DNI: US Funded Global Biolabs; Leaked Iran Deal; Musk 1st Trillionaire, SpaceX To Repeat Tesla Miracle?

Hello all you freedom-loving people. Elon Musk became the first trillionaire today with the highly anticipated launching of the SpaceX IPO. Tulsi Gabbard revealed evidence regarding 120 biolabs operating in 30 countries and President Trump still says that a deal will be signed soon as it appears that Iran is agreeing to the conditions of the Memorandum of Understanding. Okay, let's get into it. The Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard has investigated more than 120 biological laboratories in over 30 countries that were funded with US taxpayer dollars. After an executive order that was signed by President Trump in May, the investigation started to identify and to stop potentially dangerous gain-of-function research. Previously the intelligence community warned that one US funded lab in Ukraine likely housed dangerous pathogens and it faced risks from the ongoing war with Russia including possible attack, seizure, or damage. Now today after reviewing intelligence community records for months, Gabbard released new evidence. According to the new evidence, the Institute of Experimental and Clinical Veterinarian Medicine in Kharkiv probably houses at least some dangerous pathogens and almost certainly remains vulnerable to long-standing Russian information operations, seizure, or damage. The new evidence also shows that the US government funded these laboratories for decades. Gabbard said that information about the existence, location, history, and funding of these laboratories was held from the American people for years and some of that work may have included gain-of-function research which was carried out with limited oversight. Gain-of-function research is a scientific methodology that genetically alters an organism to enhance a biological function and is widely used to develop vaccines but it comes with biosecurity risks. We're learning new details, for example, on clinical trials that are underway at these facilities and that are raising significant ethical, financial, and security concerns regarding the supposed public health initiatives and US national security. Now despite the obvious potential for catastrophic global impact that research on dangerous pathogens and biolabs can have, politicians and so-called health professionals like Dr. Fauci, as well as entities within the Biden administration's national security team, lied repeatedly to the American people about the existence of US-funded and supported biolabs. Not only did they lie, they threatened those who attempted to expose the truth. So this release today breaks new ground as the information surrounding the existence, history, locations, and funding of these US-funded biolabs has been intentionally covered up by very powerful people who falsely claimed that these biolabs didn't exist. Now they accuse anyone who says otherwise to be foreign assets and traitors to America. Now, Gabbard says that her office will continue working to identify where these laboratories are. Now, Odie and I will continue working closely with partners across the US government to identify exactly where these labs are and what pathogens they contain to end dangerous gain-of-function research that threatens the health and well-being of the American people and people around the world. Even though a possible peace deal between the United States and Iran may be signed this week, there are still disagreements, mixed messages, and questions about what is actually in the deal. Yesterday, as we also reported, President Trump said that the documents were still being finalized and they could be signed within the next few days, possibly in Europe. Then, officials in Iran were also signaling progress. Iranian Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Bagua'i said that major parts of a Memorandum of Understanding had been completed. He said that the text was nearly finalized, even though it still required approval from senior leaders in Iran. Iranian Foreign Minister Arashi also said that the agreement was close, and he urged the media not to speculate about its contents before it's finalized. Right, we've got a new statement now on social media from the Iranian Foreign Minister Saeed Araghchi, who says the Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding has never been closer pending its finalization. The media should refrain from entering speculation about its content in line with our responsible and transparent approach. All details will be shared with the public in due course, and of course, Sarah, that's the key to this, is if there is a deal pending, what is in this deal, and what does that mean for global oil markets, obviously watching this very closely. This was because today, Iranian state media reported that a draft agreement had been completed, according to Iran's state-run news agency, the IRNA. The Iranian government claimed that there is no agreement on the nuclear issue at this time, and the Iranian government is not taking on any new commitments. They also suggested that their nuclear program would remain unchanged after the memorandum was signed. The outlet also rejected reports that Iran agreed to dilute their stockpile of enriched uranium. They also pushed back on reports about the Strait of Hormuz, and about immediately reopening the waterway without transit fees. But soon afterward, President Trump also pushed back. He said that the terms reported by the Iranian media did not match the terms that had actually been agreed to in writing. President Trump also criticized the Iranian government. On True Social, he wrote, What they said, including their weak and pathetic statement on having a deal, bears no relation to the truth. Very dishonorable people to deal with. With them, there is no such thing as dealing in good faith. He also pointed to a drone attack against Indian ships leaving the Strait of Hormuz. He called it completely unacceptable. So he said, they better get their act together and fast. Vice President J.D. Vance also responded to growing speculation about the agreement. We have a statement now from Vice President J.D. Vance on social media as well. And he is also urging people to hold off on assuming what's in this deal based on what's been in the media so far from Iranian leaks. The vice president very frustrated with that. He says, I'm seeing a lot of fake information about a potential deal to reopen the strait and end Iran's nuclear weapons program. First, the Iranians are not receiving any cash and no funds are being released for simply signing a deal or attending a meeting. The deal is structured to ensure that the U.S. and its allies concerns are prioritized and that if the Islamic Republic of Iran meets its obligations, then economic benefits will flow to them and to the entire region. This deal has the potential to remake the region and to lead to lasting peace. The vice president goes on to criticize some of the criticism of this deal that he's seen so far. So both sides, Sarah, have been we've seen leaks coming out from Washington and from Tehran about what's in the deal. Both sides are denouncing some of those leaks and saying that's fake news. Clearly, something is happening behind the scenes. What's in this deal? We don't know how soon that means the Strait of Hormuz might reopen. We don't know how soon oil can flow as a result of that. We also don't know. There's a lot at stake. Also, a White House official explained about some parts of the possible deal. White House officials telling Fox Iran's nuclear material will be destroyed and removed. Its nuclear program will be dismantled. None of their sanctioned money will be released until they carry out the terms of the deal. The Strait of Hormuz will be open and Iran will not provide any funding for terrorist groups. And today, the Pakistan prime minister also rejected the misinformation and he confirmed that the United States and Iran have agreed to a framework for a peace deal. Now, let's talk about some investing. The SpaceX IPO launched today and the price of gold has been falling recently. But just keep in mind that we're just sharing views and analysis of experts. We're not giving investment advice. So let's start with gold. After both spot and future gold prices fell below the $4,300 per ounce level earlier this week, they dropped below $4,100 again on Thursday, erasing the year to date gains. At eight Eastern time on Thursday, the spot price of gold was $4,085.79 per ounce. It reached a six month low. Gold was down by about $133 from the previous trading day. In less than a week, gold prices have fallen by nearly 6%. Compared to their highs at the start of the year, gold prices have retreated by more than 21%. The market generally believes that the main reason for the fall in gold prices is interest rate expectations. The U.S. Consumer Price Index, the CPI, rose by 4.2% year on year in May, reaching a three year high. Meanwhile, a report released last Friday by the Bureau of Labor Statistics showed that non-farm payrolls increased by $172,000 in May, exceeding expectations. This has further convinced investors that the Federal Reserve is more likely to raise interest rates than to cut them. High interest rates typically put pressure on gold since gold itself does not generate interest income. The opportunity cost of holding gold in a high interest rate environment soars. Nevertheless, most analysts believe that the momentum driving the rise in gold prices has not disappeared. Several experts have noted that in the long term, the rationale behind gold's rise remains unchanged. Central banks around the world are increasing their gold reserves in order to counter the decline in the credit worthiness of the U.S. dollar and to hedge against its relative depreciation caused by the excessive issuance of U.S. Treasury bonds. Jeff Clark, the publisher of the Gold Advisor and a veteran precious metal analyst, believes that the current correction is a repeat of history. In an interview with Kitco News, Clark revealed that he had plotted a correlation chart comparing the current gold bull market with the peak of the 1976 to 1980 bull market. Remarkably, the correlation coefficient between the two markets is an astonishing 95%. He said that during that phase of the gold bull market in the 1970s, gold experienced a sharp plunge followed by a rapid rebound. Of course, no one can know for sure whether history will repeat itself. Following this plunge, no one can say for certain whether gold prices will rebound as they did back then. Clark pointed out that from a historical perspective, the current decline is not particularly extreme. During the 2008 global financial crisis, gold experienced a correction of about 30% and during the 2020 pandemic, it also fell by about 28%. Various investment and research firms also released related reports this week. Although most analysts believe that the factors driving the rise in gold prices have not disappeared, international investment banks have been revising their gold price forecast for this year downward. In a recently released report, Citibank lowered its gold price target for the next three months from $4,300 per ounce to $4,000 per ounce. The bank also noted that due to the ongoing closure of the Strait of Hormuz, gold prices could even fall to $3,500 per ounce. According to a report from Standard Chartered Bank, gold prices may face greater downward pressure in the short term as investors begin to sell off their losing gold ETF positions. The next key technical support level could be around $4,100 per ounce. A research report by the global investment bank Jefferies suggests that the recent weakness of gold is primarily due to macroeconomic developments falling short of expectations. The market had anticipated that U.S. interest rates would remain at elevated levels. Regarding future trends, Jefferies maintains its long-term optimistic outlook. However, for gold to resume its upward trend, three substantive shifts in the macroeconomic environment must occur. First, the conflict between the United States and Iran must be formally resolved. Second, oil prices must fall. And finally, the Fed must give the green light for interest rate cuts. And now let's talk about SpaceX. Elon Musk became the world's first trillionaire today after SpaceX went public on the Nasdaq in the largest initial public offering in history. It is selling 555.6 million shares for $135 apiece. The deal values SpaceX at $1.77 trillion, making it the seventh most valuable U.S. company. This is an event that has captured the attention of the entire world. When Tesla went public, many people were skeptical about Musk, but it turns out that they were all wrong. Tesla's initial public offering price was $17 per share, and this has since increased 385 fold. Had you invested just $2,600 back then, it would now be worth $1 million. So is this another once-in-a-lifetime game-changing investment opportunity for ordinary investors? If you missed out on Tesla back then, should you jump on SpaceX right away this time? There's a lot of optimism surrounding SpaceX in the market, so I won't reiterate those views. Instead, let's take a look at some skeptical opinions. There is no doubt that SpaceX is an exceptional company. Elon Musk is also a rare genius. His efforts in recent years to protect freedom of speech in the United States have made him a hero to many people. And many of our channel's followers are also his admirers. However, admiring Elon Musk and investing in SpaceX are two different matters. When it comes to investing, you need to be objective. We need to examine the data and make rational, well-considered decisions. This is when it's important to seek input from all sides. But keep in mind, I'm not an investment expert, and this video is not intended to provide investment advice. However, I've recently reviewed some professional analyses. I'd like to share with you some valuable insights and data that I came across for your reference. Even if you don't plan to buy SpaceX stock, you might still want to pay attention to the insights I'll share with you, because SpaceX's success or failure will also have an impact on the U.S. tech stock market. According to a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission, SpaceX lost $4.276 billion in the first three months of this year. This is the equivalent of the company's total losses of 2025. And to make matters worse, it's saddled with nearly $30 billion in debt. So why is a company with cumulative losses of $41.3 billion worth $1.7 trillion? Matt Kennedy, a senior strategist at Renaissance Capital, an investment firm specializing in IPO research and ETF products, says, Just like with Tesla, investing in SpaceX is essentially betting on Elon Musk. As we mentioned earlier, SpaceX is now a comprehensive company that integrates rocket launches, satellites, AI computing power, and space communications. Musk has presented the capital markets with a three-tiered structure. The bottom tier consists of rockets. The middle tier consists of Starlink, Musk's cash cow. And the top tier consists of AI and space computing power. This final component is the most valuable part of the overall valuation. 93% of the valuation is hidden on this tier. Let's start by examining the rocket launch operations in the first tier. SpaceX's invention of reusable rockets has driven the cost of transporting cargo into space to an all-time low. Consequently, the company has effectively monopolized the commercial rocket launch market across most of the Western world. However, Musk does not rely on this segment of the business for profitability since demand for it is relatively small, according to his own estimates. The total size of this segment of the market over the next few decades will amount to no more than $370 billion. Even if SpaceX were to secure all of these contracts, it would not justify its current valuation. It is Starlink that is located in the second tier that provides SpaceX with a steady cash flow. Currently, over 2 billion people living in remote areas around the world do not have reliable internet access. Starlink aims to address this type of connectivity barrier that is caused by geography. Internet connectivity is the foundation of technological development, both today and in the future, so there will always be a steady demand for Starlink. Its subscription revenue is extremely stable. In the filing to the SEC, Musk estimated the $1.6 trillion revenue from Starlink. But what has Wall Street buzzing is the third tier of SpaceX, which is artificial intelligence. Elon Musk estimated that the revenue generated from AI infrastructure and AI subscription is $26.5 trillion. Musk probably has his own reasons for this estimation. Anthropa currently spends $1.5 billion a year leasing computing capacity from SpaceX, and Google also spends $920 million per month, which is $11 billion annually, for computing capacity from SpaceX. So it looks like the computing capacity market is huge. The biggest bottleneck in developing computer capacity is energy. And to solve this problem, Musk envisions moving computing centers into space. Huge solar panels would float in space, absorbing solar energy 24 hours a day without it being weakened by the atmosphere. And this energy source is virtually limitless. SpaceX's rockets can easily launch this equipment into space, and Starlink can transmit the computing power back to Earth with zero latency. Consequently, SpaceX's seemingly independent business units have found a mutually reinforcing ecosystem. And this is why Wall Street is willing to assign such a high valuation to the company. These are Musk's wonderful visions. So when will these visions become a reality? Of course, Musk is a rare genius who has achieved many things that once seemed impossible. However, history shows that not all of his ideas have come to fruition. For example, in 2017, he predicted that SpaceX rockets would be capable of sending cargo spacecraft to Mars by 2022 and humans by 2024. However, this plan was pushed back to 2028, and now the plan has been postponed indefinitely. The new plan is to land on the moon first. And in 2019, he predicted that there would be over one million robo taxis on the road by 2020. Six years have now passed since this deadline, and fewer than 100 robo taxis are actually on the road. I'm not suggesting that Musk is boasting or exaggerating, but we need to recognize that many of humanity's dreams are difficult to realize and practice. As investors, we must consider not only whether a company's vision is achievable, but also when this will come to fruition. If Musk's vision ultimately comes to fruition in 50 years time, for example, it would be meaningless for your investment. So is Wall Street's $1.75 trillion valuation of SpaceX reasonable? We'll have to analyze the data to find out. Normally, we use the price to earnings ratio to determine whether a company's stock is reasonable. However, since SpaceX is still operating at a loss, we can only look at its price to sales ratio. This figure represents how much you are willing to pay for every dollar of revenue the company generates. Here we are referring to revenue, not profit. In other words, the more optimistic the outlook for a company's future, the higher its price to sales ratio will be. The price to sales ratio for the general manufacturing industry is approximately 2. For banks, the price to sales is between 2 and 3. For Google, the number is 8. For Microsoft and Apple, the number is 10. And for the hottest company in the AI era, Nvidia, the price to sale is 22. So what does SpaceX's stock price of $135 per share mean? It means the price to sale for SpaceX is 94. I'll leave it up to you to decide whether this figure is reasonable. The next question is, will SpaceX be another Tesla? According to calculations by Sean Tully, who is a senior editor at Fortune magazine, investors in SpaceX stock who are hoping to achieve an average annual return of 10% over the next 10 years must accept that SpaceX's revenue will need to grow by 50% every year for the next decade without interruption. This means that in 10 years, its revenue will have increased 59 fold. From its current annual revenue of $18 billion, it will need to reach $1.1 trillion by 2035. Let's break this assumption down further. With annual revenue growth of 50%, the required growth each year increases because the base figure also increases every year. Therefore, by 2035, revenue must be $360 billion higher than in 2034. So what does this growth rate imply? NVIDIA is currently the fastest growing company, having achieved a remarkable increase in revenue in the age of AI. Last year, it generated $85 billion in new revenue. In other words, SpaceX aims to generate four times NVIDIA's revenue growth within a single year. This is a target that it has set itself for a decade from now. But it may be easier to identify the issue if we compare SpaceX's projected revenue of $1.1 trillion within 10 years with the size of the entire economy. This figure equates to 2.4% of the projected U.S. GDP for 2035. This is 50% more than the entire U.S. public utility sector. It accounts for three quarters of the total revenue that is generated by the entire U.S. transport industry, including rail, freight, express delivery, and aviation. If you expect SpaceX's stock returns to be as high as Tesla's, its market value would need to reach $670 trillion within 16 years. So what would that mean? The total market value of companies that are listed on the U.S. stock market is currently estimated to be between $70 trillion and $75 trillion. The combined market capitalization of all publicly traded companies worldwide is around $150 trillion, and the global GDP is around $125 trillion. So do you believe that SpaceX's market value 16 years from now will be nine times higher than the combined market value of all U.S. publicly traded companies today? Or will it be equivalent to five and a half years worth of the entire global GDP? In other words, a company with a market capitalization of $6.7 trillion based on a price-to-earnings ratio of 25 should generate annual profits of $26.8 trillion. This refers to net income, not revenue. By comparison, Apple currently generates an annual net profit of $100 billion. Aramco, which is a historic cash cow, generates an annual net profit of around $100 billion, while the U.S. government collects approximately $5 trillion in total annual tax revenue. So in 16 years, could SpaceX's net profit reach 270 times that of Apple or five times the U.S. government's annual tax revenue? Tesla went public amid widespread skepticism with a price-to-sales ratio of 15. Now, SpaceX is going public amid widespread optimism with a price-to-sales ratio of 94. So is it realistic to expect SpaceX to replicate Tesla's stock market miracle? A great company and a good investment are two different things. Now, after hearing these figures, what is your decision? Would you buy immediately? Would you wait for more information? Or would you stay on the sidelines? Please let us know in the comments. And that's a wrap for this episode. Thank you so much for your support of FrontPage. Please remember to leave a comment below the video. This is really helping us to be seen all around the world. The more people who watch FrontPage, the more freedom-loving people the world will have. And please hit the like button and hit the notification bell after subscribing. And please share this video with your friends and family because everybody deserves to know the truth. Transcribed by https://otter.ai