“After a hand search of the bag, officers found four ammunition magazines and eleven rounds of ammunition. The staffer told the officers that he forgot the ammunition was in the bag,” a spokesperson for the agency, which is responsible for keeping members of Congress and congressional buildings safe, told The Epoch Times via email.
Hopkins, 38, was arrested and is facing charges of illegally possessing ammunition, including possession of a high-capacity magazine, according to the Capitol Police.
Visitors to the Capitol are barred from carrying guns, ammunition, replica guns, and electric stun guns, among other items. Visitors are subjected to magnetometers before entering the complex.
Hopkins did not respond to a request for comment by publication time.
A spokesperson for Morelle’s office told news outlets in a statement that the congressman was made aware of the arrest.
“This morning, our office was informed that a member of our staff was arrested by Capitol Police. We are currently gathering more information regarding the circumstances of the arrest,” the spokesperson said.
“Our office is fully committed to cooperating with the investigation. As Ranking Member of the Committee on House Administration, Congressman Morelle is devoted to ensuring a safe and secure workplace for all.”
Morelle, 67, has represented New York’s 25th Congressional District since 2018. The district includes about 766,000 people and is on the northern border of the state, partly set off by Lake Ontario. Morelle won reelection in November with 60 percent of the vote.
Hopkins started working for Morelle in October, according to his LinkedIn page. He is a graduate of Georgetown University and the Cardozo School of Law. His past work experience includes a stint as an adviser for former Democratic congressman Charlie Crist’s 2022 gubernatorial campaign. Crist lost that year to Gov. Ron DeSantis after serving as the Sunshine State’s Republican governor from 2007 until 2011.
Hopkins also briefly worked for former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign in 2016.
The jury in the trial of former Marine Daniel Penny began its deliberations on Dec. 3.
The 12 men and women must now decide whether Penny’s actions were justified when he put Jordan Neely, a mentally ill homeless man, into a headlock on May 1, 2023, and wrestled him to the ground, or whether those actions crossed the line into manslaughter and criminally negligent homicide, as prosecutors allege.
The trial has captivated the attention of much of the nation and the world, and protesters sympathizing with Neely have assembled outside the courthouse at 100 Centre Street almost every morning while it has been underway.
Opinions about the case have been polarized from the beginning. Some accuse Penny of an excess of zeal and careless overuse of physical force, while others believe that Penny acted to protect innocent people on an uptown F train from a crazed, menacing individual, and that his actions were entirely understandable given the failure of the police and mental health service providers to do their job and keep the public safe.
The defense and prosecution have been in agreement that Neely, who a postmortem examination found to have synthetic cannabinoids in his system, provoked the confrontation on that day in May 2023. They concur that his words and actions were menacing and gave passengers on the train reasonable and immediate fear for their safety.
They have disagreed about the appropriateness of deadly force.
Prosecutor Dafna Yoran has repeatedly pointed out that Neely had no weapons anywhere on his person, and spent a lot of time explaining to the jury when deadly force can and cannot be justified under New York law.
The defense has highlighted Neely’s history of mental illness and drug use, his explicit threats, and the terror that multiple witnesses say Neely caused them to feel.
Central to the defense’s case are the arguments of forensic pathologist Satish Chundru, who testified that Penny had not choked Neely to death and told jurors under oath that Neely died of complications from a sickle cell condition.
Under direct examination from defense lawyer Steve Raiser, Chundru attributed Neely’s death to the convergence of a number of factors, including the powerful drugs in his system, his schizophrenia, and, crucially, a sickle cell trait that the stress of the chokehold exacerbated but did not cause.
At a time of unusual stress, red blood cells in the body of someone with a sickle cell condition metamorphose from their usual round shape to what Chundru described as a “crescent moon or banana shape,” in which they stick to blood vessel walls rather than carrying oxygen to tissue cells.
Chundru argued that during the chokehold—which would not by itself have been lethal—Neely suffered a sickle cell crisis, and died as a consequence of it.
Before the seating of the jury on Tuesday morning, defense lawyer Thomas Kenniff told Judge Maxwell Wiley that Yoran had acted as an “unsworn witness” when she presumed to tell jurors what they were seeing happen in cell phone footage of the May 2023 incident played on screens in the courtroom on past days of the trial. Lawyers are not witnesses, and Yoran’s conduct was improper and prejudicial to the jury, Kenniff said.
Yoran denied this characterization, and the judge was unsympathetic to Kenniff’s arguments.
Yoran strove to discredit Chundru, saying he wasn’t qualified to discuss the case and accused him of enriching himself by coming to a biased conclusion.
“Dr. Chundru would not have made the over $90,000 he made in this one case, if he had agreed with the evidence that Mr. Neely died from a chokehold,” Yoran alleged.
Chundru’s assessment of Neely’s death conflicted with the views of experts at the New York City Office of Chief Medical Examiner, and in particular with Dr. Cynthia Harris, who said last month under oath how she believed Penny’s chokehold resulted in an asphyxial death.
She also accused Penny of having departed from the training he received in the Marines, which, she argued, clearly set forth how to apply more than one type of nonlethal choke.
Yoran argued what Penny did to Neely involved improper compression of the neck was neither a correctly applied blood choke, nor a correctly applied air choke.
“A properly executed blood choke would only hit the veins and arteries on both sides of the neck. A properly executed air choke would hit only the trachea,” Yoran said.
With the aid of cell phone footage of the incident, Yoran told the jury that the center of Neely’s neck was not in the crook of Penny’s elbow, as it would have been in a properly applied choke.
Yoran argued that the alleged prolonged misapplication of force for about six minutes culminated in asphyxial death.
At the end of her remarks, Yoran acknowledged that this case was a difficult one for jurors to have to decide, because Penny had initially tried to do the right thing, and it is not easy to convict someone for a killing that the person had not intended.
She also maintained that the prosecution had shown beyond a reasonable doubt that Penny “recklessly and needlessly” took Neely’s life.
Meta Becomes Latest Tech Giant To Embrace Nuclear Power With Open Arms
We wrote back in early November that Mark Zuckerberg reportedly told Meta workers that plans to build an AI data center powered by nuclear energy were scrapped after rare bees were discovered on the proposed site.
Now it looks like things could be back on track, according to new reporting from Axios, who writes that Meta is joining industry heavyweights like Amazon and Google in exploring nuclear energy as a zero-carbon solution.
Like Microsoft, Amazon and other giants, Meta is making a bold move to embrace nuclear energy as a cornerstone of its sustainability strategy.
The tech giant has issued a sweeping “request for proposals” (RFP) aimed at identifying developers capable of bringing nuclear reactors online by the early 2030s to support its energy-intensive data centers and surrounding communities.
Axios wrote that Meta’s RFP targets an ambitious pipeline of new generation capacity ranging from one to four gigawatts. The company seeks partnerships with entities that can streamline the entire lifecycle of nuclear projects—from site selection and permitting to design, construction, and operation.
Urvi Parekh, Meta’s head of global energy, underscored the company’s commitment to fostering innovation in nuclear energy. “We want partners who will be there from start to finish,” she said, emphasizing that Meta is prepared to offer long-term support and collaboration to optimize project development.
But Meta’s strategy has been a bit different than some other tech giants we have written about. While other tech companies have announced specific deals with emerging nuclear startups, Meta is casting a wider net.
The company is open to a variety of reactor sizes, technologies, and locations, adopting a “geographically agnostic” approach. This flexibility allows Meta to prioritize regions where nuclear projects can be developed most efficiently, even if they are not directly tied to existing data center sites.
Meta is also open to creative partnerships and cost-sharing early in the development process to mitigate the industry’s traditional hesitancy around capital-intensive nuclear investments. Parekh emphasized that Meta’s long-term purchasing commitments aim to provide certainty to developers, accelerating innovation and deployment.
Parekh noted similarities with Meta’s early renewable energy initiatives, which required securing buyers for electricity to spur development.
“There were a lot of steps in that process, and there was a lot of need for certainty that there would be someone to buy the electricity on the other side,” she said, drawing parallels between past and present strategies.
And as we have continued to report, accelerating power demand growth from AI data centers has sparked a nuclear power revival in the US:
For those who missed it, in our note “The Next AI Trade” from April of this year, we outlined various investment opportunities for powering up America, most of which have dramatically outperformed the market.
A favorite name of ours has been the Sam Altman-backed Oklo, which we have highlighted as the potential solution to the extreme forthcoming demands in energy as a result of artificial intelligence. It makes nuclear power plants, ranging from 15 MWe to 50 MWe, utilizing liquid metal reactor technology, in soon-to-be everywhere small modular reactors.
California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) is widely known to be angling to be the next Democratic presidential nominee after the implosion of Vice President Kamala Harris. This week, Newsom positioned not just his campaign but also his state as part of the “resistance” for the next four years against the Trump Administration. Newsom pushed a special session to secure a $25 million war chest to take the Trump Administration to court, even before the inauguration and release of policies by the incoming administration.
I wrote earlier about how the loss of both houses, as well as the White House, will mean that lawfare and obstructive efforts will shift to the states. Newsom is moving to out-position governors (and potential primary opponents) like Govs. Josh Shapiro of Pennsylvania and Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan. Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker moved first in a chest-pounding press conference that he would stop the incoming administration from trying to remove undocumented persons, declaring, “You come for my people, you come through me.”
New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy (D) added that he will “fight to the death” against Trump’s agenda.
Newsom has upped the ante by demanding millions to pre-fund litigation against the new administration. With a massive budget debt burden, Newsom has continued to pile on new debt for politically popular initiatives.
I cannot recall any state pre-positioning funds for the sole purpose of litigating against any incoming administration. The most obvious area of disagreement is the effort to ramp up the enforcement of immigration laws and to carry out deportations. While polls show that the public overwhelmingly supports such enforcement, including deportations, California is seeking to take the lead in court actions designed to slow or frustrate such efforts.
It could prove costly, not just in litigation expenditures. The Trump Administration could seek to withhold federal funding from states and cities obstructing enforcement efforts.
In the meantime, sanctuary cities are continuing to face rising costs associated with rising populations of undocumented migrants.
For example, as we previously discussed, Denver Mayor Mike Johnson (D) declared that he was preparing the Mile-High City for its “Tiananmen Square moment” to fight the federal government in any attempt to deport unlawful migrants.
Johnson warned that he would have not only Denver police “stationed at the county line to keep [ICE] out” but also “50,000 Denverites.” He later walked back the comments while repeating that the city is positioning itself to be part of the resistance.
Now the Common Sense Institute (CSI), a non-partisan research organization estimated that eight percent of the city’s 2025 budget of $4.4 billion is now dedicated to housing and services for undocumented persons. If true, that amounts to $356 million or $7,900 per migrant.
California has led other states in offering a wide array of benefits to undocumented persons.
Notably, Californian voters surprised many Democrats this election with almost 40% voting for President-elect Trump over California’s own Vice President Kamala Harris.
There is an obvious political advantage to Newsom in securing these public funds to assume the mantle as the leader of “the resistance” as a foundation for his 2028 campaign.
The question is how such an obstructive position will prove to the advantage of Californians. As citizens sought to increase criminal penalties by passing Proposition 36 by over 70 percent (over the opposition of Newsom), the governor is focusing on setting aside millions to fund a high-profile legal campaign against Trump’s administration.
Ultimately, the litigation campaign is unlikely to change federal enforcement efforts significantly. However, Newsom hopes it will significantly change his electoral enhancement efforts.
Fani Full Release Ordered After Fulton DA Sat On RICO Records
Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis has been ordered by a local judge to release all communications between her office, Special Counsel Jack Smith’s office, and the January 6th Committee regarding her RICO case against President Donald Trump and his allies, after she was found to have violated federal law by withholding them.
“The Court also hereby ORDERS Defendant to conduct a diligent search of her records for responsive materials within five business days of the entry of this Order. Within that same five day period, Defendant is ORDERED to provide Plaintiff with copies of all responsive records that are not legally exempted or excepted from disclosure,” reads a Tuesday order.
If Willis can’t find them, she is mandated to follow court-ordered procedures to “provide an explanation why such correspondence does not exist.”
BREAKING: A judge in Georgia just ordered Fani Willis to release all communications she had with Jack Smith and the January 6th Committee to plot the RICO case against President Trump.
The court also declared that she violated Georgia’s Open Records Law.
Willis, who had been served on March 11, 2024 in the suite involving conservative watchdog Judicial Watch, failed to respond by an April 10 deadline. After later claiming she ‘misunderstood’ the court’s directive, she then said that the document release would jeopardize her RICO case.
Judicial Watch’s Tom Fitton responds:
HUGE: Court finds Fani Willis in default on @JudicialWatch lawsuit for records on her Lawfare collusion with Biden gang and Pelosi’s operation to destroy @RealDonaldTrump! Orders her to search and produce releasable records within 5 business days!pic.twitter.com/cV585vjA9Y
In mid-2023, Willis told a local radio station that she was not coordinating in any way with Smith’s office in investigations and cases brought against former President Donald Trump. Smith had charged Trump, now the president-elect, with both classified documents-related and 2020 election-related charges in two different jurisdictions, while Willis brought charges against him and more than a dozen others for alleged election-related crimes in Fulton County.
“I don’t know what Jack Smith is doing and Jack Smith doesn’t know what I’m doing,” Willis said in July of that year. “In all honesty, if Jack Smith was standing next to me, I’m not sure I would know who he was. My guess is he probably can’t pronounce my name correctly.”
Since then, however, she has made no comments about Smith’s investigation. Smith, meanwhile, has never commented on Willis’s case against Trump.
Smith in November filed court papers confirming he would be dropping his election case against Trump and would stop the appeals process in his classified documents case. During his 2024 presidential campaign, Trump said he would terminate Smith as special counsel upon taking office.
A letter sent by Willis’s office on Dec. 17, 2021, to the House Jan. 6 committee had “requested access to any Select Committee records relevant to her investigation into President Trump’s actions to challenge the 2020 presidential election, including ‘recordings and transcripts of witness interviews and depositions, electronic and print records of communications, and records of travel,’” House Judiciary Republicans said in a report released last year relating to an investigation they launched into Willis.
Willis has been critical of House Republicans’ investigation into her office and the Trump case, accusing House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) of trying to interfere in the case at one point.
“Jim Jordan has, time after time after time, attacked my office with no legitimate purpose,” she told MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow in May. “Anyone who knows Jim Jordan’s history knows that he only has the purpose of trying to interfere in a criminal investigation.”
In a letter issued to Republicans in 2023, Willis said Republicans are trying to “obstruct a Georgia criminal proceeding and to advance outrageous partisan misrepresentations.”
Her case against Trump has stalled in recent months after one of the president-elect’s co-defendants submitted a court filing earlier this year claiming Willis and then-special prosecutor Nathan Wade were engaged in a romantic relationship. The pair confirmed they were in a relationship but denied any wrongdoing.
A judge overseeing the case issued an order in March allowing Willis to remain on the case if Wade resigned, which he did hours later. Trump and several of his co-defendants appealed the decision to the Georgia Court of Appeals earlier this year, where the case is still pending.
Whether it’s Rome, Spain, France, Britain, or the Soviet Union, excessive debt has played a critical role in their decline.
The typical pattern in these examples of collapsing empires is:
Stage #1: Empires achieve success and become overconfident.
Stage #2: Overconfidence leads to extravagant spending on luxuries and wars.
Stage #3: Empires finance this lavish spending by going into debt.
Stage #4: The debt grows to an unsustainable level and creates a crushing burden.
Stage #5: Empires finance the debt through taxation and currency debasement.
Stage #6: The populace bears the brunt of debt repayment as empires raise taxes and debase the currency—to the maximum extent—until it causes internal instability.
Stage #7: Empires cannot finance their militaries because of their debt burden. This is usually the tipping point.
Stage #8: Underfunded militaries plus internal instability make empires vulnerable to foreign invasion, domestic revolution, civil war, and other existential dangers.
Stage #9: The empire collapses.
Now, it’s the US Empire’s turn.
The US federal government has the biggest debt in the history of the world. And it’s continuing to grow at a rapid, unstoppable pace.
Annualized interest on the federal debt exceeded $1 trillion for the first time this year and is shooting higher at an exponential rate.
The federal debt’s annualized interest cost is already higher than the defense budget.
It’s on track to exceed Social Security and become the BIGGEST item in the federal budget.
Historian Niall Ferguson summed it up nicely:
“Any great power that spends more on debt service (interest payments on the national debt) than on defense will not stay great for very long.
True of Habsburg Spain, true of ancien régime France, true of the Ottoman Empire, true of the British Empire, this law is about to be put to the test by the US beginning this very year.”
Consider this:
1. The American populace is nearing its breaking point as taxation and inflation rise.
2. Interest on the federal debt exceeds defense spending and is set to become the BIGGEST expenditure, and it will keep growing from there.
As a result, the US Empire is somewhere between Stage #6 and #7 in the empire collapse pattern I described above. It is nearing the point where its crushing debt burden will make it difficult to finance existing military spending.
As we saw in the historical examples, a tipping point is reached once an empire’s debt burden becomes so great that it struggles to pay for its military. It’s like someone waving a big red flag.
The US government will soon have to choose to:
1. Cut defense spending amid the most chaotic geopolitical period since WW2.
2. Default on its promises regarding Social Security, Medicare, Veterans’ Benefits, and welfare generally.
Though it may try, the US government cannot continue to pay for entitlements and defense even if their current levels stay flat into the future. But they won’t stay flat. Both are set to grow significantly in the years ahead.
Tens of millions of Baby Boomers—about 22% of the population—will enter retirement in the coming years. Cutting Social Security and Medicare is a sure way to lose an election.
With the most precarious geopolitical situation since World War 2, defense spending is unlikely to be cut. Instead, defense spending is all but certain to increase.
Former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates recently said: “Barely staying even with inflation or worse is wholly inadequate. Significant additional resources for defense are necessary and urgent.”
The most likely outcome is that the US will try to have its cake and eat it too by paying for both growing defense and domestic obligations via currency debasement. However, it will likely end up just like other powerful collapsed empires that preceded it—with an underfunded military and domestic instability.
The truth is that Trump cannot make America great again any more than Gorbachev could save the Soviet Union. Once an empire struggles to pay for its military, the decline is impossible to reverse.
Consider this.
The Denarius—the Roman silver coin—lost nearly all its silver content between 180 and 280 AD.
The US dollar has lost over 98% of its value against gold since 1971.
Just as the Roman citizens realized their government was defaulting on its promises to them through currency debasement, I am confident that Social Security and Medicare recipients and others who have been promised something from the US federal government will notice they are being paid in debased currency. They won’t be happy.
Just as Roman soldiers realized they were being paid in debased currency, I am confident American soldiers will realize the same thing, and they won’t be happy either.
In short, the US will soon reach the tipping point that has caused the collapse of other powerful empires.
Its crushing debt burden is nearing the point where it will cause the military to be underfunded and internal instability as average citizens bear the brunt of debt repayment through increased taxation, inflation, and broken promises on Social Security and other programs.
Remember, the interest expense is set to exceed Social Security and become the BIGGEST item in the budget. It will only get bigger from there as the debt continues to grow at an unstoppable and exponential rate.
Therefore, I don’t think it will be long before the exploding interest expense crowds out funding for defense, Social Security, and other domestic commitments.
As that happens, I expect the US is headed for a disaster of historical proportions.
I am confident that the collapse of the US Empire, which has been in place since the end of WW2—otherwise known as the US-led world order—could happen a lot sooner than most realize.
The global geopolitical situation was already trending towards a multipolar world order.
The US debt crisis is compounding its geopolitical problems and will accelerate this established trend.
That means we’re likely to see the end of the US-led world order and the emergence of a multipolar world order in the not-so-distant future.
Russia, China, Iran, and other proponents of a multipolar world order are no doubt asking themselves: “Why start a war when your enemy’s debt burden is already leading them to defeat?”
Many people will be unprepared for the collapse of the US Empire.
However, when you look at the Big Picture, that is where I think we’re headed. And just like the collapse of previous empires, debt will play a significant role.
When private businesses go bankrupt, shareholders get wiped out.
When governments go bankrupt, those who hold its fiat currency get wiped out.
Given the historical examples, one thing I think we can be sure of is that the US government will try to service its debt costs with currency debasement, just like many empires that collapsed before it.
That’s terrible news for the US dollar.
I have little doubt the coming months and years will be the most chaotic of our lifetime.
Countless millions throughout history were wiped out financially—or worse—as previous empires collapsed because they failed to see the correct Big Picture and take appropriate action.
That’s why I’ve just released an urgent report, The Most Dangerous Economic Crisis in 100 Years: Top 3 Strategies You Need Right Now. This exclusive PDF reveals exactly what’s happening and the crucial steps you must take to protect yourself. Click here to download it instantly.
President-elect Donald Trump said on Dec. 3 that he would prevent the acquisition of U.S. Steel Corp. by Japan’s Nippon Steel Corporation.
“I am totally against the once great and powerful U.S. Steel being bought by a foreign company,” the president-elect said in a post on the social media platform Truth Social. “Through a series of Tax Incentives and Tariffs, we will make U.S. Steel Strong and Great Again, and it will happen FAST! As President, I will block this deal from happening. Buyer Beware!!!”
The $14.9 billion deal to buy U.S. Steel was unveiled in December last year. If the transaction goes through, it would make U.S. Steel a wholly owned subsidiary of Nippon Steel.
The Japanese corporation had offered an all-cash deal, with shares priced at $55, a 40 percent premium at the time. U.S. Steel was trading at almost $41 by the end of Monday.
In 2018, the Trump administration slapped 25 percent tariffs on imported steel via a legal provision that allows U.S. presidents to curb imports if they pose a threat to national security.
While the tariff was challenged by a New Jersey-based steel importer, the U.S. Court of International Trade sided with Trump, saying it was within his presidential authority to implement tariffs.
As part of the deal, the Japanese company agreed to retain the U.S. Steel name as well as the Pittsburgh headquarters once the takeover was complete. It also committed to honoring the employee contract agreements that U.S. Steel has with the United Steelworkers (USW) union.
Trump had opposed the deal back in January this year. After meeting with the Teamsters labor union president, Trump called the transaction a “terrible” deal and said he would “block [the deal] instantaneously” in his second term.
According to data from the World Steel Association, Nippon Steel was the fourth-largest steel-producing company last year, with U.S. Steel in the 24th position.
The multibillion-dollar deal has the backing of U.S. Steel shareholders. During a vote on the issue, 98 percent of shareholders supported the merger.
Threat to Domestic Steel
Lawmakers have opposed the takeover transaction. In a December 2023 letter to the Treasury secretary, three Republican senators warned that allowing Nippon Steel to acquire U.S. Steel would have “dire implications for the industrial base of the United States.”
Sens. JD Vance (R-Ohio), Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), and Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) said that domestic production of steel is “vital” to America’s national security.
“[Nippon Steel] does not share U.S. Steel’s storied connection to the United States, and its financial interests are tied into those of Japan,” the letter said.
Last year, Nippon Steel Corp. (NSC) “received more than $3 billion in subsidies from Japan’s Ministry of Economy, Trade, and Industry,” according to the letter.
“And NSC has even flouted American trade law. As recently as August 2021, NSC was found guilty of unlawfully dumping flat-rolled steel products into the U.S. market,” the letter said.
The senators asked for the acquisition to be blocked as Nippon Steel’s allegiance “clearly” lies with a foreign state.
In early January, the federal government said that the deal required “serious scrutiny.” In March, President Joe Biden said it was vital for a U.S. steel company to remain “domestically owned and operated.”
An arbitration board, selected jointly by U.S. Steel and USW union, green-lit the transaction in September. USW had argued that the deal threatened the long-term job security of its members as well as their retirement benefits.
However, the board ruled that Nippon Steel provided enough assurances to the union, including recognizing USW as the bargaining representative for workers.
USW disagreed with the ruling, stating, “Nippon’s commitment to our facilities and jobs remains as uncertain as ever, and executives in Tokyo can still change U.S. Steel’s business plans and wipe them away at any moment.”
Autos Drive America, an organization representing carmakers, supports Nippon’s takeover of U.S. Steel.
It said in a June letter to the White House’s National Economic Council that Nippon Steel has a four-decade-old history in the United States. Allowing the transaction will “enhance productivity, drive innovation, and support the overall competitiveness of the U.S. steel industry on the global stage,” it said.
“Investments that expand production capabilities in the United States only bolster our national security capabilities,” Autos Drive America wrote.
The Epoch Times reached out to U.S. Steel for comment regarding Trump’s remarks but received no reply by publication time.
Will Microsoft Ride $5 Trillion Bitcoin Wave (Or Avoid Risk); PolyMarket Betters Skeptical
Microsoft’s shareholders will soon vote on adding Bitcoin to its balance sheet.
Will Michael Saylor’s pitch Orange Pill the tech giant? What are the stakes and risks?
CoinTelegraph’s Daniel Ramirez-Escudero reports that next week, Dec. 10 will mark a key date for Microsoft and the Bitcoin community because the tech giant’s shareholders will vote on whether to add BTC to its balance sheet.
The results will show whether shareholders are attracted by the current Bitcoin bull market or wish to stick to Microsoft’s pragmatic and profitable approach to tech development.
On Oct. 24, before the United States presidential election, Microsoft’s 14a filing with the US Securities and Exchange Commission included a section called “Assessment of Investing in Bitcoin.” The filing says the company should consider diversifying its assets with Bitcoin as an “excellent, if not the best, hedge against inflation.”
However, just beneath the proposal, in the “Board Recommendation” section, Microsoft’s board of directors advised shareholders to vote against it, saying that the company’s management had already carefully considered the topic.
Nate Holiday, co-founder and CEO of Microsoft-backed Web3 decentralized data firm Space and Time, told Cointelegraph, “The board‘s pre-vote statement was clear: They have a sophisticated treasury management function that is returning tremendous returns for their investors.”
Will Saylor’s orange pill be enough to convince Microsoft?
To assess the potential impact on its stock, Microsoft invited MicroStrategy chairman Michael Saylor to make a pitch for adding Bitcoin to the treasury.
In a three-minute slot containing 44 slides, Saylor went all-in, claiming Microsoft could add $5 trillion to its current value of about $3.19 trillion. He argued that Microsoft should invest $100 billion annually in Bitcoin, asserting, “It makes more sense to buy Bitcoin than to buy back your own stock or hold bonds.”
Solo Ceesay, co-founder and CEO of decentralized social Web3 platform Calaxy, told Cointelegraph that Saylor may have an effect on Microsoft shareholders as his “relentless advocacy paved the way for BlackRock and the rest of ‘orange-pilled’ Wall Street to push Bitcoin nearly past $100,000.”
However, Nick Cowan, CEO of fintech firm Valereum, told Cointelegraph that “influencing Microsoft’s board or shareholders would require more than just Saylor’s endorsement.” He said, “The decision will likely hinge on internal evaluations of risk, strategy alignment and long-term vision rather than external lobbying.”
While it’s debatable whether Saylor’s intervention will work, the shareholder vote could be a massive event for adoption.
Under Saylor’s guidance, MicroStrategy became a Bitcoin proxy for market participants who wanted to gain exposure to the asset through a US trading stock.
However, founder and CEO of market maker Peanut Trade, Alex Momot, told Cointelegraph that Microsoft and MicroStrategy stocks are like apples and oranges.
“Microsoft enjoys consistent cash flow and revenue from product sales, while MicroStrategy largely relies on stock revaluation and virtual balance adjustments,” said Momot. “Microsoft’s business model centers on tangible products, driving stock value through actual sales growth, whereas MicroStrategy operates more as a market hedge.”
“Microsoft’s scale, risk tolerance, and fiduciary responsibilities are far different from those of MicroStrategy, which, although originated as a software company, is now effectively a Bitcoin treasury company,” said Cowan.
Holiday highlighted that “MicroStrategy was not a high-growth software company, so in order to drive growth, it had to change its focus to increase shareholder returns.”
In contrast, “Microsoft has an incredibly healthy balance sheet. They have proven growth over decades and are well-positioned for the future powered by AI and data.”
“If Microsoft were to make a significant Bitcoin investment, it could fundamentally alter how the market perceives the company, influence shareholder sentiment, and require a significant strategic pivot,” said Momot.
Microsoft shareholders must evaluate the pros and cons of adopting Bitcoin for their treasury.
Pros and Cons of Microsoft adopting Bitcoin
Daniel Cawrey, chief strategy officer of TON wallet Tonkepeer, told Cointelegraph that “buying some Bitcoin as a diversification strategy is a good idea for public companies as inflation does slowly erode the value of cash over time.”
“Bitcoin is becoming the ‘modern-day savings’ account right in front of our eyes, with individuals and institutions parking long-term capital in the asset instead of leaving it in US dollars or treasury bills that no longer outperform inflation,” said Ceesay.
Inflation destroys the purchasing power of cash. To battle this decrease in value, MicroStrategy followed a model where it invested practically all of its cash into Bitcoin. Cawrey pointed out Microsoft’s frequent enormous pot of cash on hand:
“Microsoft’s cash on hand, according to public reports, is around $75 billion. So they certainly have the ability to convert some of that into Bitcoin if they wanted to.”
Microsoft has reported well over $100 billion in cash on hand in prior years. Currently, it hovers around $80 billion.
Microsoft’s quarterly values of cash on hand from 2010-2024. Source: Macrotrends
Microsoft’s decrease in cash reserves stems from significant tech investments and acquisitions, including a $68.7 billion purchase of videogame developer Blizzard and the highly publicized $10 billion investment in ChatGPT.
“Microsoft’s ability to invest is not the issue; it’s whether the potential risks align with its long-term financial and strategic goals,” said Cowan.
“Holding Bitcoin ties up liquidity that could otherwise be allocated to strategic acquisitions, research and development, or other initiatives more closely aligned with Microsoft’s core business objectives,” said Cowan.
Momot said that for Microsoft’s board, “embracing such a strategy would require a complete overhaul of its business operations.”
He said, “Expecting major companies to pivot their models as MicroStrategy did is premature.” Momot added, “It’s unlikely that any large corporation will take such a step in the foreseeable future, as it would require a fundamental shift that doesn’t align with their established objectives.”
However, the advantages of Bitcoin adoption are apparent. Cowan said that Bitcoin’s “finite supply makes it a compelling hedge against inflation.”
Holiday said, “Bitcoin should be a consideration for corporations,” as many will begin “to consider digital assets to diversify their investments” from “a world of inflation and unsustainable spending and debt.”
Cowan said that Bitcoin could represent a unique tool for companies to hedge against fiat currencies.
“Incorporating Bitcoin into its holdings could diversify Microsoft’s assets, reducing dependency on fiat currencies and traditional financial instruments.”
Furthermore, Cowan said, “Such an investment could signal forward-thinking leadership, potentially attracting tech-savvy investors and customers who value decentralization and technological innovation.”
Observers noted that there are, of course, some cons Microsoft may take into account.
Cowan pointed out that Bitcoin’s “price volatility poses a significant risk, as the company prioritizes stability in financial reporting and treasury management.”
These price oscillations may be disliked by shareholders, as “Microsoft has always been known as a more conservative tech company,” Daniel Cawrey, chief strategy officer of TON wallet Tonkepeer, told Cointelegraph.
Another disadvantage is that “Bitcoin’s evolving regulatory landscape could expose Microsoft to compliance risks and potential liabilities,” as Cowan noted.
Microsoft’s reputation is highly regarded as a solid and trustworthy tech company. Cowan said that Bitcoin’s “public perception also plays a role” in the final decision-making, which may deter Microsoft’s Bitcoin adoption. “Despite Bitcoin’s growing acceptance, its association with speculative trading, money laundering and environmental concerns could lead to reputational risks.”
“Microsoft has certainly focused a lot recently on AI efforts, and therefore, the board may consider a move such as this too aggressive for the company for the time being,” said Cawrey.
Cowan said that “the board may also prioritize allocating cash reserves to the core and growing business areas such as AI, cloud computing, and acquisitions, which provide more tangible synergies and clearer returns,” rather than to an asset with an uncertain destiny.
“The long-term viability of Bitcoin as a store of value remains a subject of debate, potentially making it inconsistent with the company’s financial principles,” said Cowan.
Cowan concluded that as MicroStrategy works on a smaller scale, it allows for greater risk-taking. However, “Microsoft must carefully manage decisions to maintain shareholder confidence and avoid undue exposure.”
For now, PolyMarket betters are skeptical of Saylor’s pitch being successful, assigning only a 10% chance of the bitcoin investment…
As CoinDesk reports, one Polymarket bettor argued that there wasn’t really a point for institutional investors to want Microsoft to add bitcoin to its balance sheet, because there are already so many options out there to get bitcoin exposure – which wasn’t the case when Microstrategy originally bought.
“They’re just making their value assessment more difficult by muddying up safe investments (MFST) with volatile ones (BTC),”trader Oxymirin wrote, who holds a position on the ‘no’ side worth $2000.
Another bettor, who holds the opposite side of the trade, argued that given Microsoft’s comfortable cash position, the company might buy a small amount of BTC.
“I think a small amount of funds will be allocated for testing. After all, shareholders’ rights must be taken into consideration. Microsoft’s cash position is sufficient. Microsoft offers some options for buying Bitcoin,” a trader that goes by the handle of titanlin wrote.
The United States is grappling with a severe housing affordability crisis that has persisted for years, leaving millions of Americans struggling to keep a roof over their heads. While some argue for increased government intervention, free market principles offer the most effective solution the issue.
According to the National Alliance to End Homelessness, a record-high 653,104 people were experiencing homelessness on a single night in January 2023.
This crisis has been exacerbated by a severe shortage of affordable housing, with the National Low-Income Housing Coalition reporting a deficit of 7.3 million affordable rental homes for low-income renters.
At first glance, these statistics might seem to call for more government intervention.
However, a deeper analysis reveals that many of our current housing woes stem from misguided government policies that have distorted the market and created artificial scarcity.
Zoning laws and building regulations, often championed as protections for communities, have in reality severely restricted the supply of housing.
Restrictive zoning laws have become a silent catalyst for the homelessness crisis, creating artificial housing shortages that drive prices beyond the reach of working-class Americans.
In Arizona, for instance, homelessness surged by 51.5% between 2017 and 2022, a direct consequence of municipal regulations that strangle housing development.
By limiting the types of housing that can be built and imposing costly requirements on developers, these regulations have effectively priced many Americans out of the housing market.
Rent control, another popular government intervention, has been shown to reduce the quantity of available housing.
A Stanford study found that rent control in San Francisco reduced rental housing supply by 15% and led to a 5.1% city-wide rent increase.
These policies, while well-intentioned, often end up hurting the very people they aim to help.
The solution lies not in more government control, but in unleashing the power of the free market.
By removing unnecessary regulations and allowing market forces to operate freely, we can create a more affordable housing market.
Deregulation would allow for increased housing supply, addressing the root cause of high prices. By removing zoning laws and simplifying building codes, we can enable the construction of a diverse range of housing options, catering to all income levels.
Critics may argue that a free market approach would lead to gentrification and displacement. However, the reality is that our current system of artificial scarcity is what truly drives these problems. By increasing overall housing supply, we can alleviate pressure on existing affordable neighborhoods.
The power of the free market to solve housing issues is not merely theoretical.
In Houston, a city known for not having formal zoning laws, housing costs have remained significantly lower than in other major U.S. cities. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the median home value in Houston is $263,315, compared to $947,245 in Los Angeles and $766,160 in New York.
Japan provides another compelling example.
Despite being a densely populated country with limited land, Japan has managed to keep housing affordable in its major cities through market-oriented policies. Tokyo, one of the world’s largest metropolitan areas, has seen housing prices remain stable over the past two decades, largely due to flexible zoning laws and a streamlined building permit process.
It’s important to note that embracing free market solutions doesn’t mean abandoning those in need. Private charities and non-profit organizations can play a crucial role in providing targeted assistance to the most vulnerable populations. These organizations often operate more efficiently and flexibly than government programs, adapting quickly to changing needs.
The path forward is clear. To truly address our housing crisis, we must embrace free market solutions. This means rolling back restrictive zoning laws, streamlining building permits, and allowing developers to respond to market demands without unnecessary interference.
The stakes are too high to continue with failed policies of the past.
It’s time for policymakers to recognize that the solution to our housing crisis lies not in more government control, but in the free market. Only then can we hope to create a housing market that truly serves the needs of all Americans, providing affordable and quality housing options for generations to come.
Lindy Li, a member of the Democratic National Committee’s finance committee, revealed Sunday that former President Barack Obama and former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi opposed Vice President Kamala Harris becoming the 2024 presidential nominee.
Referencing friends from Obama’s circle and her personal friendship with Pelosi, Li told NewsNation indubitably that both top Democrats would have rather held a primary than coronate Harris to fill Biden’s sudden vacancy atop the ticket.
“I know they didn’t,” Li said when asked about Obama and Pelosi.
“I have a lot of friends in Obama world and, actually, I’m friends with Speaker Pelosi. And I spoke with her before I actually, I actually went on air to encourage President Biden to step aside.”
Li described her own appearance on Fox News Sunday on July 21—the same day Biden ended his campaign.
She said she spoke to Pelosi about her remarks calling for Biden to step down before going on air.
“It’s not a matter of conjecture for me,” she told NewsNation.
“I know they didn’t.”
At the time, Pelosi told Li her public call for Biden to drop out was “fine.”
“It was necessary. It became clear that he was no longer effectively able to litigate the case against Trump,” Li said. “And Obama and Pelosi were both hoping for a primary instead of a coronation, so to speak.”
Li said the former House Speaker did not have her eyes on one particular candidate but noted that Obama was “carefully vetting” Sen. Mark Kelly, D-Ariz., when Biden withdrew.
“I know there were other names on his list,” the DNC official said.
“I’m not saying that Kamala Harris was necessarily at the top of the list, but he was definitely considering other candidates. I don’t think she was ruled out.”
Li told NewsNation that many Democrats were hoping for a “lightning round” primary, which never came.
She suggested Biden blocked a democratic primary when he endorsed Harris after announcing his withdrawal.
“I don’t think anyone saw that coming. We did not see that coming,” Li said. “I think a lot of people anticipated he might have stepped aside, but no one anticipated the two-fer that we got that day.”
