intel

RALEIGH, N.C. — A U.S. special forces soldier who took part in the capture of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro will be released on bond on charges accusing him of using classified information about the operation to win more than $400,000 in an online prediction market, a federal magistrate said Friday.

The magistrate in North Carolina said he would allow Gannon Ken Van Dyke to be released and told him to report to a New York federal courthouse by Tuesday to continue his case there.

Bearded with arm tattoos, Van Dyke said little during the nearly hourlong hearing, during which he was appointed a federal public defender who declined to comment afterward. The $250,000 unsecured bond did not require Van Dyke to put up any money.

Federal prosecutors say Van Dyke used his access to classified information about the operation to capture Maduro in January to win money on the prediction market site Polymarket.

The sites allow people to trade on almost anything — from the Super Bowl to U.S. elections and even the winners of the TV reality shows.

Van Dyke, who is stationed at Fort Bragg near Fayetteville, N.C., was charged Thursday with the unlawful use of confidential government information for personal gain, theft of nonpublic government information, commodities fraud, wire fraud and making an unlawful monetary transaction.

He could face up to 10 years on four of the criminal counts, and up to 20 years on a fifth, the government said Friday. A publicly listed phone number listed for Van Dyke isn’t in service.

Van Dyke, 38, was involved for about a month in the planning and execution of capturing Maduro, according to the New York federal prosecutor’s office. He signed nondisclosure agreements promising to not divulge “any classified or sensitive information” related to the operations, but prosecutors say he used what he knew to make a series of bets related to Maduro being out of power by Jan. 31.

“This involved a U.S. soldier who allegedly took advantage of his position to profit off of a righteous military operation,” FBI Director Kash Patel said in a social media post.

Polymarket, one of the largest prediction markets, said it found someone trading on classified government information, alerted the Justice Department and “cooperated with their investigation.”

Massive profits from well-timed bets aroused public attention days after the raid in Venezuela and brought bipartisan calls for stricter regulation of the markets.

The sudden rise of these markets has led to growing scrutiny by Congress and state governments. Some lawmakers alarmed by highly specific, well-timed trades on the U.S. and Israel’s war against Iran and wagers on President Trump’s next moves have pushed for guardrails against insider trading.

The Trump administration has been supportive of the industry’s expansion. The president’s eldest son is an advisor for both Polymarket and its main competitor, Kalshi,, and is a Polymarket investor. Trump’s social media platform, Truth Social, is launching its own prediction market called Truth Predict.

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the federal agency that regulates prediction markets, announced Thursday that it had filed a parallel complaint against Van Dyke.

That complaint alleges that Van Dyke moved $35,000 from his personal bank account into a cryptocurrency exchange account on Dec. 26 — a little over a week before U.S. forces flew into Caracas and seized Maduro.

Van Dyke made a series of bets on when Maduro might be removed from power, according to the complaint. He placed those bets between Dec. 30 and Jan. 2, with the vast majority occurring the night of Jan. 2 — just hours before the first missiles struck Caracas.

The bets resulted in “more than $404,000 of profits,” the complaint says.

“The defendant was entrusted with confidential information about U.S. operations and yet took action that endangered U.S. national security and put the lives of American service members in harm’s way,” said Michael Selig, the commission’s chairman.

Robertson writes for the Associated Press. AP reporters Allen G. Breed in Raleigh and John Seewer in Toledo, Ohio, contributed to this report.

Intel (INTC) has been in ongoing discussions with at least two large customers, including Amazon (AMZN) and Google (GOOG) (GOOGL), for its advanced packaging services, Wired reported, citing multiple sources.

Intel’s ambitions for its advanced packaging business depend largely on

Washington, DC – Tulsi Gabbard, the director of US National Intelligence, said that the United States intelligence community had assessed that Iran was not rebuilding its nuclear enrichment capabilities following US and Israeli attacks last year.

The revelation on Wednesday appeared to undercut one of President Donald Trump’s key justifications for joining Israel in launching the latest war against Iran.

Trump and his top officials have repeatedly cited Iran’s nuclear ambitions as one of the main reasons for abandoning ongoing diplomatic talks in favour of military action.

“As a result of Operation Midnight Hammer,” Gabbard said in written testimony to the Senate intelligence committee, referencing the June 2025 US strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities, “Iran’s nuclear enrichment program was obliterated”.

“There have been no efforts since then to try to rebuild their enrichment capability,” Gabbard said in the written testimony.

Notably, Gabbard did not read that portion of her testimony, which was provided to members of the committee, during her publicly televised oral testimony. When pressed on why she omitted the portion, Gabbard said simply that she did not have enough time. She did not deny the assessment.

“You chose to omit the parts that contradict Trump,” Senator Mark Warner, a Democrat, responded.

Trump has repeatedly said the June 2025 attacks, which came at the end of a 12-day war between Israel and Iran, had “obliterated” Iran’s nuclear capacity, even as he warned that Iran’s alleged nuclear ambitions presented an immediate threat to the US.

Tehran has for years denied it is seeking a nuclear weapon. Nuclear and arms monitors have maintained that even if Tehran were seeking a nuclear weapon, it did not represent a short- or medium-term threat.

The foreign minister of Oman, who had mediated the latest round of US-Iran indirect nuclear talks ahead of the war, has refuted Trump officials’ claims that the most recent negotiations were not yielding any progress.

The Guardian newspaper also reported this week that the United Kingdom’s national security adviser, Jonathan Powell, had attended the final session of talks and assessed that the Iranian position did not justify an immediate rush to war, citing sources familiar with the situation.

The administration has not settled on any single justification for launching the war, also pointing to Iran’s ballistic capabilities, its potential threat to Israel and US forces in the Middle East, and the totality of the Iranian government’s actions since the 1979 Islamic Revolution.

The concept of an “imminent threat” is significant in determining the legality of Trump’s decision to strike a sovereign country under international law.

It is also significant for US domestic law, under which presidents can commit the military only in instances of immediate self-defence. Only Congress can officially declare war or authorise extended military campaigns.

Iran’s government ‘intact but largely degraded’

The White House said earlier this week that Iran’s ballistic missile capacity was “functionally destroyed”, with the Iranian navy “effectively destroyed” and the US and Israel dominating the country’s airspace.

Experts have assessed that Iran still maintains the military capacity to inflict significant damage in the region, and it has continued to wield its military influence over the Strait of Hormuz.

Gabbard, meanwhile, offered a more sober assessment than the White House, saying that despite the killings of Iranian supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, top military officials, and most recently the head of the Supreme National Security Council, Ali Larijani and the intelligence minister, Esmail Khatib, “the regime in Iran ⁠appears to be intact but largely degraded by Operation Epic Fury”.

“Even so, Iran and its proxies remain capable of and continue to attack US and allied interests in ⁠the Middle East. If a hostile regime survives, it will seek to begin a years-long effort to rebuild its missiles and UAV [drone] forces,” she said.

Gabbard also listed Iran, alongside Russia, China, North Korea and Pakistan, as among the countries “researching and developing an array of novel, advanced, or traditional missile delivery systems, with nuclear and conventional payloads, that put our homeland within range”.

The Washington, DC-based Arms Control Association has said that US intelligence as of 2025 had said it may take Iran until 2035 or longer to develop a missile capable of hitting the US, if it did indeed seek to do so.

High-profile resignation

Gabbard spoke a day after a top official in her agency, Joe Kent, the director of the US National Counterterrorism Center, resigned in opposition to Trump’s war with Iran.

In his resignation, Kent said that Iran “posed no imminent threat” to the US and that Trump’s decision to enter the war went against his “America First” pledges.

Kent is the first high-profile member of the Trump administration to step down in response to the war.

Gabbard herself had previously been a vocal opponent to indefinite military engagement in the Middle East and war with Iran. A former member of the US House of Representatives from Hawaii, she left the Democratic Party and supported Trump, in part, due to his anti-war vows.

However, in a post on X on Tuesday, Gabbard defended Trump’s decision to go to war.

“As our Commander in Chief, he is responsible for determining what is and is not an imminent threat, and whether or not to take action he deems necessary to protect the safety and security of our troops, the American people and our country,” she said.

She said her agency’s role was to funnel US intelligence to Trump.

“After carefully reviewing all the information before him, President Trump concluded that the terrorist Islamist regime in Iran posed an imminent threat and he took action based on that conclusion,” she said.