SpaceX IPO Shatters Records as Musk Closes in on Trillionaire Status
The Morning Sixpack - 06/12/2026: SpaceX's record IPO, South Korea jails ex-president, Trump battles on multiple fronts. #MorningSixpack
SpaceX just pulled off the biggest IPO in history, which is either a triumph of capitalism or proof that investors really like buying stock in companies that haven’t figured out the profit part yet.
SpaceX’s IPO Creates a $1.7 Trillion Giant—and Puts Musk Within Reach of History
SpaceX officially priced its blockbuster IPO at $135 per share, giving the company a staggering $1.77 trillion valuation ahead of its Nasdaq debut.
The offering raised $75 billion, smashing the previous IPO record and instantly making SpaceX one of America’s largest companies.
For years, SpaceX operated behind the curtain of private funding rounds and government contracts. Now the public gets a chance to buy into Elon Musk’s sprawling vision that stretches from rockets and satellites to artificial intelligence.
Investors aren’t just betting on launches to orbit. The company has increasingly become a technology conglomerate thanks to Starlink’s global internet business and its growing ties to xAI. That broader portfolio is helping justify a valuation that would have seemed absurd just a few years ago.
Not everyone is convinced the numbers add up. Critics point out that SpaceX reportedly lost nearly $5 billion on roughly $19 billion in revenue during 2025, meaning investors are paying a premium for future potential rather than present profits.
As if the stakes weren’t already high enough, Musk still controls more than three-quarters of the company. If SpaceX delivers on the expectations now baked into its stock price, the IPO could move him even closer to becoming the world’s first trillionaire.
Source: UPI
Editor: Wall Street used to ask whether a company made money. Now it asks whether it has rockets, AI, satellites and a founder who tweets through regulatory investigations. Times change.
This will be the only story you hear all day and over the weekend. Next week will be the critical tell for “retail investors” (suckers and losers).
It’s generally considered bad form when a president is accused of manufacturing an international crisis to help justify emergency powers. It didn’t hurt Trump though; he got elected again.
South Korea’s Ex-President Gets 30 Years for Alleged North Korea Drone Scheme
A South Korean court sentenced former President Yoon Suk Yeol to 30 years in prison after finding he ordered military drones into North Korea to help create a pretext for declaring martial law.
The ruling says the operation wasn’t about national security—it was about politics.
The Seoul Central District Court concluded that Yoon approved drone incursions into North Korea in 2024 with the expectation that rising tensions could help justify his controversial declaration of emergency rule later that year.
In its decision, the court didn’t mince words. “Defendant Yoon Suk Yeol approved the operation in this case to create conditions that would justify declaring emergency martial law, believing that he could use such authority at will for his own political interests.”
The court also found that the operation endangered both civilians and military personnel while exposing South Korean capabilities to the North. Former Defense Minister Kim Yong-hyun received the same 30-year sentence, while other military officials also received prison terms or suspended sentences.
The case adds to Yoon’s growing legal troubles. Earlier this year, he was sentenced to life imprisonment on separate insurrection charges connected to his six-hour martial law declaration in December 2024. That move triggered a political firestorm, impeachment proceedings, and ultimately his removal from office.
Meanwhile, South Korea’s new government is attempting to reduce tensions with Pyongyang through dialogue and confidence-building measures. So far, North Korea appears more interested in building missiles than rebuilding relationships.
Source: UPI
Editor: Most political scandals involve bad polls, leaked emails, or questionable expense reports. Allegedly staging an international confrontation to strengthen your grip on power is a whole different level of résumé enhancement.
The Kennedy Center is spending less time discussing the arts and more time arguing over whether a giant name on the building gets to stay there.
Kennedy Center Defies Court Order as Trump Name Fight Goes Down to the Wire
The Kennedy Center’s board voted to fight a federal judge’s order requiring President Trump’s name to be removed from the performing arts center.
The decision came less than 36 hours before a court-imposed deadline to take the name down.
According to reports, trustees voted to seek a stay of U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper’s ruling and appeal his decision that renaming the institution after Trump was unlawful. Justice Department attorneys quickly followed with a notice of appeal.
The legal battle has become entangled with a larger struggle over Trump’s influence at the center. Earlier this year, he backed a controversial plan to close the facility for two years while roughly $250 million in renovations were completed. The move blindsided artists, staff members, and even some trustees.
Supporters of keeping Trump’s name on the building argue that removing it would create significant fundraising problems. Kennedy Center officials previously claimed in court filings that Trump’s branding had become central to donor outreach and that eliminating it could cause “irreparable harm” to the institution.
Critics aren’t buying it. Democratic trustee Rep. Rick Larsen argued that only Congress has the authority to name or rename the Kennedy Center and said the focus should return to supporting the arts rather than fighting political battles. Meanwhile, Trump’s name remained prominently displayed on the building even as the deadline approached.
Source: Washington Post
Editor: Somewhere, John F. Kennedy’s performing arts center has become a legal drama about branding, court orders, fundraising, politics, and social media. The only thing missing is an intermission.
Nothing says stable Middle East diplomacy quite like threatening to seize a country’s oil infrastructure and then announcing a peace deal a few hours later. This was the 39th time Trump said there was a deal and then there… wasn’t.
Trump Threatens Iran at Breakfast, Talks Peace by Dinner
President Trump declared that a new agreement with Iran is close, backing away from military threats he made earlier the same day.
The White House went from talking about strikes and oil seizures to talking about signing ceremonies and diplomacy in a matter of hours.
Trump told reporters that Iran’s leadership had effectively signed off on a framework for continued negotiations and suggested a formal agreement could be completed within days. He even floated the possibility of Vice President JD Vance attending a signing ceremony in Europe as soon as this weekend.
Iran, however, appeared considerably less enthusiastic. Tehran’s Foreign Ministry said no final decision had been made and insisted negotiations were still ongoing. “Iran hasn’t reached a final conclusion about the agreement,” a spokesman said.
At the center of the dispute is money. Iran wants immediate access to tens of billions of dollars frozen under U.S. sanctions, while Washington has resisted providing major financial relief before securing concessions on nuclear issues and regional security concerns.
The abrupt shift followed a tense week that included military exchanges, threats involving key oil facilities, and ongoing disputes over the Strait of Hormuz. Trump insisted the documents are “in pretty final shape,” but observers have heard similar declarations before, only to watch negotiations stall. For now, the missiles appear paused and the diplomats are back at the table.
Source: Wall Street Journal (gift)
Editor: The Middle East remains one of the most complicated geopolitical puzzles on Earth. Yet every few weeks Washington treats it like a real estate closing that’s definitely happening this Friday. Probably. Maybe. Check back Monday.
Washington’s latest lesson: Even in 2026, there are still a few Senate Democrats willing to say “not so fast.”
Trump Drops Controversial Intelligence Pick After FISA Revolt on Capitol Hill
President Trump abruptly changed course on his choice for Director of National Intelligence after Democrats threatened to let a key surveillance law expire rather than accept his preferred interim pick.
A fight over one personnel appointment nearly derailed the renewal of one of the government’s most important intelligence authorities.
Trump announced that former SEC Chairman and current U.S. Attorney Jay Clayton would become his nominee for Director of National Intelligence, replacing a plan that would have elevated Bill Pulte to the role. The move came after lawmakers hit a dead end over extending the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, better known as FISA.
Democrats had objected fiercely to Pulte, arguing that he lacked intelligence experience and pointing to his actions at the Federal Housing Finance Agency. Their opposition was strong enough to block temporary extensions of the surveillance law while Congress searched for a long-term solution.
The White House appears to have concluded that Clayton offered a smoother path forward. Even Democratic critics signaled approval. Rep. Jim Himes, the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, praised Clayton’s qualifications and suggested the entire standoff could have been avoided if the nomination had come sooner.
That doesn’t mean Clayton will get an easy ride. Critics note that he remains a loyal Trump ally and has echoed concerns about election administration that have drawn controversy. Still, compared to the resistance facing Pulte, Clayton looks far more likely to win Senate confirmation and help break the logjam over surveillance legislation.
Source: The Independent
Editor: Washington spent days fighting over who would run the intelligence community, then solved the problem the old-fashioned way: by picking someone everyone could complain about a little less.
When rewriting the future gets difficult, Washington inevitably turns its attention to rewriting the past.
Trump Allies Want Congress to Erase His Impeachments from History
President Trump and his allies are discussing a congressional resolution that would attempt to “expunge” his two impeachments from the official record.
The problem: Impeachment is a constitutional process, and many legal experts say there is no mechanism to simply pretend it never happened.
The proposal would not overturn any legal ruling or change the historical facts surrounding Trump’s impeachments in 2019 and 2021. Instead, it would serve as a symbolic declaration that Congress believes the impeachments should be treated as though they never occurred.
Trump has publicly embraced the idea. “It should be done because I did nothing wrong,” he told the Wall Street Journal. “It was a rigged deal—it was a whole rigged situation.” House Speaker Mike Johnson has also voiced support, arguing that both impeachments were partisan attacks that deserve to be removed from the record.
Not everyone agrees. Constitutional scholars note that Congress cannot erase historical actions simply because a later Congress dislikes them. As University of North Carolina law professor Michael Gerhardt put it: “It’s an absurd idea. It’s in the history books. Historically, nobody thought that Congress had this power, because Congress doesn’t have this power.”
The effort is part of a broader campaign to remove what Trump and his supporters view as blemishes on his legacy. Along with challenging past court rulings and criminal judgments, allies have increasingly focused on revisiting the controversies of his first term. Whether Congress has the votes—or the appetite—to relitigate those battles remains an open question, especially with midterm elections looming and voters focused on inflation, energy prices, and foreign policy.
Source: Wall Street Journal (gift)
Editor: Historians usually spend decades arguing about the meaning of events. Washington’s latest idea is to skip that step and vote on whether the events happened in the first place.