical trial, customized mRNA vaccines against high-risk skin cancers appeared to reduce the risk of cancer recurrence and death by nearly 50 percent over five years when compared with standard treatment alone. That's according to Moderna and Merck, the two pharmaceutical companies that have collaborated on the experimental cancer vaccine, called intismeran autogene (mRNA-4157 or V940).

So far, the companies have only reported the top-line results in a press release this week. However, the results align closely with previous, more detailed analyses from the trial, which examined rates of recurrence and death at earlier time points, specifically at two years and three years after the treatment. More data from the trial—a Phase 2 trial—will soon be presented at a medical conference, the companies said. A Phase 3 trial is also underway, with enrollment complete.

The ongoing Phase 2 trial included 157 patients who were diagnosed with stage 3 or stage 4 melanoma and were at high risk of having it recur after surgical removal. A standard treatment to prevent recurrence after such surgery is immunotherapy, including Merck's Keytruda (pembrolizumab). This drug essentially enables immune cells, specifically T cells, to attack and kill cancer cells—something they normally do. But, in many types of cancers, including melanoma, cancer cells have the ability to bind to receptors on T cells (called PD-1 receptors), which basically shuts the T cells down. Keytruda works by physically blocking the PD-1 receptors, preventing cancer cells from binding and keeping the T cells activated so they can kill the cancer.

Read full article

Comments

Crypto analyst Dom has commented on the current XRP price action, revealing what the triple tap at $1.80 means for the altcoin. This comes as XRP sheds most of its gains from the start of the year amid the recent crypto market crash. 

XRP Price Reaches Major Support With Triple Tap At $1.80

In an X post, Dom stated that there is a triple tap in the $1.80 zone, which is the last possible expression of a bottoming structure for the XRP price. The analyst warned that any further moves to the downside are likely to trigger a breakdown for the altcoin. He added that regaining $2.05 is the goal for bulls to put the chart back in a “safe zone.”

This analyst comes amid the XRP price crash below the psychological $2 level. The altcoin has crashed alongside the broader crypto market, losing most of its yearly gains in the process. This comes on the back of the latest Trump tariffs on eight European nations, which have sparked bearish sentiment in the market. 

Commenting on the 30% rally for the XRP price earlier in the month, Dom reiterated that it was a weak move. He noted that the order flow analysis showed no strong buyer support and that the push was possible due to low liquidity. On-chain analytics platform Glassnode also recently commented on the current price action, noting that the current market structure for XRP closely resembles that of February 2022. 

Glassnode stated that investors active over the 1-week to 1-month window are now accumulating below the cost basis of the 6-month to 12-month cohort. They added that as this structure persists, psychological pressure on top buyers continues to build over time. 

XRP’s Structure Still Intact 

In an X post, crypto analyst Egrag Crypto stated that the XRP price structure remains intact, with the upper resistance at between $3.40 and $3.60. Meanwhile, the lower support is between $1.85 and $1.95, and the price is currently near the range lows. The analyst also noted that the 21 EMA is sloping down and acting as resistance, with the price still below it, suggesting weak short-term momentum. 

As for what could happen next, Egrag Crypto predicted a liquidity sweep rather than a confirmed breakdown in the XRP price. He explained that a wick below $1.85 is a normal liquidity behavior within a range. However, a weekly close below this level could signal structural failure and increase cycle risk. 

Until that happens, Egrag Crypto noted that the XRP price is still ranging, holding structure, not broken, and not in macro failure. He added that his stance remains unchanged as he is still bullish and holding as long as the structure remains valid. 

At the time of writing, the XRP price is trading at around $1.90, down over 3% in the last 24 hours, according to data from CoinMarketCap.

A year into his presidency, US President Donald Trump and his family have reportedly seen a notable shift in their wealth distribution, with a growing concentration of crypto ventures linked to the presidential family.

Trump Family’s Wealth Gets Crypto Boost

On Tuesday, Bloomberg reported that the Trump family’s wealth has remained relatively steady over the past year despite the plunging value of their social media company, Trump Media & Technology Group Corp, and the massive gains of their new crypto ventures.

According to the report, the family’s overall net worth has not grown significantly since President Trump’s inauguration, remaining at around $6.8 billion, as data from the Bloomberg Billionaires Index shows.

Notably, the gains from their new projects were offset by the losses of Trump Media, whose shares have declined by around 66% over the past 12 months, despite efforts to diversify into various endeavors.

Nonetheless, “the way the Trumps’ wealth is distributed now — particularly its concentration in virtual assets and public companies, some of which didn’t exist when he left office in 2021 — represents a sea change in how they’ll earn money for years to come,” the report highlighted.

Per Bloomberg, the family’s most notable change has been the growing concentration of their net worth in cryptocurrencies, with one-fifth of their fortune coming from crypto projects for the first time.

As a result, “cryptocurrency projects became the key driver of the Trump family’s wealth last year,” generating around $1.4 billion from the different digital asset-related ventures managed by the President’s eldest sons, Eric and Donald Trump Jr.

In a statement to the news media outlet, Eric Trump reaffirmed that his family’s crypto push was driven by their experience with banks after the President’s first term. “Having been canceled by banks, out of political malice, led us to many incredible opportunities, as we redefine the future of finance,” he asserted.

Digital Asset Fortune Breakdown

Over the past year, various news outlets have estimated the first family’s crypto fortune, with some reports calculating its value at around $1 billion. In October, Eric Trump shared that the real number was “probably more.”

While the Trump family dived into multiple crypto-related projects, Bloomberg analysis highlighted three of their main ventures: World Liberty Financial (WLFI), American Bitcoin Corp., and the official TRUMP and MELANIA memecoins.

World Liberty Financial reportedly sold $550 million worth of tokens, generating $390 million for the presidential family, according to the news media outlet’s calculations. In August, the company announced its partnership with Alt5 Sigma and became an investor in the technology firm, which sought to raise $1.5 billion for its crypto treasury strategy based on WLFI.

According to Bloomberg, “the Trumps netted more than $500 million” from the deal. The company also launched its USD1 stablecoin in March, which has grown to more than $3 billion since its debut. Bloomberg estimated that the business could be worth more than $300 million.

Meanwhile, the official TRUMP and MELANIA memecoins, which launched the weekend before President Trump’s second inauguration, generated gains worth roughly $280 million from the family’s holdings and associated proceeds.

In addition, Eric Trump owns about 7.4% of American Bitcoin, worth roughly $114 million despite the company’s shares declining 82% since their September peak. Donald Jr. reportedly owns a smaller, undisclosed amount.

The report also noted that the Trump family’s fortune could be worth billions more on paper, as they still own founder WLFI tokens, worth $3.8 billion at current prices. Nonetheless, these tokens were not included in the calculations as they remain locked.

As he marked one year since being sworn into office, President Donald Trump on Tuesday touted the actions of his administration — including praising the major reductions to the federal workforce throughout 2025.

“I don’t want to cut people, but when you cut them and they go out and get a better job, I like to cut them,” Trump said during a nearly two-hour press briefing, while also stating his administration “slashed tremendous numbers of people off the federal payroll.”

The White House on Tuesday also released a list of “365 wins” over the last year, commending the administration’s efforts to ensure a “merit-based” federal workforce. The list includes federal workforce actions overhauling the probationary period; eliminating diversity, equity and inclusion across government; requiring employees to work on-site full-time; slashing federal jobs; and limiting agencies to one new hire for every four employees who exit the civil service.

“I say, get rid of everybody that’s unnecessary, because that’s the way you make America great again,” Trump said. “When you have all these jobs where people are sitting around doing nothing and they get a lot of money from the government, it’s no good.”

But good government groups such as the Partnership for Public Service tell a much different story of the administration’s impact on the federal workforce. Max Stier, the Partnership’s president and CEO, described 2025 as “the most significant reduction in federal government capacity that we’ve ever experienced in our history.”

“And that reduction in capacity is best represented in our most important asset: our federal workforce,” Stier told reporters on a press call last week.

Governmentwide, federal workforce data shows that about 320,000 federal employees left government during 2025, while just tens of thousands joined the civil service. The Office of Personnel Management reported a net loss of about 220,000 federal employees over the course of the year.

“It tells a disturbing story about who we’ve lost in our government and what is actually happening to the workforce,” Stier said. “But it doesn’t tell you anything about what is truly most fundamental — their morale and what they think about what’s happening right now.”

The Partnership, a non-profit organization that advocates for non-partisan, “good government” reforms, released a report on Tuesday, noting that the Trump administration’s actions over the last year created “confusion, distrust and stress within the federal workforce.”

“There were large-scale layoffs of employees, cuts to government programs and the ending of many grants, altering how the government does — or does not — serve the public and the outcomes it can achieve,” the report states. “Not only did the government lose invaluable expertise, it became less responsive to public needs and less prepared to keep Americans safe.”

“It is impossible to gain a full picture of the layoffs and their impact,” the Partnership added. “The administration has provided few specifics about what positions have been eliminated and which personnel have been laid off or incentivized to resign.”

The Partnership’s report also detailed the specific impacts of federal workforce losses over the last year, including effects at agencies like the IRS, Social Security Administration, Department of Health and Human Services, FEMA and many others.

As a result of the governmentwide staffing cuts, the Partnership argued, agencies are less prepared to deliver disaster assistance during emergencies, and less efficient in administering crucial government programs, leading to delays in basic services and increased wait times.

By contrast, OPM Director Scott Kupor has argued that the Trump administration’s federal workforce overhauls will lead to better employee accountability, merit and performance across government. Kupor also touted the loss of one-third of OPM’s internal workforce during 2025, while saying the agency’s service delivery improved.

“President Trump was clear from day one: The federal workforce must be accountable, performance-driven and focused on serving the American people,” Kupor said in a Dec. 31 press release. “This year, OPM delivered on that vision — modernizing government operations, rewarding excellence and putting taxpayers first.”

But Rob Shriver, director of the Civil Service Strong program at Democracy Forward, questioned the Trump administration’s workforce reductions, saying there are no forward-looking plans for continuing to effectively deliver services after the cuts.

“The singular focus on headcount reduction as a blunt instrument reveals that DOGE was never about efficiency,” Shriver, a former acting director of OPM during the Biden administration, said in commentary on Tuesday. “It was about retribution and stifling dissent by intimidating federal workers into leaving their jobs or, if they decided to stay, intimidating them into not questioning their political leaders.”

At the same time, information on the federal workforce’s perspective over the course of 2025 will likely be limited. After months of postponing, OPM last year opted to cancel the 2025 Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey. In an attempt to fill the data gap, the Partnership conducted its own federal workforce survey.

The results of the Partnership’s survey are expected to be released in March. But Partnership officials have said it will still be difficult as an external organization to replicate the depth of data OPM can attain through FEVS.

Going forward, the Trump administration is looking to make further changes for the federal workforce, including overhauls to the probationary period and federal hiring processes, as well as performance management and senior executive development.

OPM’s Kupor said the upcoming changes will make government “leaner,” while making federal employees more results-oriented, accountable and efficient.

But some painted a darker picture for federal employees throughout 2026.

“The harms caused by these cuts have already begun to play out, and we’ll see more and more of that in 2026, when the impacts of the thoughtless workforce cuts are felt more deeply around the country,” Shriver said.

The Trump administration is also expected to soon issue a final rule to implement “Schedule Policy/Career.” The forthcoming regulations will let agencies reclassify career federal employees in “policy-influencing” positions, in effect removing their civil service protections and making them easier to fire at-will.

“The change of our federal government into one that is a loyalist workforce, as opposed to a professional one, is a process that we anticipate moving forward in 2026,” Stier said. “As challenging as 2025 was, I think we can expect even harder days ahead in 2026.”

The post Trump lauds ‘tremendous’ federal workforce cuts. Good government group calls them ‘disturbing.’ first appeared on Federal News Network.

There are major Linux distributions dropping releases and patches every week. That means it can be hard to tell which ones really matter. There's one in particular coming later this year though that will change the game for me.

Ethereum continues to show resilience, holding its ground above key support levels even as price faces firm resistance near the $3,400 zone. The ability to sustain strength after recent gains highlights improving market structure, suggesting that buyers remain in control. As long as ETH stays supported above its critical trend levels, the broader upside narrative remains intact despite near-term hesitation.

Daily Bull Market Support Band Holds As Key Reversal Zone

Luca, in a recent ETH update shared on X, pointed out that Ethereum’s market structure has strengthened considerably over the past several days. The price has been able to hold above the 1D Bull Market Support Band, a level that has acted as a reliable reversal zone multiple times over the last couple of months. This sustained hold suggests improving market confidence and a reduction in immediate downside risk.

Alongside this structural improvement, ETH successfully reclaimed the 0.618 Fibonacci point of interest around the $3,100 region. This level is often viewed as a critical threshold in corrective phases, and holding above it typically signals that buyers are gaining the upper hand. 

Despite the positive developments, Ethereum has not moved higher without hesitation. ETH’s price recently faced rejection near the 0.5 Fibonacci level around $3,400, an outcome Luca noted was largely expected. Historically, this area has acted as a significant decision point, often attracting selling pressure and temporary pullbacks before the market decides on its next direction.

Looking forward, Luca believes the overall outlook remains constructive as long as ETH continues to trade above the 1D Bull Market Support Band and the 0.618 Fibonacci level. Maintaining these supports would keep the path open for renewed upside attempts, even if short-term consolidations occur, and the analyst’s positioning remains unchanged.

ETH Above Daily 200MA, Structure Remains Constructive

According to a recent post by Daan Crypto Trades, Ethereum is still advancing gradually while respecting the Daily 200-day moving average against Bitcoin. This type of slow, methodical grind often signals strength beneath the surface, suggesting that buyers remain in control even without aggressive momentum.

The analyst explained that prolonged consolidations and steady climbs like this typically resolve with an acceleration phase. Should ETH break out with stronger upside momentum, it could serve as a trigger for renewed interest across the altcoin market, helping lift sentiment and price action.

However, the structure remains conditional. Holding the Daily 200MA, highlighted in purple, is critical to maintaining this constructive setup. In parallel, Bitcoin must stay above the $94,000 level to maintain the broader low-timeframe bullish structure. As long as these conditions are met, the path of least resistance continues to favor further upside.

KDE developers are already gearing up for Plasma 6.7, and the upcoming update is bringing some great quality-of-life features like an instant dark mode toggle and system-wide push-to-talk. The team is quickly moving past the initial Plasma 6 launch and focusing on more improvements.

Satish Thomas, a 20-year veteran of Microsoft who spent two decades at the Redmond tech giant, is taking a new job at Google.

“I’m joining during what feels like one of the most consequential moments in tech history — right in the heart of the AI era,” Thomas wrote on LinkedIn. He did not specify what role he’s taking at Google.

Thomas said Microsoft “shaped me in ways I never imaged.” He began his two-decade run at the company as an intern. “I’m deeply grateful to the amazing people and teams I’ve had the privilege to work with,” he said. “Leaving isn’t easy — but some opportunities are so special and unique that you just have to go for them.”

Thomas spent the past six years as a corporate vice president at Microsoft, where he led strategy, product management, and engineering execution for Microsoft Cloud for Industry. He previously held leadership roles in Microsoft Dynamics 365 and Microsoft AppSource.

— Raji Rajagopalan has a new role at Microsoft: GitHub’s vice president of engineering.

Rajagopalan has been with the tech giant for more than 20 years, joining the company as a software engineer. She’s leaving the Microsoft Foundry Team for the new role.

“My goal is to help GitHub continue to be the place loved by devs, where innovation happens and human-agent workflows thrive, as we move into this new era of AI-driven development,” Rajagopalan said on LinkedIn.

— Katie Bardaro is senior VP of customer experience at Avante, a Seattle startup building software to help companies decrease HR administration workload and reduce overall benefits program costs. It also offers an AI assistant designed to provide benefits guidance to employees.

“What drew me here is the opportunity to work at the intersection of data, AI, and total rewards, all while helping companies and employees navigate one of the most complex (and impactful) parts of the employee experience: benefits,” Bardaro said on LinkedIn.

Bardaro was previously chief customer officer at Syndio, a company that analyzes workplace pay equity issues and provides strategies for fixing disparities. Prior to that she was at Payscale for more than a decade.

— Vivek Sharma is leaving Stripe for a cryptic new venture focused on “AI’s potential to fundamentally change how people work.”

Sharma, who has held executive roles at Microsoft and Meta, didn’t provide further details about the stealthy startup in a LinkedIn post, but did name his collaborators:

• Tore Hanssen, who was a founding engineer at Statsig, the Bellevue, Wash.-based startup acquired in September by OpenAI. He previously worked at Meta.
• Robert Masson, a senior staff data scientist at Meta’s Seattle office, clocking nearly 11 years with the company before going to Atlassian early last year.
• Calvin Grunewald, who spent nine years as a Facebook director of engineering, based in Seattle. He was most recently at Stripe.

“More details coming soon,” Sharma said of the startup. “But if you want to be an early adopter or just want to chat, please reach out!”

— Jeff Carr is now CEO of Atana, a startup building workplace training content that incorporates behavior-based learning and development. Carr joined the Bellevue company in August as president. He succeeds Atana co-founder and former CEO John Hansen, who will remain as executive chair.

In announcing the news, Hansen said that Carr “aligned with Atana’s vision immediately and has been instrumental in bringing us into new opportunities and new strategic relationships in a very short period of time.”

Carr has held multiple CEO roles in the past, including leadership of workforce training company Inkling and at the HR company PeopleFluent.

Atana originally launched in 1993. Hansen, a startup veteran and longtime lecturer at the University of Washington, acquired the business in 2016 and oversaw the expansion of new learning content.

— Longtime Microsoft gaming leader Larry Hyrb shared on LinkedIn that he was laid off from Unity after 18 months on the job.

Hyrb, known by his longtime handle “Major Nelson,” left Microsoft in 2023 after more than two decades in corporate communications, promoting the launches of games and other products. He was the host of one of the company’s earliest podcasts, Major Nelson Radio, which later became Xbox Podcast.

At Unity, a San Francisco-based gaming company, Hyrb worked with the Community and Advocacy Team, supporting connections among creators, developers and gamers.

— Serial tech entrepreneur Jay Bartot is now a technical advisor and chief technologist for TheFounderVC, a Seattle-based venture capital firm that launched in 2024.

Bartot is also co-founder and CTO of the software startup AirSignal, an affiliate professor at the UW, and a startup mentor at Creative Destruction Lab.

Bartot said on LinkedIn that he looks forward to working with the TheFounderVC team “to help exceptional early-stage founders build the next generation of great Vertical AI companies and products.”

— Auger, a startup building logistics and supply chain software, named Tucker Reimer as principal of supply chain innovation. Reimer joins the Bellevue startup from the Johnsonville sausage company where he served as vice president of global planning and analytics.

Dave Clark, the former Amazon Worldwide Consumer CEO and Flexport CEO, launched Auger in 2024 with $100 million in Series A funding.

— Lucas Dickey joined Stripe as a product builder focused on Stripe Atlas, a tool that helps entrepreneurs incorporate their business.

Dickey said on LinkedIn that he has used Atlas four times to start his own companies and aligns with Stripe’s goal of “making the administrative layer a breeze — and helping new companies start strong from day one.”

His startups include Deepcast, a podcast platform, and Fernish, a decor-focused business that was acquired.

XRP is tightening up at a critical breakout level, with price action suggesting the market is coiling for its next decisive move. While short-term volatility has cooled, the broader structure remains constructive, pointing to a potential expansion phase as compression builds near key resistance.

XRP Compresses Into A Critical $2.30–$2.40 Decision Zone

According to a latest update from Egrag Crypto, the XRP 3-day chart continues to flash strong bullish signals despite recent consolidation. Price action remains constructive, with XRP compressing inside a descending channel as it approaches a crucial decision zone between $2.30 and $2.40.

From a structural standpoint, several technical elements point to underlying strength. The 50-period EMA has begun to flatten, suggesting that selling pressure is gradually easing. At the same time, the 200-period EMA continues to trend higher, reinforcing the idea that the broader, macro trend remains bullish.

Furthermore, XRP is holding above the EMA cluster, indicating that the market structure has not yet broken down. Notably, the upper boundary of the descending channel aligns closely with the former $2.30 breakout level, adding technical significance to this zone.

From here, the implications are clear. A clean and decisive 3-day close above $2.40 would likely confirm a breakout from compression, opening the door for continuation toward the $2.70 region, with $3.13 emerging as a higher upside objective.

On the other hand, rejection at resistance would likely keep XRP trading in a range. However, as long as the price remains above the $2.00 area, the overall bullish structure stays intact. This is not a breakdown scenario; rather, it reflects tightening price action that often precedes a strong expansion.

Triple Tap Hits Range Highs, Reaching A Key Inflection Point

In a recent market update, CrediBULL Crypto noted that XRP has now completed its triple-tap move, successfully reaching the upper boundary of its range. With liquidity at the range highs already taken, the market now stands at a clear crossroads, presenting two distinct paths for price action going forward.

The first scenario frames the recent move as nothing more than a relief bounce, sweeping liquidity at the highs before resuming its local downtrend, within the higher-timeframe uptrend. If this plays out, price could move lower again, potentially dropping below the $1.77 level.

In the alternative scenario, the triple-tap pattern is interpreted as the formation of a solid base of structural demand. Under this view, pullbacks are likely to be met with buying interest, with the $1.77 lows acting as a support zone rather than a level to be broken.

Weighing the broader context, particularly Bitcoin’s position and overall market conditions, CrediBULL leans toward the second outcome. That bias favors looking for long opportunities, with the expectation that XRP will continue to expand higher and eventually target untapped levels above the current range.

As Bitcoin (BTC) breaks out of key resistance levels, an analyst suggests that the cryptocurrency is positioning itself for a move to higher levels and a retest of a crucial technical area in the coming weeks.

Bitcoin Approaching Make-Or-Break Test

On Tuesday, Bitcoin surged 2.5% to retest the $93,500 resistance level for the first time in a week. The cryptocurrency has been hovering between the $84,000 to $93,500 price range for three months and has failed to turn this level into support multiple times.

Analyst Rekt Capital recently noted that the flagship crypto is near a “historic” test as it has begun to form “another technically decisive region” just above current price levels.

The market watcher explained that BTC is approaching its dynamic Bull Market Exponential Moving Average (EMA) cluster, where the 50-week EMA and 21-week EMA are getting closer.

This key cluster, currently located between the $96,000 and $97,500 levels, has historically been tested before a “meaningful crossover,” with the Bitcoin price overextending beyond the cluster.

However, this has usually been followed by an unsuccessful confirmation of this region as support. “When that happens, the crossover itself often follows the bearish price event, rather than causing it, with the EMA cluster flipping into resistance from the underside and leading to downside continuation,” the analyst detailed.

Notably, past cycles reveal that the 50-week and 21-week EMAs can move very close together, Rekt Capital wrote, emphasizing that they can even overlap for prolonged periods before a decisive crossover.

Currently, Bitcoin has yet to retest and overextend beyond the two EMAs, but its historical performance suggests that it will likely occur. Moreover, BTC’s price is “positioning itself in a way that could allow for a springboard higher, potentially enabling a test of this cluster in the weeks ahead. The key question is timing.”

BTC Price Breaks Out Of Key Resistances

In his analysis, the market observer discussed BTC’s recent performance, which has seen a structural change despite the sideways price action. Last week, the cryptocurrency’s price closed above its multi-week downtrend, which has been serving as a major resistance point since late November.

This marks “a small but notable technical milestone” as Bitcoin now holds above the November and December highs in the weekly timeframe, treating the previous resistance as support.

In addition, the mid-zone of its local range, around the $90,500 level, is now “almost perfectly confluent with the former Downtrend, meaning the Downtrend that last week rejected price is beginning to act as layered support instead.”

Therefore, if Bitcoin continues to hold the mid-range region, the price should be able to challenge higher levels and find a path toward $100,000. Rekt Capital added that, unlike previous retests, the most recent rejection from the crucial $93,500 resistance was significantly shallower and shorter, suggesting that it was getting weaker.

Now, the flagship crypto has successfully retested the downtrend breakout area as support and momentarily reclaimed the $93,500 resistance, surging above the $94,000 area once again.

Ultimately, BTC will need to hold this area and close the week above $93,500 to “kickstart a breakout from the Weekly Range as per previous green circles,” the analyst concluded.

As of this writing, BTC trades at $94,334, a 2.6% increase in the weekly timeframe.

Asked if there were any restraints on his global powers, [President Trump] answered: “Yeah, there is one thing. My own morality. My own mind. It’s the only thing that can stop me.”

“I don’t need international law."

EXPERT PERSPECTIVE — Nicholas Maduro’s fate seems sealed: he will stand trial for numerous violations of federal criminal long-arm statutes and very likely spend decades as an inmate in the Federal Bureau of Prisons.

How this U.S. military operation that resulted in his apprehension is legally characterized has and will continue to be a topic of debate and controversy. Central to this debate have been two critically significant international law issues. First, was the operation conducted to apprehend him a violation of the Charter of the United Nations? Second, did that operation trigger applicability of the law of armed conflict?

The Trump administration has invoked the memory of General Manuel Noriega’s apprehension following the 1989 U.S. invasion of Panama, Operation Just Cause, in support of its assertion that the raid into Venezuela must be understood as nothing more than a law enforcement operation. But this reflects an invalid conflation between a law enforcement objective with a law enforcement operation.

Suggesting Operation Just Cause supports the assertion that this raid was anything other than an international armed conflict reflects a patently false analogy. Nonetheless, if - contrary to the President’s dismissal of international law quoted above – international law still means something for the United States - what happened in Panama and to General Noriega after his capture does have precedential value, so long as it is properly understood.

Parallels with the Noriega case?

Maduro was taken into U.S. custody 36 years to the day after General Manuel Noriega was taken into U.S. custody in Panama. Like Maduro, Noriega was the de facto leader of his nation. Like Maduro, the U.S. did not consider him the legitimate leader of his country due to his actions that led to nullifying a resounding election defeat of his hand-picked presidential candidate by an opposition candidate (in Panama’s case, Guillermo Endara).

Like Maduro, Noriega was under federal criminal indictment for narco-trafficking offenses. Like Maduro, that indictment had been pending several years. Like Maduro, Noriega was the commander of his nation’s military forces (in his case, the Panamanian Defense Forces, or PDF).

Like Maduro, his apprehension was the outcome of a U.S. military attack. Like Maduro, once he was captured, he was immediately transferred to the custody of U.S. law enforcement personnel and transported to the United States for his first appearance as a criminal defendant. And now we know that Maduro, like Noriega, immediately demanded prisoner of war status and immediate repatriation.

It is therefore unsurprising that commentators – and government officials – immediately began to offer analogies between the two to help understand both the legal basis for the raid into Venezuela and how Maduro was captured will impact his criminal case. Like how the Panama Canal itself cut that country into two, it is almost as if these two categories of analogy can be cut into valid and invalid.

Need a daily dose of reality on national and global security issues? Subscribe to The Cipher Brief’s Nightcap newsletter, delivering expert insights on today’s events – right to your inbox. Sign up for free today.

False Analogy to Operation Just Cause

Almost immediately following the news of the raid, critics – including me – began to question how the U.S. action could be credibly justified under international law?

As two of the most respected experts on use of force law – Michael Schmitt and Ryan Goodman - explained, there did not seem to be any valid legal justification for this U.S. military attack against another sovereign nation, even conceding the ends were arguably laudable.

My expectation was that the Trump administration would extend its ‘drug boat campaign’ rationale to justify its projection of military force into Venezuela proper; that self-defense justified U.S. military action to apprehend the leader of an alleged drug cartel that the Secretary of State had designated a Foreign Terrorist Organization. While I shared the view of almost all experts who have condemned this theory of legality, it seemed to be the only plausible rationale the government might offer.

It appears I may have been wrong. While no official legal opinion is yet available, statements by the Secretary of State and other officials seem to point to a different rationale: that this was not an armed attack but was instead a law enforcement apprehension operation.

And, as could be expected, Operation Just Cause – the military assault on Panama that led to General Noriega’s apprehension – is cited as precedent in support of this assertion. This effort to justify the raid is, in my view, even more implausible than even the drug boat self-defense theory.

At its core, it conflates a law enforcement objective with a law enforcement operation. Yes, it does appear that the objective of the raid was to apprehend an indicted fugitive. But the objective – or motive – for an operation does not dictate its legal characterization.

In this case, a military attack was launched to achieve that objective. Indeed, when General Caine took the podium in Mara Lago to brief the world on the operation, he emphasized how U.S. ‘targeting’ complied with principles of the law of armed conflict. Targeting, diversionary attacks, and engagement of enemy personnel leading to substantial casualties are not aspects of a law enforcement operation even if there is a law enforcement objective.

Nor does the example of Panama support this effort at slight of hand. The United States never pretended that the invasion of Panama was anything other than an armed conflict. Nor was apprehension of General Noriega an asserted legal justification for the invasion. Instead, as noted in this Government Accounting Office report,

The Department of State provided essentially three legal bases for the US. military action in Panama: the United States had exercised its legitimate right of self-defense as defined in the UN and CM charters, the United States had the right to protect and defend the Panama Canal under the Panama Canal Treaty, and U.S. actions were taken with the consent of the legitimate government of Panama

The more complicated issue in Panama was the nature of the armed conflict, with the U.S. asserting that it was ‘non-international’ due to the invitation from Guillermo Endara who the U.S. arranged to be sworn in as President on a U.S. base in Panama immediately prior to the attack. But while apprehending Noriega was almost certainly an operational objective for Just Cause, that in no way influenced the legal characterization of the operation.

International law

The assertion that a law enforcement objective provided the international legal justification for the invasion is, as noted above, contradicted by post-invasion analysis. It is also contradicted by the fact that the United States had ample opportunity to conduct a military operation to capture General Noriega during the nearly two years between the unsealing of his indictment and the invasion. This included the opportunity to provide modest military support to two coup attempts that would have certainly sealed Noriega’s fate.

With approximately 15,000 U.S. forces stationed within a few miles of his Commandancia, and his other office located on Fort Amador – a base shared with U.S. forces – had arrest been the primary U.S. objective it would have almost certainly happened much sooner and without a full scale invasion.

That invasion was justified to protect the approximate 30,000 U.S. nationals living in Panama. The interpretation of the international legal justification of self-defense to protect nationals from imminent deadly threats was consistent with longstanding U.S. practice.

Normally this would be effectuated by conducting a non-combatant evacuation operation. But evacuating such a substantial population of U.S. nationals was never a feasible option and assembling so many people in evacuation points – assuming they could get there safely – would have just facilitated PDF violence against them.

No analogous justification supported the raid into Venezuela. Criminal drug traffickers deserve no sympathy, and the harmful impact of illegal narcotics should not be diminished.

But President Bush confronted incidents of violence against U.S. nationals that appeared to be escalating rapidly and deviated from the norm of relatively non-violent harassment that had been ongoing for almost two years (I was one of the victims of that harassment, spending a long boring day in a Panamanian jail cell for the offense of wearing my uniform on my drive from Panama City to work).

With PDF infantry barracks literally a golf fairway across from U.S. family housing, it was reasonable to conclude the PDF needed to be neutered. Yet even this asserted legal basis for the invasion was widely condemned as invalid.

Noriega was ultimately apprehended and brought to justice. But that objective was never asserted as the principal legal basis for the invasion. Nor did it need to be. Operation Just Cause was, in my opinion (which concededly is influenced from my experience living in Panama for 3.5 years leading up to the invasion) a valid exercise of the inherent right of self-defense (also bolstered by the Canal Treaty right to defend the function of the Canal).

Nor was the peripheral law enforcement objective conflated with the nature of the operation. Operation Just Cause, like the raid into Venezuela, was an armed conflict. And, like the capture of Maduro, that leads to a valid aspect of analogy: Maduro’s status.

Like Noriega, at his initial appearance in federal court Maduro asserted his is a prisoner of war. And for good reason: the U.S. raid was an international armed conflict bringing into force the Third Geneva Convention, and Maduro by Venezuelan law was the military commander of their armed forces.

The U.S. government’s position on this assertion has not been fully revealed (or perhaps even formulated). But the persistent emphasis that the raid was a law enforcement operation that was merely facilitated by military action seems to be pointing towards a rejection. As in the case of General Noriega, this is both invalid and unnecessary: what matters is not what the government calls the operation, but the objective facts related to the raid.

Are you Subscribed to The Cipher Brief’s Digital Channel on YouTube? If not, you're missing out on insights so good they should require a security clearance.

Existence of an armed conflict

Almost immediately following news of the raid, the Trump administration asserted it was not a military operation, but instead a law enforcement operation supported by military action. This was the central premise of the statement made at the Security Council by Mike Waltz, the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations. Notably, Ambassador Waltz stated that, “As Secretary Rubio has said, there is no war against Venezuela or its people. We are not occupying a country. This was a law enforcement operation in furtherance of lawful indictments that have existed for decades.”

This characterization appears to be intended to disavow any assertion the operation qualified as an armed conflict within the meaning of common Article 2 of the four Geneva Conventions of 1949. That article indicates that the Conventions (and by extension the law of armed conflict generally) comes into force whenever there is an armed conflict between High Contracting Parties – which today means between any two sovereign states as these treaties have been universally adopted. It is beyond dispute that this article was intended to ensure application of the law of armed conflict would be dictated by the de facto existence of armed conflict, and not limited to de jure situations of war.

This pragmatic fact-based trigger for the law’s applicability was perhaps the most significant development of the law when the Conventions were revised between 1947 and 1949. It was intended to prevent states from disavowing applicability of the law through rhetorical ‘law-avoidance’ characterizations of such armed conflicts. While originally only impacting applicability of the four Conventions, this ‘law trigger’ evolved into a bedrock principle of international law: the law of armed conflict applies to any international armed conflict, meaning any dispute between states resulting in hostilities between armed forces, irrespective of how a state characterizes the situation.

By any objective assessment, the hostilities that occurred between U.S. and Venezuelan armed forces earlier this week qualified as an international armed conflict. Unfortunately, the U.S. position appears to be conflating a law enforcement objective with the assessment of armed conflict. And, ironically, this conflation appears to be premised on a prior armed conflict that doesn’t support the law enforcement operation assertion, but actually contradicts it: Operation Just Cause.

Judge Advocates have been taught for decades that the existence of an armed conflict is based on an objective assessment of facts; that the term was deliberately adopted to ensure the de facto situation dictated applicability of the law of armed conflict and to prevent what might best be understood as ‘creative obligation avoidance’ by using characterizations that are inconsistent with objective facts.

And when those objective facts indicate hostilities between the armed forces of two states, the armed conflict in international in nature, no matter how brief the engagement. This is all summarized in paragraph 3.4.2 of The Department of Defense Law of War Manual, which provides:

Act-Based Test for Applying Jus in Bello Rules. Jus in bello rules apply when parties are actually conducting hostilities, even if the war is not declared or if the state of war is not recognized by them. The de facto existence of an armed conflict is sufficient to trigger obligations for the conduct of hostilities. The United States has interpreted “armed conflict” in Common Article 2 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions to include “any situation in which there is hostile action between the armed forces of two parties, regardless of the duration, intensity or scope of the fighting.”

No matter what the objective of the Venezuelan raid may have been, there undeniable indication that the situation involved, “hostile action between” U.S. and Venezuelan armed forces.

This was an international armed conflict within the meaning of Common Article 2 of the four Geneva Conventions of 1949 – the definitive test for assessing when the law of armed conflict comes into force. To paraphrase Judge Hoeveler, ‘[H]owever the government wishes to label it, what occurred in [Venezuela] was clearly an "armed conflict" within the meaning of Article 2. Armed troops intervened in a conflict between two parties to the treaty.’ Labels are not controlling, facts are. We can say the sun is the moon, but it doesn’t make it so.

Prisoner of war status

So, like General Noriega, Maduro seems to have a valid claim to prisoner of war status (Venezuelan law designated him as the military commander of their armed forces authorizing him to wear the rank of a five-star general). And like the court that presided over Noriega’s case, the court presiding over Maduro’s case qualifies as a ‘competent tribunal’ within the meaning of Article 5 of the Third Convention to make that determination.

But will it really matter? The answer will be the same as it was for Noriega: not that much. Most notably, it will have no impact on the two most significant issues related to his apprehension: first, whether he is entitled to immediate repatriation because hostilities between the U.S. and Venezuela have apparently ended, and 2. Whether he is immune from prosecution for his pre-conflict alleged criminal misconduct.

Article 118 of the Third Convention indicates that, “Prisoners of war shall be released and repatriated without delay after the cessation of active hostilities.” However, this repatriation obligation is qualified. Article 85 specifically acknowledges that, “[P]risoners of war prosecuted under the laws of the Detaining Power for acts committed prior to capture . . .”

Article 119 provides, “Prisoners of war against whom criminal proceedings for an indictable offence are pending may be detained until the end of such proceedings, and, if necessary, until the completion of the punishment. The same shall apply to prisoners of war already convicted for an indictable offence.”

This means that like General Noriega, extending prisoner of war status to Maduro will in no way impede the authority of the United States to prosecute him for his pre-conflict indicted offenses. Nor would it invalidate the jurisdiction of a federal civilian court, as Article 84 also provides that,

A prisoner of war shall be tried only by a military court, unless the existing laws of the Detaining Power expressly permit the civil courts to try a member of the armed forces of the Detaining Power in respect of the particular offence alleged to have been committed by the prisoner of war.” As in General Noriega’s case, because U.S. service-members would be subject to federal civilian jurisdiction for the same offenses, Maduro is also subject to that jurisdiction.

This would obviously be different if he were charged with offenses arising out of the brief hostilities the night of the raid, in which case his status would justify a claim of combatant immunity, a customary international law concept that protects privileged belligerents from being subjected to criminal prosecution by a detaining power for lawful conduct related to the armed conflict (and implicitly implemented by Article 87 of the Third Convention). But there is no such relationship between the indicted offenses and the hostilities that resulted in Maduro’s capture.

Prisoner of war status will require extending certain rights and privileges to Maduro during his trial and, assuming his is convicted, during his incarceration. Notice to a Protecting Power, ensuring certain procedural rights, access to the International Committee of the Red Cross during incarceration, access to care packages, access to communications, and perhaps most notably segregation from the general inmate population.

Perhaps he will end up in the same facility where the government incarcerated Noriega, something I saw first-hand when I visited him in 2004. A separate building in the federal prison outside Miami was converted as his private prison; his uniform – from an Army no longer in existence – hung on the wall; the logbook showed family and ICRC visits.

Concluding thoughts

The government should learn a lesson from Noriega’s experience: concede the existence of an international armed conflict resulted in Maduro’s capture and no resist a claim of prisoner of war status. There is little reason to resist this seemingly obvious consequence of the operation.

Persisting in the assertion that the conflation of a law enforcement objective with a law enforcement operation as a way of denying the obvious – that this was an international armed conflict – jeopardizes U.S. personnel who in the future might face the unfortunate reality of being captured in a raid like this.

Indeed, it is not hard to imagine how aggressively the U.S. would be insisting on prisoner of war status had any of the intrepid forces who executed this mission been captured by Venezuela.

There is just no credible reason why aversion to acknowledging this reality should increase the risk that some unfortunate day in the future it is one of our own who is subjected to a ‘perp walk’ as a criminal by a detaining power that is emboldened to deny the protection of the Third Convention.

The Cipher Brief is committed to publishing a range of perspectives on national security issues submitted by deeply experienced national security professionals. Opinions expressed are those of the author and do not represent the views or opinions of The Cipher Brief.

Have a perspective to share based on your experience in the national security field? Send it to Editor@thecipherbrief.com for publication consideration.

Read more expert-driven national security insights, perspective and analysis in The Cipher Brief, because national security is everyone’s business.